Clash of Mythic Titans (Alpha-NU-Omega Chess)

(This game is not yet ready to play. It is still in development. When it will be ready is indefinite, at the moment.)

Clash of Mythic Titans (Alpha-Nu-Omega Chess)

(Sounds like a fraternity.)

I present an epic Chess game that introduces new Major pieces with grandiose powers and new challenging tactical powerplay to overcome.

I - Set up

Though there are many more pieces to choose from some with powers more complexed than what one may be accustomed to, pieces of similar power are grouped into the original arrangement of FIDE chess, in order to add a familiar dimension from the original familiar game.

FIDE chess configuration: King/Queen, Bishop, Knight and Rook; pawns in +1 rank to conceal them at gamestart

CMT configuration: Queen group, Bishop group, Knight group and Rook group; pawn groups within +4 ranks to conceal and protect them during game start

(Diagrams have been sized down to fit thread parameters. Press ctrl key and scroll using the middle mouse button to enlarge text and image.) 

 Modes of movement: The following diagrams explain the algebraic graph notations that will serve as a legend to explain the powers of the pieces.

II – Pieces powers

a.      pawn group: pawn, jack and gambit

Pieces’ moving power is different from capturing power. Movements move in an orthogonal (forward/backwards/sideways) line. Captures occur on a diagonal. Upon reaching the final rank, pieces in pawn groups may promote to a more powerful piece. All three pieces in pawn group may perform en pessant (with slight variations in rules for each piece).

b.       Knight group: Knight, Hydra, Hippocampus and Pheonix***

***(Knight and Rook-type hybrid)

Pieces all primarily/exclusively perform a dissonant un-orthodox L-shape leaping maneuver to reach its final destination. None move primarily in a straight line, and none are susceptible to being blocked. Due to the nature of the L-Shape, these pieces’ movements cover squares that are mainly or exclusively the opposite color from the position they were previously in.

c.       Bishop group: Bishop, Harpie (Roc), Stymphalion and Wizard

Due to their diagonal nature, pieces are color-bound to the colored square that they start on, with the exception of the Stymphalion, who has the lesser option to leave the colored square of its origin through a range-3 Orthogonal maneuver. (Though, most its power covers squares that are of its origin.)

d.      Rook group: Rook, Champion, Helepolis and ***Phoenix

***(Knight and Rook-type Hybrid)

Pieces are used primarily/exclusively for its orthogonal property and, as such, are never color-bound. Any existing diagonal maneuver is minor or non-existent. Those ones that share the King’s rank can be castled with him: the Rook and Helepolis.

e.       Queen group: Queens, Lion, Freyjan Giant and Titaness

The most potentially dangerous chessmen on the board, pieces primarily move orthogonally and diagonally, combining the directionality of the Rook and Bishop. Two in the group encompass Knight L-shape directionality as well. Pieces may be leaper or non-leaper, depending on the specific piece.

Thank you for your input Ivan.

I understand the logicality of your suggestions for improvement; and how 16x12 may seem like "clutter". Rest assured, however, most game play will not take place in the first and final two files; while those files are every bit as valid, they are mere extras: most of the time, pieces wouldn't care to venture there anyways. The 12x12 in the center is where the main gameplay would truly happen.

The concept of the 16x12 is that the "Princesses" are hidden away in the fortress; only when the "coast is clear" is when their powers are unleashed. 

Unfortunately, simple change of reverting back to 12x12 in fact created a whole myriad of issues that made it not so simple; already, you had to resolve the multiple issues by changing all the rules of the pieces around and taking away pieces that have very significant meaning. The reason we have 16x12 in the first place is to offer not only eye-candy but a pleasant dimension of challenge as well.

Every piece is very important, and their power of movement and capture have great significance. At this stage of development, it will be rather difficult to change them. At least not until you and I play our first game (which you agreed to in PM). Maybe after such should be the time to re-evaluate this variant and make changes then.

What do you think? =)

Renaming this variant is not an issue: we can call it Mythics Chess, if you feel it more appropriate. (The catalog name, to be in line with Omega Chess (variant by Dan MacDonald), would have to remain Alpha-Nu-Omega; but, I'm sure most people wouldn't care to refer to chess games by its catalog name.)

It might be a good idea to have a look at the standard method for describing moves of Chess pieces, rather than inventing yet another non-standard method of very limited capability that has to be elaborately explained each time you use it. See e.g.

http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/betzanot.html

https://www.gnu.org/software/xboard/Betza.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess_piece

You are right, Muller.

On the other hand, I was really only writing this instructional guide in the common language that IvanKosintsev and I share, so that he can fully understand the pieces before our first match. This is the method that he uses, and at least a few other people have understood instructions from this language, so I figured it was effective enough for use. (Besides, my original method of describing everything verybally caused a lot of yawns; I learned that Ivan's algebraic method of description worked better.)

