| Author |
Message |
M Winther (Kalroten)
New member
Username: Kalroten
Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, March 01, 2007 - 7:00 am: | |
As you probably have noticed I have invented many new chess variants, and numerous new chess pieces (some of which will be published this weekend). In the following I will tell something about my credo. I have mostly confined myself to conservative variants where I generally only input one new piece into a traditional Western rule context (and a board close to the standard size). But it's up to anyone to use my pieces in newfangled ways. People seem prone to construct very ambitious games that takes hours and hours to learn and to play. I am interested in the tactical and positional powers of a piece and how it affects the strategy of the game. My game construct can be used for studying a certain new piece and its characteristics, while it is combined with the traditional pieces only.
The gustavian board, which I often use, and the 68-square H-board, are ideal for creating variants whose complexity is within human grasp, yet not too complex and long-winded. An obvious problem in Fide-Chess is that the complexity is somewhat too low (that is, for advanced players). This makes drawn games too probable. Tournament organizers often complain that players are too willing to accept a draw. But this is not the whole truth. Chess is actually rather drawish. An obvious example is the French Exchange: 1.e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3.exd5... What to do? Already at this stage we have arrived at a drawn position. Playing seriously for a win here would entail too great strategical risks. Capablanca tried to remedy this problem by introducing Capablanca's Chess. It is fun, but it could be argued that the tactical complexity here is too high for the general player. It's much about calculating variations and foreseeing combinations involving the very combinative extra pieces. The gustavian board (68-square) could remedy this by its smaller size, and by introducing a pair of pieces that are less tactical (the Amazon, too, because of its high value, is less tactical than the Capablanca pieces). I have in many variants placed the knights at the corners. This seems to work very well. They are not too far away, while there exist routes to fine positions, the K3/Q3 squares, and the B4 squares, which are not easily accessible to a knight on its standard square.
When inventing new pieces I always add 'preliminary estimate' after my piece evaluations because it is a continuous process. I recently discovered that I had probably overestimated my Ladon, so I modified its movement. When playtesting I use different criteria. In computer-computer games I can study how much the piece involves itself in the game. If it makes about the same amount of moves like the other pieces, then it seems to be a tactically useful piece, and its value could be on a par with the other pieces. Another method is to use different armies. On one side there are only traditional pieces, and on the other two traditional pieces less, but instead new pieces. While we know the values of the traditional pieces that have been removed, we can assume that the values of the new pieces are the same if the games tend toward equality. I have, using this method, often discovered that my new pieces could not compete with the traditional pieces, so I had to upgrade their powers, while I have restricted myself to the traditional piece context. As the traditional Western piece values are today perfectly established, its possible to tweak Zillions according to this. Zillions sligtly underestimates the knight, the rook, and the queen. This makes it exchange a queen for rook plus bishop sometimes, and it often avoids exchanging the bishop for a knight when this is advantageous. In most of my latest implementations I have corrected this. If one makes these tweakings, then Zillions is an excellent help when evaluating new pieces.
My Catapult pieces are very functional pieces and make a good example of my work:
Turret: moves like a queen, slings piece immediately behind itself to the square in front of the Turret's destination.
Belfry: moves like a rook, slings nearest piece behind itself to the square in front of the Belfry's destination.
Oxybeles: moves like a king, slings piece immediately behind itself to the fartest empty square, or the nearest enemy piece.
Mangonel: moves like a king, slings nearest piece behind itself to the fartest empty square, or the nearest enemy piece.
Trebuchet: slides maximally two steps, slings nearest piece behind itself to the square in front of the Trebuchet's destination.
Gastrophete: slides maximally two steps, slings piece immediately behind itself to the square in front of the Gastrophete's destination.
Amazingly, it is possible to implement catapults on the chessboard. These pieces work very well. They certainly belong in this medieval warfare game. See also medieval-castle-siege-weapons.com
As you can see the Oxybeles and Mangonel look very much alike. This is true also of the Trebuchet and Gastrophete. The only difference is whether they sling the nearest piece or sling an adjacent piece. I discovered that the latter type of catapult, contrary to expectation, seems almost as strong as the former. Although the nearest piece slinger has more opportunities of slinging pieces, the adjacent piece slinger can maneuver more easily, while it can avoid slinging pieces when this isn't favourable. This difference seems small but makes these pieces appear quite different.
It is now possible for anyone to implement many more kinds of catapults. My Zillions code isn't trivial, but all you need to do is to modify it a little to create different variations. For instance, it is possible to create a really powerful one that moves like a queen and slings nearest piece to the farthest empty square, or the nearest enemy piece. Only modify the code.
This could also be interesting to people interested in short-range pieces. It is possible to implement a catapult that moves like a king, slings piece immediately behind to the square in front of the catapult's destination. This is a short-range catapult that could be named Short-range Mangonel (aka Mangonel), or Breacher, Slinger, Hurler, Onager, Ballista, etc. It is also possible to create a catapult which cannot hurl to empty squares, but only at enemy pieces. A catapult that hurls behind a screen is also possible (this was also how catapults sometimes were used in reality).
/Mats |
M Winther (Kalroten)
New member
Username: Kalroten
Post Number: 7
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 - 12:56 am: | |
Another comment on the gustavian board. An important aspect of the gustavian board is that the extra corner squares provide shelter for the king. This means that it's less dangerous to initiate a pawn storm on the king side. As it's easier to get the king out of the way, this improves mobility of the heavy pieces that can be placed on the knight- and rook files to bolster the flank attack. This strategical aspect, which benefits fighting chess, is a bonus of the gustavian board. |
|