RPS 4x10 #77286318
New Position Workshop / Testing Thread
Sort:
Feb 23, 2025
0
#2643
I’m not sure, it seems like it has some high quality tactics but gameplay might be trivially forced
TL;DR: I am seeking testers for my revision of Trench Warfare below and feedback on the changes in this revision from the original position.
Currently in process in testing revision of post #1500, Trench Warfare (declined). Position below (from Yellow's perspective):
(My royal symbols are also bugging: the royals are the immovable ferzes.)
(Information on original can be found in post 2696, accurate as of 2/24/25.)
Key changes: - Immovable royal: so that attacking is easier; Alfil imbalance: Helps aid the attacking process as you can use the dark-squared alfil to attack; 4 new squares added: Provides knight parity swaps and fast grasshopper development; More alibaba-riders: (I hope) provides more incentive to gain space for an easier attack; More dead-piece types: Both makes it easier and harder to track your opponent (easier in that you can track it more accurately, harder in that it is harder to memorize your opponent's positions); Removal of the chancellor: It is very similar to the general because of its limited vertical movement, so I removed it. I hope these changes provide an incentive to attack and remove the shuffling problem.
Note: 'Parity' refers to the set of squares a piece can attack. When there are 'different parities', that means pieces (of the same type) placed on different squares each attack a different set of squares. For the knights, there is 1 parity (because of the extra 4 squares). For the alibaba-riders; dabbabas on this board, there are 2 different parities [not counting the extra squares]. For the alfils on this board, there are 4 different parities [not counting the extra squares].)
What do you guys think about these changes? Also, I'm looking for testers so that I *could play against different strategies, e.g. defensive, offensive, shuffling, space-grabbing. Thank you all!
Also, I am thinking about swapping the general for a knight-rider (there is no need for two of them as there is only 1 parity). Would this swap make this variant better, perhaps?
QtSeSc wrote:
TL;DR: I am seeking testers for my revision of Trench Warfare below and feedback on the changes in this revision from the original position.
Currently in process in testing revision of post #1500, Trench Warfare (declined). Position below (from Yellow's perspective):
(My royal symbols are also bugging: the royals are the immovable ferzes.)
(Information on original can be found in post 2696, accurate as of 2/24/25.)
Key changes: - Immovable royal: so that attacking is easier; Alfil imbalance: Helps aid the attacking process as you can use the dark-squared alfil to attack; 4 new squares added: Provides knight parity swaps and fast grasshopper development; More alibaba-riders: (I hope) provides more incentive to gain space for an easier attack; More dead-piece types: Both makes it easier and harder to track your opponent (easier in that you can track it more accurately, harder in that it is harder to memorize your opponent's positions); Removal of the chancellor: It is very similar to the general because of its limited vertical movement, so I removed it. I hope these changes provide an incentive to attack and remove the shuffling problem.
Note: 'Parity' refers to the set of squares a piece can attack. When there are 'different parities', that means pieces (of the same type) placed on different squares each attack a different set of squares. For the knights, there is 1 parity (because of the extra 4 squares). For the alibaba-riders; dabbabas on this board, there are 2 different parities. For the alfils on this board, there are 4 different parities.)
What do you guys think about these changes? Also, I'm looking for testers so that I *could play against different strategies, e.g. defensive, offensive, shuffling, space-grabbing. Thank you all!
Also, I am thinking about swapping the general for a knight-rider (there is no need for two of them as there is only 1 parity). Would this swap make this variant better, perhaps?
Send me an invite when you see me active.
Wow?
What do yall think? Open to brutally honest feedback.
https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/77585862
Feb 25, 2025
0
#2651
Ok, you asked for it
Very drawing with abundance of strong pieces, huge board and unnecessary brix
I think this should be called wild. The goal in the absence of royals is to capture all the enemy pieces. Pawns promote to Wildebeest, Camel, Alphil, Knight, Xiangi Horse, or Grasshopper on the last rank, and pawns can move 2 squares on their first move.
Example games:
https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/77609200/14/1
https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/77606302/161/3
https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/77600148/40/1
Read How not to make a Variant. this is completely DRAWISH.
Feb 26, 2025
0
#2654
acgusta2 wrote:
I think this should be called wild. The goal in the absence of royals is to capture all the enemy pieces. Pawns promote to Wildebeest, Camel, Alphil, Knight, Xiangi Horse, or Grasshopper on the last rank, and pawns can move 2 squares on their first move...
I strongly recommend you to discontinue this project for the following reasons-
1.Extremely drawish
2.The pieces are very strong, which leads to shuffling
3.Without royals, there is often not a clear goal for the players and makes players confused about what the game's purpose is
also, very long and boring, pieces spam
Feb 26, 2025
0
#2656
there is a fd somewhere, i'm too lazy to find it, and autodeclination
(reminds me of the haunting of knights v. bishops)
Feb 27, 2025
0
#2657
CooolChicken wrote:
That looks akee (okay)
Ah I see, nice