You described this one as limited capability. Perhaps it is. I feel that many to most methods of chess variant instructions are. On the other hand, Ivan's algebraic method decently did the job; that's good enough for me. ^-^

Ha. Well, too bad Acer and I beat you to the super pawns: jack and gambit. xD

...

I'm only playing, of course.*hugs*

Thanks for your support. After Ivan, would you like to challenge me in this variant? Or perhaps challenge Ivan on it? =)

p. s. Haven't spoken in a while. Hope you are doing well. 

musketeerchess

"Hi

interesting variant. I like some of the new pieces. 

I must say i much like 10x10 or 12x12 boards more than more unorthodox boards."

O.K.

This is absolutely true! All other boards and a huge number of pieces with any strange unclear symbolism are a total collapse for my brain and for a brain of most amateurs. I'm regretting if such perspective and hopeful startup will end without success and without a lot of triumph.

It's totally find if you don't want to play because you feel this game is too complicated. Just let me know.

Otherwise, let me know when you would like to begin. Just say the word. =)

edit - Musketeer, I just glanced the website. I'm sorry to say: I am not a programmer, so I wouldn't know how to develop this game onto the platform. 

Also, how would we obtain permissions to do that?

Musketeer, I'll look into Jocly. I don't know what it is.

Now, as far as "collapse with the brain":

My pieces should have meaning that makes sense, since they are ordered in a logical pattern:

1 - First row behind pawns: range +2 pieces.

(The 1 exception is the Freyjan, who has a range of +3.)

2 - Second row behind 1st row: range +3 pieces, or pieces of infinite-range.

3 - The new diagonal pieces have a lesser orthogonal movement at end-range: Stymphalion and Harpie

4 - The new orthogonal pieces have a lesser diagonal movement at end-range: Helepolis and Champion

5 - The type groups are configured in general FIDE arrangement:

FIDE - Rook, Knight, Bishop, Queen, King, Bishop, Knight, Rook

Mythic Chess - Rook Group, Knight Group, Bishop Group, Queen Group, King, Bishop Group, Knight Group, Rook Group

I realized that it is a pain to have to memorize all the new pieces; I don't blame Ivan for saying that this "may not have a future". On the other hand, if you see this organized arrangement, you will note that it is much simpler than one may think: it has the familiar dimensionality of regular FIDE chess; this is FIDE chess, with merely more pieces.

Again, of course, we won't know how enjoyable or unenjoyable a game is until we play our first.

This looks like a fun game. I don't really like this sort of piece set, but there's not necessarily anything wrong with it, and it could easily be worse. It is hard to think of good piece sets for such a large board.

The phoenix seems out of place with its special rules. If you're going to make a big game like this, why not have more special rules for other pieces?

Tell you what. Go ahead and present me a modified version of the board in image attachement. I wasn't so sure if I understood everything you were saying, specifically those statements that included "lust one". I don't know what that means.

But, you know what you want from this board. So, show me and let me see. I'm sure your modified version will be just as fun.

Would you like to make some suggestions? =)

Like....Maybe all range-3 pieces (Helepolis, Stymphalion, Hydra and Freyjan) paralyzes or captures leaped enemy pieces everytime a capture is performed? (The idea behind this is that both units in real life tended to aim with poor accuracy and would affect things around its main target.)

 Or, perhaps as the opposite effect of the pheonix, the hippocampus saves leaped allied pieces from beong captured for one turn?

That aside, I'm assuming that part of what you mean is that most of the pieces are too short-ranged for a hugebaord like a 12x12. If so, I think at least somewhat agree.

Actually, at this point in time, I have an idea of how to simplify and upgrade the powers of the pieces, and I'm aching to share it with you guys.

But, I still want to see IvanKosintsev's version first. Then we can compare.

Listen please intently BC! You must understand that Mythic chess is exclusively your game. So an initiative and all technical potentialities are also your. We your friends can only prompt to you how to do the game better. Errrare humanum est. Take or not to take our proposition is your right. You must also understand that I'm not a chess genius, I'm  only an general amateur without any mental pretensions.

And, as a fellow 'friend' who is listening to prompts on how to make the game better, I am granting you permission to show me your suggestions of improvement; I don't mind changing the game, if that's how people think it would become more fun. After all, this game was created for us to enjoy. 

I feel it productive to visually see what these improvements are; again, mainly due to the fact that I don't know what "lust one" means.

Where did you get this?

What do you mean?

As in, how did I come up with these pieces?

I meant, the source of this "Clash of Mythic Titans (Alpha-Nu-Omega Chess)".

You're asking how I came up with the name?

Simple: this was a large 12x12 board that had pretty powerful pieces. What better allegory to have of such strong pieces than something cool and "exotic" as mythical creatures from ancient beliefs.