New chess variant. Looking for players to play with.

I have;

piece A'& FyafsF

piece B'& WyafsW

So I get the griffin. I don't get what DmpafyafsW is. I'll have to make it to see.
The other game would just be easier for me to paste in my custom dat. I have all my others backed up. So I'll take a look at your larger game.

You look at mine yet. I want to play game 5 bad. Sort of want to try #2 as well.

I have;

piece A'& FyafsF

piece B'& WyafsW

So I get the griffin. I don't get what DmpafyafsW is. I'll have to make it to see.

So I loaded that game. I like it for the most part. I am not a fan of a move that looks like a leaper but is a zig-zag slider, or sliding to a knight camel, or zebra move. Because the blocking point is not clear. Plus it looks like a leaper while moving. Till you attack and see that it is not. Which will make learning your game an world harder on people than if they were simply just leapers. Aside from that. I like the movement of the pieces. I just feel N,C, & z should always be leapers. Plus the zigzag to get to what would be a D leap without leaping or having a W move. Is just confusing to me, why you want that over a leap to D. I still looking at placement more. So aside from being against leapers it looks good.

So I'll look at DmpafyafsW later

You can look at it the other way too, Tubebender: the stronger the player, the higher the tendency to stubbornly resist reading about new variants, let alone trying them out.

The thing I never got is why these stronger players feel such an attack on their chess playing when new variants that are similar yet different to the FIDE chess that they have spent so many years developing on are introduced. One seriously can't be knowledgeable on two different games of chess? Should he/she not learn Xiangqi or Shogi either?

Maybe those 'weaker players' who haven't develop their skills so deeply are still at a stage where they are able to more broad-mindedly incorporate other chess games too; they can "float their boats" more easily, because they haven't been made as rigid as stronger FIDE chess players. So, there you go.

Of course, I now wonder what new category we should place Grandmaster Capablanca in, what's with his "Capablanca's Chess". 

If you consider stronger, to be relying on memerizing what someone else figured out. Rather than having to fully learn, understand & wisely use a piece. All on your own knowledge. You call that weaker then, lol!

Then it applies to FIDE only. Not chess. Because Shogi is older and is still a type of chess. Plus there are many others. That pre-date FIDE chess. Making that more of a variant of them. So variants of FIDE come after that.

Because your so called stronger players, rely on memory. They are not going to be very good at playing other types of chess. Which in reality makes them the weaker player. Unless that is,..... they are good at most all of them. Then they are a stronger player truely. That plans and sees things as he needs to. Without the help of others teaching them how to play better.

I do not see you being that stronger player. If you are to scared to even learn how a new piece moves. Shogi players alone know how to use over 40 pieces well. You are too scared to go past 6. Give me a break tubebender, but sure what ever you say tubebender

I'd like be able to choose which rank a pawn promotes on, and restrict the pieces it can promote to. Is this possible?

I'm not a member of the USCF. Nevertheless, I like chess, and I like thinking of new chess pieces and new games. The modern form of chess didn't always exist. It only came to be because somebody wasn't satisfied with the game everyone else was playing, or else just wanted to try something else. Creativity is a good thing.

Few people are interested in designing board games. It's probably true that some who realize they will never become great at chess give up and play with the rules instead.

Modern chess is an excellent game, but history could have been different. If some other set of rules had been introduced in the right place at the right time, everybody would be playing that game instead.

You say that chess is challenging enough. Of course it is, if that is all you care about. So are many other games. Chess is also beautiful. Other games are too. People design new chess games because they like chess. It inspires imitation and modification, and always has.

That and I like learning. So playing new variants are fun. I greatly enjoy trying new pieces. Not a fan of knights combined with rook, bishop, queens. I want real new moves.  I will admit, many variants have their flaws. There are a lot of good ones too. I just wish more variants, were more of a change from FIDE chess then most of them are. I really like variety. Plus not having to worry about opening theory to as much degree as one must in FIDE chess.

I want a huge war. With chess like moving pieces. You do not even have to call it chess at that point, for all I care. I just want something big. While not being a simple kid game. I have come to learn, that learning a game with 30 plus different moving pieces, is not hard. I use to think it would be hard. Yet most games set them up in a manor that compliments each other. Making them very easy to learn fast. Getting good takes time. Yet the learning curve, is not what one would think it would need to be. To learn variants. Even the complex ones. Which tend to be mostly all asian, it seems.

Then they should not have a variant section and chess.com. Clearly....but they do. So I do not know what to tell you, sorry.

Rest assured, folks, people of different levels and skills invent all different kinds of Chess games, not just weaker players. 

The inventor of these fine epic chess games in this thread is simply one who doesn't care much about FIDE chess; it's simply too boring, because there are too little pieces. His attitude on this is every bit as valid as those who find FIDE chess and nothing else the definition of exciting.

