Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Pawn Less Chess. New pieces, no pawns, and 20 squares removed from the 8 by 8 board. (8x8, Cells: 44) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Matthew Paul wrote on Thu, May 6, 2004 07:11 AM UTC:

Wouldn't it be a little hard to checkmate with such little power?

💡📝Uri Bruck wrote on Sat, May 8, 2004 11:32 AM UTC:

I didn't encounter that problem

💡📝Uri Bruck wrote on Sat, Jul 17, 2004 05:22 PM UTC:

I discovered an omission in my description of the non-capturing leaping
move for the Wazir and Ferz. It was my intent that they should only be
able to leap over a friendly adjacent Ferz or Wazir. Thus, the paragraph
describing this move should read:
'
The additional non-capturing move is the same for both pieces: A
LeapingFerz or a LeapingWazir, may leap over an orthogonally adjacent
friendly LeapingWazir to the next square, provided it's unoccupied. A
LeapingFerz or a LeapingWazir may leap over a diagonally adjacent friendly
LeapingFerz to the next square, provided it's empty.
'

The Zillions implementation plays this move correctly

Erez Schatz wrote on Sun, Aug 8, 2004 07:17 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Why not make it a 'free for all'? In the sense that every 'leaping'
piece can jump over any other, frienly or not?
I realise the whole concept of the leaping allows more freedom, and the
leaping piece is immediately defended, but allowing this kind of freedom
serves the spirit of the game more. After all, most examples of leaping
pieces are not restricted regarding which piece they can hop over.

Other than that, this variant is quite flawless, as it is pawnless.

💡📝Uri Bruck wrote on Sun, Aug 8, 2004 03:04 PM UTC:

Initially I added the special move as an aid in development. It gets the
short range pieces out there quickly, and being non-capturing, they get a
little extra power, but not enough to topple the board. 
This addition was the big leap during development. The move can also come
in useful later, and towards the end game it become less significant as
there are fewer pieces to jump over.
Something similar was suggested to me during development. I don't think
it would add much to this particular game, however, I think it's
something I might adopt on a larger board.

5 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.