New Position Workshop / Testing Thread

Wildebeest chess

R-0,1,0,1-1,1,1,1-1,1,1,1-0,0,0,0-0-{'pawnBaseRank':5,'dim':'12x8','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,yR,yN,yB,yB,yQ,yK,yV,yC,yC,yN,yR,x,x/
x,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,yP,x,x/
x,11,x,x/
x,11,x,x/
x,11,x,x/
x,11,x,x/
x,11,x,x/
x,11,x,x/
x,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,rP,x,x/
x,rR,rN,rB,rB,rQ,rK,rV,rC,rC,rN,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

This is a terrible idea. I played it with bots, and not only is it slow, it involves a ton of mindless shuffling. Wouldn't recommend it.

This requires a lot of strategy. I played with bots and lost. In this game you must defend from the queen or die.

Are you sure this is balanced? Red seems to have an advantage, but again, it all depends on the opening moves.

red always have advantage

It took me a while to "clear up" "part of the luck problem", but I still can't prove that luck totally determines the outcome of the game, because someone said "Zombies decide everything"

R-0,0,0,0-1,1,1,1-1,1,1,1-0,0,0,0-0-{'lives'3,3,3,3),'resigned'null,true,null,true),'zombieImmune'false,true,false,true),'noCorners':true}-
X,5,yP,yQ,5,X/
rC,bδ,10,gδ,rC/
yB,yN,10,yN,yB/
1,yP,yβ,8,yβ,yP,1/
yδ,12,yδ/
14/
3,yN,6,yN,3/
3,rN,6,rN,3/
14/
rδ,12,rδ/
1,rP,rβ,8,rβ,rP,1/
rB,rN,10,rN,rB/
yC,bδ,10,gδ,yC/
X,5,rQ,rP,5,X

I don't want to discredit anyone, but please prove that luck totally determines the outcome of the game, on older versions(Just prove you will lose to RandoBot)
https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/4pc-wheel-of-fortune-information-1

It's 3 points for checkmate, with the remaining players sharing the points in the event of a stalemate, and the time control is 4 minutes with a 5 second delay.

The rules look "a lot" better, but the second problem is that this looks a bit"narrow"
Personally, it may be 5 check, checkmate is 10 points
checkmate is 3 points feeling has no "incentives"
In short: why get checkmate? These pieces are all at least 3 points

@ayayayanoted well I'm afraid that if I make points for checkmate too high then it will make it too easy for one player to win if someone resigns as only one player has mating material in the territory of a resigned king.

A similar concept checkmate score is too low, player A chooses resigns, then players B and C can win as long as someone's score is higher than the other's + checkmate score, and so on, it feels like this game will become a "procrastination game", because there is no People want to put the score at a disadvantage and eventually cause the 50-move-rule to trigger; imagine if A checkmate B and then you can win, you will take the initiative to attack?
Assumption: 27:20:20
You will only aggressively attack objects you can checkmate,but the same, you can wait for A or B to checkmate and claim win
On this score, A or B may be at a disadvantage in C space
Assumption: C score leads
A attacks C, A is at a disadvantage in the space where A attacks C, and C will attack B?
C attacks B will only exist in this space where C attacks B. C is also an advantage.
Otherwise, B attacking A's space is B's advantage and C just waits
C is at a disadvantage in the space where A attacks C
C will just try to survive
Then the 3 check may be correct, but the problem is that the 3 check may be too easy, which may lead to B attacking A easily to get the checkmate, but C chooses claim win because the score of C is relatively high
So in this situation C may not choose to aggressively attack
It seems more reasonable to get the checkmate by getting the score ahead, and not letting your space be at a disadvantage too much, so 5 points or 10 points is the more suitable option for me
But it always feels like either option (3/5/10) is similar, it's hard to adjust, it's up to you, I just think the rule looks "a lot" better, it doesn't mean it's perfect

Another way of assuming: assuming X points, A=>B=>C=>A
Then A surrenders, B=>C=>A, then C wants to choose to get checkmate
B will definitely have the advantage of the number of moves, and B=>C, so C will lose because of this, C can only not get checkmate, it is possible to win
B checkmate to C =+X points
and B has N additional moves , and B=>C, which will make B>C score
B>C , C=C+X, C+X>B, B checkmate to C =>B=B+X=> B+X>C+X
Therefore, in order to avoid this situation, C has to choose not to +X points

And according to the design of Position: A=>B=>C=>A
Suppose A loses, the structure becomes B=>C
So instead it becomes B "probably" at the "advantage"
Then in order to avoid the situation of structural disadvantage, players will likely choose not to take the initiative to attack
cause the 50-move-rule to trigger
This structure is absolute, because this is a closed space, so there is only such a structure as A=>B=>C=>A

This is one of my first variants I've made so I'd appreciate if you take a look at it.