As I have gently reminded readers before, Chess isn't always what it is and won't always stay as it is now in the future. The FIDE Chess we know is only about 1 quintennial-old (500-years old); special maneuvers as castling and en passant, if I'm not mistaken, are even younger. In order for Chess to be standardize throughout its stages of development, chess variants have to have been invented to move it along in its path. Hell, didn't we once consider what we call the Queen piece now "too powerful"? (Who the f'ing hell would combine the powerful powers of the Rook and Bishop like that??) The game that first included her was actually considered a "variant" at the time, too, wasn't it? And, now, look what became of her.

Having said that, just because Ace569er included a lot of new "confusing" pieces doesn't mean that they should be disregarded and put in the background. Who knows? Some of these very pieces may end up in a future standard chess; just like what happened to the piece we now value so much: the Queen.

Having said that, Ace, you must keep in mind that a lot of people find the simplicity of "boring" ole FIDE fun and exciting for a reason: they like how something easy to learn can give rise to so many complex math puzzles to solve. Again, their attitude is every bit as right as yours. The reason they don't find your chess games intriguing (nor mine) is because they feel they haven't tackled the simpler FIDE chess yet, and here you (and I) already introduce something with more pieces and harder rules to memorize. They feel they won't "have time for it in this lifetime." They're right: if FIDE chess is their only chess passion, then they won't.

k back to winboard

Is this less eye boggling? I used my favorite game, them added in the new stuff.. Not that six full sets worth. Is not a bit much. I did a good job making the moves very easy. The magician, phoenix & dragon. Are really the only hard ones, to learn. Plus maybe the dutchess and duke. Might be my new fav...

view image and zoom in. To easily see all the moves. The red ring is the same diference as the yellow one. Just made red because it attacks after the jump. When jumping pass a tile it may be occupied.

I say as I have implied before: I don't like the maneuver of the new Jester, Seige Tower nor Cardinal. It was fine the way it was before.

Also, the Guard, according to its power, is a bit pointless. Why is it counted amounge the royals, and why is there only one of it? With the "unicorn" (aside from the fact that it doesn't move similarly to the Knight at all), as well as the Wizard and Prince, taking on massive powers, there are two of them. Then, there's one measley Guard who couldn't do shoyt.

Also, with 3 times as many pieces as you originally had, we don't have enough playroom anymore. Now, you'll need about a 24x24 board to accomodate!

no 16x24 is six boards for six sets worth, 96 per side . On my 24x14. So that is only slightly small. The 16x16 has 80 per side. So it should be 20 by 16. 22 if acounting for the black tiles. So it should be bigger.

The guard is not a royal. His is sort of subbing in, as a king. So that there are not 5 of them. He is in the pawn class. He's not suppose to do "shoyt". Think of him as your new, not as well placed, gambit.

I didn't want two queens. There are only 2 of I and O. Which would normaly be 6. Like the other pawns.

There is only one unicorn, (which is a strong piece as a 1,2,3,4 leaper like it's counterpart the wizard)The horses with the eye patch, horn, and cross. Facing the other way. Is the holy paladin-H. There is one wizard too. Two magicians tho. Not sure why you mention the prince. There is only one prince/ss too. As with all 12 of the royals. Except the king.

I'm sorry about the jester and lesser two. I have been missing my long range leaper. They hold high value. Far, far more than there old form. Yet you won't want to trade them. so that power is more limited. Which I wanted a 1,3,5 leaper from before winboard. The other way was the closest I could make. Yet was still too weak.  Which normaly I do make things weaker. Yet when check is not as powerful. Because of extra kings.

So now queen and other things you do not want to trade. Must protect rather than attack now. Taking away a large bit of their power. Where as the way they were before, I would trade them for most any piece. Just like the I do for the knight, vangaurd(shield) & executioner(crossed swords). Because they are worth little. So they normaly trade up. Making it in my favor.

Mainly I just wanted my long range leapers back. That I just dropped all together for winboard's limitations. I would have brought them back in a new piece, but I hated having a slider/leaper. When trying to keep the amount of the two even. While keeping things color bound, as they also should be.

You miss the fact they all had 8 way 3 jumps don't you? To make up for that, you have three 1,3,5leapers(one royal), and two 1,2,3,4leapers (both royal). So you still have plenty of 1,3 jumps.  I really do not get what your saying about the W , U, & Y. There are only 10 new pieces on the board from the old type. 8 types. 2 of them replaced a piece that was already there. Then 6 of them were placed where a black tile was. So only 2 of them take up more space. So you have two tiles less.

My longest running version of AOC, was 12ishx14, was with 86 pieces 168 tiles. 61%% full counting for black tiles . This is new one is 64% full, add in black tile 68.5%full. Normal chess is 50% so it should be bigger. 22x14 would be 44%. Yet I tried that and did not like it. 18x16 would be 61% just like my first game. Just thought of that doing all this math. Pieces are lost a lot faster and more often than normal chess. So the space opens up fast. Try it first, then see if you feel the same. Which you most likely will, but still.

see

I still can't connect to winboard.nl.

I can not ether. Haven't been able to in a good while. Hopefully Muller will have time to look in to it soon. I've been using cam chat for the time being. It can be a pain tho.