New Position Workshop / Testing Thread

Fatal Mutated Custom Ghostboard (unnamed NCP)
___
Custom position
Atomic
Any Capture
Torpedo
Fatal capture
Racing kings
The stalemated player loses
7th=   Pawns promote to a bishop, knight or rook on the 7th rank
https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/27848247/1/1

I think I just fixed it with the ferz royal instead of stone general, but I have deliberated over the appropriateness of each atomic/bare piece rule/torpedo.

This and the other position have similar weaknesses I feel, overuse of knight type can make it a game of waiting if you can not pressure your opponent into moving. If you combined the two more satisfactorily I think there would be something better here.

https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/27689592/0/1
https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/27833691/1/1

Can you explain the difference between the setups here? I understand the piece starting positions. The 2nd rank there is dangerous to leave open but the kings cannot be checked and offer some protection, maybe it would be better to leave it open throughout. The central square is of note in the changes.

In v1 BY have much better starting position. This game is very demonstrative

https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/27772826/0/1

ok but as pointed out "small feeling G/R are weaker compared to Y/B" a way to remedy could be to open the 2nd rank of walls, for example of benefits you can see the light purple line to where they can move but where each is blocked by the king, yellow is at disadvantage to green upon that rank in some sense because the yellow queen is not as free to move in that area compared to greens queen, until yellow moves the knight but the king intends to move up anyways.

lemme see

There is no royal piece, and it's Play-4-Mate, so the way to win is to capture all of your opponents pieces.  Pawns get to move 1 or two squares on the first move, and can promote to any of the pieces that are in the starting position on the last rank.

R-0,1,0,1-0,0,0,0-0,0,0,0-0,0,0,0-0-{'lives':(7,7,7,7),'pawnBaseRank':5,'wb':true,'dim':'12x10','noCorners':true}-
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x/
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x/
x,x,yR,yE,yQ,yH,yA,yA,yH,yQ,yE,yR,x,x/
x,x,yN,yU,yB,yG,yΔ,yΔ,yG,yB,yU,yN,x,x/
x,x,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,x,x/
x,x,10,x,x/
x,x,10,x,x/
x,x,10,x,x/
x,x,10,x,x/
x,x,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,x,x/
x,x,rN,rU,rB,rG,rΔ,rΔ,rG,rB,rU,rN,x,x/
x,x,rR,rE,rQ,rH,rA,rA,rH,rQ,rE,rR,x,x/
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x/
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x

Anyone want to help test out this position or does anyone have feedback on how to improve this custom position?

My ideal situation is 10~20 moves
still adjusting

The official version is like this


At first you can use grasshopper to tell if wildebeest is moving

This is very important, I have disabled a few absolute win positions, still need to study whether this variant has tactics

R-0,1,0,1-1,1,1,1-1,1,1,1-0,0,0,0-0-{'lives'2,2,2,2),'pawnBaseRank':4,'dim':'10x10','noCorners':true}-
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x/
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x/
x,x,yK,x,1,yβ,2,yV,rG,yU,dG,x,x/
x,x,x,dK,x,x,1,yS,2,x,x,x,x/
x,x,yG,rU,4,x,2,rR,x,x/
x,x,1,yΔ,dB,dN,x,1,x,1,x,1,x,x/
x,x,1,rS,4,x,rW,2,x,x/
x,x,2,yW,x,4,yS,1,x,x/
x,x,1,x,1,x,1,x,dN,dB,rΔ,1,x,x/
x,x,yR,2,x,4,yU,rG,x,x/
x,x,x,x,2,rS,1,x,x,dK,x,x,x/
x,x,dG,rU,yG,rV,2,rβ,1,x,rK,x,x/
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x/
x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x,x

how Self-checks :
https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/27895326

https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/27895371

In most cases it is too fast, So I'm not going to post this
Even Futer only has 10 ...

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/good-custom-position-bad-custom-position-dos-and-donts-for-ncps-1

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/good-wof-guidelines-what-makes-a-position-exciting

these are both helpful topics to read

I'm not saying your position suffers from this explicitly, but when I look at it there are too many pieces for me to want to queue up, personally I would like to see some games first to know what the ideas are but the problem is the ideas are never so clear or fleshed out when there is so much to consider. Too many pieces can be ok if they are of similar types, but when there are both too many pieces overall and too many types of pieces, it it becomes difficult to think there will be fairness or any sense of accurate play. That is not to mention the possibility of imbalance in the pieces themselves, for example the queenknight is stronger(?) than any other piece here and with two of them in conjunction with some other pieces in attack it could be conceivable that no other strategy than this attack is viable.

I like to think of it in terms of regular chess. If my board layout is more complicated than regular chess, I will tend to use less pieces overall, not less than regular chess, just less than I am normally inclined to use. If my board layout is less complicated, I will reach towards more interesting piece types, not necessarily more pieces in general.

https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/26296422

The ai will have some trouble winning through that method normally, ^here you can see the red player typically will not go into the finish for racing kings. Below you see the remedy for me was to put it as a random, and eventually it will random into the finish although that game does not showcase it, it is the current template.

https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/27903885
___________
https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/27905511

^Here you can see muncher get KOTH

https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/27918999

^here you can see they are not too concerned to win

https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/27919075

^even futers are reluctant to win.

this is nice, I would just rather see it with ferz or wazir instead of kings. Better yet pawns but the directions they would be facing are not optimal.

Sorry for spam, I have a WoF Lining the field under review and the previous unnamed NCP that I am reluctant to post until it might receive more attention on page 24, but those can be disregarded for now, in this post I have two questions:

1:
Battlechess A
https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/27921487

or, Battlechess B?

https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/27920940

2:
What should the time control be?

None of them. + Are you sure that NCV can include zombies in this way?

Any suggestions for this variant?  It is play 4 mate, and in case of stalemate the points are shared between the remaining players.  Also the current time control is 10 minutes.

I don't think it's balanced...

I think especially in island variants like these, kingmaking (1 player helping another player to win and/or making another player lose either intentionally or unintentionally) is going to happen a lot. Adding P4M only makes it worse as the winner is essentially whoever is the luckiest. IMO the game would probably end with the 50 move rule

Do you know if they're going to add Crazyhouse to custom variants, and if so would combining my position with Crazyhouse once Crazyhouse is added help?

NCV: The Eyes of Horus (Revision, also changing the name because it's kinda stupid and I was 12 when I made it)

Being my first (accepted) variant, I was sad to see it get removed during the merge. In my opinion, it was very fun to play, and well balanced, but not many people played it, which is probably why it got removed (you can correct me if you'd like). It was still a decently crafted variant, but there were some issues that were discussed, so I present to you a revision.

In this revision:

• The chancellors (elephants) are replaced with alibaba-riders
• The archbishops (hawks) are replaced with wildebeests
• The rooks have been removed, making the pawns previously defended by them weaker and easier targets for attacking purposes
• Extra walls have been added/removed where necessary (to prevent quick, long range attacks on the kings)
• The number of sergeants (pawns) each player has has not changed, but they have been place differently
• King of the Hill has been removed as it is nearly impossible to get to an endgame where the king can safely reach the center in a practical situation
• The bricks have been replaced with transparent bricks (aesthetic change)
• 5-check has been replaced with 7-check to allow players enough time to defend in the case of a sudden death by checking (bringing down the life counter)
• Four extra squares (with dead kings on them) have been added as pivoting squares for knights or other pieces

What hasn't changed:

• Promotion on the 5th rank to a King (non-royal) or Knight
• The placement of the King, General, Knight, or Alibaba in the starting position

Some example games (last game is the one with transparent bricks):

• https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/28076237/0/1
• https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/28076762/0/1
• https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/28076973/0/2
• https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/28079735/0/1
• https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/game/28079825/0/2

I'm actively looking for play-testers! Hopefully this gets accepted and actually stays...

I found, from getting bots to play against each other on a 6 by 6 board, that when pawns are replaced with kings, bishops become much more powerful than knights and almost always beat them, and queens tend to most often beat chancellors.  This implies that the setup that I proposed earlier probably isn't balanced.  I also found that with rooks and queens, or rooks and chancellors involved, the offensive army generally beats the defensive army.

I found though that, at least with 2 player analogs of this set up, with bots playing against each other.

The defensive army draws against the offensive army about half the time.  Anyone want to help play test this position or give suggestions on how it could be improved further?

@acgusta2
No matter what happens to the three players using Play for mate is unfair, the reason: when player A wins, player A will get 36 points, suppose: player A checksmate player B, then even if player C checksmate player A, player C can't Win, because player C can only get 24 points, also assuming player A stalemated wins, no matter how player B or C wins they can only get a maximum of 24 points
3>2
Simply put, the rules say it's unfair
Unless it's 4 players, then it will be 48 36 24 (4 3 2)
3+2>4 
I'm only talking about being the first, because I see matches with 4 players with high ratings only get the first place to get the rating