R-0,0,0,0-1,1,1,1-1,1,1,1-0,0,0,0-0-{'royal''n2','b1','a13','m14'),'noCorners':true}-
x,yK,x,yI,x,2,x,1,x,gγ,x,gK,x/
yK,x,yB,x,1,x,x,1,x,1,x,gQ,x,gK/
x,yQ,x,yγ,x,2,x,1,x,gγ,x,gB,x/
yγ,x,yγ,x,1,x,x,1,x,1,x,gγ,x,gI/
x,1,x,1,x,2,x,1,x,1,x,1,x/
1,x,1,x,1,x,x,1,x,1,x,1,x,1/
x,1,x,1,x,3,x,1,x,1,x,1/
1,x,1,x,1,x,3,x,1,x,1,x/
1,x,1,x,1,x,1,x,x,1,x,1,x,1/
x,1,x,1,x,1,x,2,x,1,x,1,x/
bI,x,bγ,x,1,x,1,x,x,1,x,rγ,x,rγ/
x,bB,x,bγ,x,1,x,2,x,rγ,x,rQ,x/
bK,x,bQ,x,1,x,1,x,x,1,x,rB,x,rK/
x,bK,x,bγ,x,1,x,2,x,rI,x,rK,x

Any thoughts? Is it a forced draw/win?

Actually seems interesting, but some pieces might be useless

Very interesting: if you'd be available tomorrow, I might be able to get in a few games with you.

All right, when could you play?

Would 3 pm EST work?

perfect

Ok, see you in 37 minutes!

When we tested it, we found it was terrible to play. It never ended and the afil was useless.

Here's version 2.0. We switched the alfil for archbishop, and promotion is grasshopper.

R-0,0,0,0-1,1,1,1-1,1,1,1-0,0,0,0-0-{'royal':('n2','b1','a13','m14'),'noCorners':true}-
x,yK,x,yH,x,2,x,1,x,gγ,x,gK,x/
yK,x,yB,x,2,x,3,x,gH,x,gK/
x,yH,x,yγ,x,2,x,1,x,gγ,x,gB,x/
yγ,x,yγ,x,1,x,4,x,gγ,x,gH/
x,1,x,1,x,2,x,1,x,1,x,1,x/
5,x,2,x,1,x,3/
x,1,x,1,x,7,x,1/
1,x,7,x,1,x,1,x/
3,x,1,x,2,x,5/
x,1,x,1,x,1,x,2,x,1,x,1,x/
bH,x,bγ,x,4,x,1,x,rγ,x,rγ/
x,bB,x,bγ,x,1,x,2,x,rγ,x,rH,x/
bK,x,bH,x,3,x,2,x,rB,x,rK/
x,bK,x,bγ,x,1,x,2,x,rH,x,rK,x

Pls give feedback to this,

Teams, KOTH

R-0,0,0,0-1,1,1,1-1,1,1,1-0,0,0,0-0-{'noCorners':true}-
4,yR,yR,yδ,yδ,yR,yR,4/
4,yδ,yδ,yK,yY,yδ,yδ,4/
4,yδ,yV,2,yV,yδ,4/
4,yδ,yβ,2,yβ,yδ,4/
bL,bR,bN,1,yδ,yβ,2,yβ,yδ,1,gN,gR,gL/
bL,bΔ,bR,1,yδ,yβ,2,yβ,yδ,1,gR,gM,gL/
bE,bT,bR,1,yδ,yβ,2,yβ,yδ,1,gR,gT,gE/
bE,bT,bR,1,rδ,rβ,2,rβ,rδ,1,gR,gT,gE/
bL,bM,bR,1,rδ,rβ,2,rβ,rδ,1,gR,gΔ,gL/
bL,bR,bN,1,rδ,rβ,2,rβ,rδ,1,gN,gR,gL/
4,rδ,rβ,2,rβ,rδ,4/
4,rδ,rV,2,rV,rδ,4/
4,rδ,rδ,rY,rK,rδ,rδ,4/
4,rR,rR,rδ,rδ,rR,rR,4

Basically there is a tunnel made of pawns between the red and yellow kings and the centre. Camelriders are preventing the kings from reaching centre straight away, so red and yellow should try and take out said camelriders. Blue and green should try to protect the camelriders because if red and yellow capture the camelriders then they will have an advantage because the king is closer to the centre and the route will be unblocked. But blue and green should also attempt to 'collapse' the tunnel if they have to, using their pieces. If blue and green control the centre, either using their camelriders or by destroying the tunnel, they could go for a checkmate. B&G can't be checkmated because they have no royal piece, and the intended way for R&Y to win is to move the king into the centre.

Should I make the generals royalty so they can KOTH and be checkmated? Also what do you think is this game unbalanced to either side? All feedback welcome. Thx in advance.

Best Regards, WoIfstarX

spammmm