|I don't care||4||14%|
Here is an excellent program that aleady does it.
> Seems to me it should be pretty easy to add this variant.
Not for a bitboard engine, and definitely not without a significant performance hit.
Aternatively Vas could license his source code to some other developer who could develop this variant.
> The vast majority of chess fans have no idea what this variant is
Maybe, but this would change very fast. FRC was unknown until recently and now it looks like it will become the standard.
Hahahaha, Turbo, I like FRC and I tried to introduce it to my friends, they are just not interested. They just feel like they are not playing chess, especially when it comes to the castling rules, they just don't want to hear anything about it. What more when they could hear about Capablanca Random chess. Anyway, I would like to learn more about it. Any idea where I can download the FREE software for it?
> What more when they could hear about Capablanca Random chess.
One thing I've always wondered is why the queen on chess1 is a mix between a bishop and a rook and not a mix between rook and knight or bishop and knight? Bishop+Knight would have been interesting as the current queen is too powerful (and the Bishop+Knight piece can mate a king alone.)
The Pawn is a little tricky, but a nice way to increase its value would be to allow it to promote to a Toroidal Queen, or an Amazon (even though I've been told that promoting to pieces not playable from the get-go is against the spirit of chess, I think that the spirit has been lost already.)
That way people could stop caring too much about exchange values and enjoy the game more (if now capturing the CyBishop with the Rook doesn't require much thinking.) And I don't know how tactical/positional the variant would become, as it would be easier to go aggressive due to the increased mobility (As the King is a normal King) but perhaps undesirable due to possible counterattacks.
Too bad getting a new variant to become popular is near impossible, enough to not even try anything.
Amazon is worth exactly as much as a Knight plus a Queen. There apparently is hardly any synergy. Or the piece is handicapped by the fact that there is no counterpart fro which you can trade it easily. (Unlike A and C, which can be approximately traded for Queen.)
Bishop: What about a Cylindrical+Bouncing Bishop? The Bouncing Bishop can "bounce" on a wall once, and continue as if the board was mirrored. So when a Cylindrical Bouncing Bishop reaches a wall, it can decide to go cylindrical or bounce back to the board. In this image, normal moves are green, cylindrical blue, and bouncing red:
If that's not enough one could also let it bounce on the "floor and ceiling" of the board.
Knight: Ok, so I went haywire with the knight and made it stronger than a queen, sorry about that. 0.6 pawns stronger than a rook seems about reasonable for a Knightraider, perhaps weakening it by only allowing it to use its abilities depending on its position of the board would be a good solution (perhaps by only letting it use them on its own territory or on the enemy territory, whatever it takes to make it as close as a rook.)
Pawn: What is stronger, an Amazon or the Toroidal Queen? (The Toroidal queen can "warp" from the top to the bottom of the board as well as from left to right like the cylindrical queen, but only would be usable by promotion, I think) Or is there another very strong piece advisable to be used for pawn promotions with the object of making pawns more valuable?
> Or is there another very strong piece advisable to be used for pawn promotions with the object of making pawns more valuable?
How about a 'Double King' instead? As in, a piece that can make any two king moves in one move (unless the first move is a capture). From what I remember, it's significantly stronger than the Queen.
Promoted pawns can almost always be captured immediately, though. And when they can't, well, the game is usually already over. :)
Bouncing from the front and back edges would make it even more valuable, but I cannot predict exactly by how much. In the early middle-game it would not add much, unlike side-edge bouncing / wrapping. I don't really like wrapping over the back edges, it is an unnatural topology, as in the initial setup it would make the Kings border (even if they are not allowed to step over the line).
A plain cyclindrical Queen was already 2 Pawns stronger than a normal one, and also here bouncing should be a similar enhancement as wrapping. Bouncing from all edges would make it extremely strong.
But I think Vempele is right: promoting to a stronger piece will not add anything to the Pawn value. A Queen is already strong enough to decide the game, if it can't be captured. Getting a stronger piece will thus never change the outcome of the came, and is a useless enhancement. To make Pawns more valuable, without altering their basic character, perhaps it would help to give them lateral captures as well. But be careful: the Pawn is the sould of Chess, and tamperring with it is likely to radically alter the game. Much more so than merely adding one or two strange pieces.
If you want to handicap the Nightrider a little, I guess allowing it a maximum of 2 steps in the same direction ("Short Nightrider") would approximately do it.
Since it only moved 2 normal squares to the left, it can only bounce 2 extra squares (Represented by the orange circles.) The white circles represent what would happen if we allow top-bottom bouncing and "infinite" bouncing (restricted by the 5 normal squares moved originally, so it can only move 5 extra squares.) And supposedly, a billiard bishop hitting h1 may change color by h1-h2-g3-f4. So my advice is to just ignore Billiard Pieces altogether and keep the Bouncing ones (Even if the Billiard ones are the original.)
The bouncing Knight seems really odd:
I don't think they are practical for human games (because one doesn't expect to see the knight moving diagonally, even if it used the edge for that.)
I find interesting that the Rook and King don't gain new mobility by bouncing (because the new mobility is redundant as they had access to these squares without needing to bounce.) And that Bouncing Pawns can capture forward only when they are on the edge.
But I agree with you about the pawns, let them alone because we'd run the risk of the variant not resembling chess at all. Just let them promote to queens even if queens don't appear in the board from the opening positions.
The Short Nightrider sounds fine. If the main idea was to have a Knight, Bishop and Rook with close values, I think we're close enough.
Vytron, I have been playing chess for a long time, but I still struggle to checkmate with a Bishop and a Knight. I remember oneday I was playing with a certain guy and we got to the endgame I had a Knight and a Bishop. I just accepted a draw maybe around the 10th move with those pieces. Man, I need a lot of training :):):)
Your description is enough for engines, though. :)
Of course, if you are a comparably decent player, and practice a bit, it becomes quite easy.
Like I said, I think with sufficient practice, nearly everybody can learn it rather quickly, but without this, you probably have to be quite strong to work it out on the board in reasonable time.
Plus: The mating takes 35 moves from some positions, so you cannot afford to let the king escape too often ...
>On the other hand, I heard that in the Soviet Union, it was one of the first things beginners were taught.
Polgar mated Ljubojevic blindfolded in KBN vs K back in 1994. I've this about the USSR also, though some students (such as Karpov) have been known to dodge out when they get to KNN vs KP in the next lesson. :-P
Turbo, this gives me some kind of relief (unable to mate with a Knight and a Bishop) :). Ever since I played chess I only got to that point of Bishop and Knight endgame only once in my life. I used to practice it in Fritz, but those are specific positions when it is easy to solve. But, I am going to practice it now.
> I think that generally speaking, it requires at least master level to be able to do this.
I am happy to learn that I have risen to master level, after 25 years of non-practice! :-) :-) :-)
Personaly though i find much more defficult the engame Q+K vs R+K. Against a program i have less than 50% in rapid TC.
(By the way, I hope you mean less than 50% winning percentage :))
I don't know, maybe the program played poorly because I was running an engine match on another program. Well, I don't care about that much, what counts most is that I beat Vortex :)
> Here is an excellent program that aleady does it.
And it is not even the strongest, not even amongst free WinBoard engines. For the results of the recent championship of WinBoard engines in this game, see:
It has taken me two weeks to convert my engine Joker to play this game. And it is much more fun watching than normal Chess, which is really a boring game. No Archbishop... Yeghhh!
I don't think the SmirfGUI supports engine-engine play anyway.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill