DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
The Chess Variant Forum
HTML https://chessvariantforum.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Variant Theory
*****************************************************
#Post#: 786--------------------------------------------------
Stable multi-move chess-like variants
DIR By: joejoyce
Date: April 12, 2018, 11:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One of the problems with multimove chess variants is that they
can get crazy very easily, with pieces flying all over the place
and groups of attacking pieces blasting through defenses. They
become unstable, maybe even chaotic in some senses of the word.
Yet if you could put effective simple constraints on just what
pieces can do or how/where they can move in each turn, then
games like the elsewhere on this forum suggested 50x50 giant
shogi may become playable in hours, days, weeks, instead of the
months, years, decades some of the Japanese temple games were
reputed to take. There are at least a few ways to do this, but
it can be easy to lose the 'chessness' of the game or to have
the game go crazy. (Or both, if your design is particularly off
a bit.) On the other hand, depending on your aim and design, you
can make a big game with relatively few pieces that plays very
well. I've done a 32x32 chess-wargame fusion with a bit over 100
pieces/side coming in over the first 2/3rds of the game which
has been well playtested and given a decent review on
BoardGameGeek. It is a wargame, not quite what you want maybe,
but all the pieces on board may move each turn. That certainly
speeds up a game. But the character of that game moved well away
from chess into wargame territory.
I tried other methods for structured multi move games about a
decade or so ago, but got nowhere with chesslike games, although
I found a few interesting “activator” (a limited short-range
‘king’ or leader piece for part of an army) games that allowed
me to maneuver groups of pieces as a single ‘unit’. Very nice,
but not quite chess. Recently, though, I accidentally designed a
decent 3-mover, Granlem Shatranj.
HTML http://www.chessvariants.com/invention/granlem-shatranj<br
/>Accidentally, because it didn't start as a 3-mover, but as an
offhand quick mash-up of a couple games using rather powerful
short range pieces, to showcase just how powerful those pieces
were. That initial single move per turn game sucked, but it
screamed "3-mover" at me. So by changing moves from 1 to 3 per
turn and adding a couple rules to restrict what the 3 moves can
be - without even changing the original set-up - I got an
interesting, quite bloody, and very stable game. It seems to
offer a reasonable template for expanding the number of moves
per turn in large chess variants without losing the particular
character of chess. That the basic idea of zones for movement is
in many senses simple and obvious doesn't mean it's necessarily
workable. The 3-mover game has flaws – not surprising because it
was meant to do something entirely different – but it works,
even if a bit awkwardly, which is surprising. And its flaws
appear easy to see. Will they be so easy to correct?
One playtest game was completed, ending in an agreed-upon draw
in 43 turns.
HTML http://play.chessvariants.com/pbm/play.php?game=Granlem+Shatranj&log=joejoyce-cvgameroom-2018-17-960<br
/>Both wings on each side were essentially annihilated while
each
center was relatively intact but had run out of steam, mostly by
sending its powerful (bishoplike) pieces to the flanks to help
out on the sides. No pawn really got close to promoting. Mr.
Pacey and I are currently discussing the results and fixes. We
both agree the 2 wings need to be extended so real pawn play can
develop there, and that something needs to be done about the
dead play in the middle. I’m currently considering 2 wings/side,
each 7 across, with a ‘leader’ piece in the center, flanked by 2
bishoplike pieces, then 2 knights, and 2 rooklike pieces on the
outsides, on the back rank. Each with 7 pawns 2 squares in
front. The centers would be 10 across, with king and leader in
the center, flanked by 2 pairs of bishoplike pieces, then
outside them, 2 pairs of rooklike pieces, and 10 pawns 2 squares
in front. Pawn moves revert to western standard, using the
initial double step and en passant. One empty file on each side
of the center armies separates the center from the wings (or
flanks, if you prefer) and is used in common by the center and
adjacent wing army. This game will be stable, but I’m not sure
how fast it will play. It might play slow, but I’m inclined to
believe it will, if anything, play a bit fast in total turn
number, because you’re kind of playing 3 games of Crazyhouse on
the same 11x26 board, but you can ‘gang up’ on one enemy area by
attacking it with 2 or 3 pieces in a single turn. If it plays
slow, making more zones will certainly speed things up.
There are 2 specific restrictions used to keep things from
getting chaotic in these games. One is short-range pieces. No
piece in the completed or the contemplated game described above
moves more than 4 squares in a turn. The other is that there
must be a "leader" piece in an area before a piece in that area
can move. The leader pieces used are moderately strong very
short range (2 square) pieces, and the king acts as a leader
also, giving a spare leader piece in the center army. I have
some further thoughts, but know the proposed game outlined will
work, and once I've seen how it works is soon enough to offer
further modifications.
Finally, this idea or something similar should be applicable to
a range of large chess games.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1