New piece rules and combos, your advice is needed
I think it's a good idea to make most pieces weaker than a rook. If you can't come up with enough unique moves, start adding different capturing patters, or even different promotions. There could be a bishop that can promote to a rook on the last rank, for example.
...Please just help me configure the points then.
It can be hard to estimate the value of new pieces, and really, you don't need to.
Values are to help decide when to exchange pieces, but a game can be played without knowing values. Just let the players figure it out.😋
But for estimates, you can compare new pieces to other pieces. A guard jumps to 8 squares which is the same as a knight so they are about the same. The hawk can jump to 16 squares so might be worth twice the value (around 6?). But pieces with sliding ability (which can be blocked) are harder to estimate.
Your dragon can jump (with capture) to 28 squares, and move to others, so would be worth at least a queen.
I agree with LXIVC that new pieces are better when they are worth about a rook or less. Chess is complicated enough without new pieces with ridiculous power, and pieces that can jump over pawns and attack the king from a safe distance can dramatically change (and ruin) a game.
But the dragon you made could be fun - I would only play it if it replaced the queen, or if the board was very large.😜
I have tried playing a 100-square chess variant with 40 pieces, but the problem is that the player feels lost when making moves, since there is not enough theory to explain what to do. I think this would be a problem with all variations, especially for those who were first familiar with ordinary chess: the novel game would seem an empty, arbitrary exercise in fitting pieces into spaces.
I thought up a piece a few months ago. I believe that it fits the name of "Glider" well. It moves as a jumping queen, leaping to a place that a queen could go on an empty board, but not capturing. I moves and takes like a king or a knight. For some reason your board painter does not work for me, unfortunately.
I have tried playing a 100-square chess variant with 40 pieces, but the problem is that the player feels lost when making moves, since there is not enough theory to explain what to do. I think this would be a problem with all variations, especially for those who were first familiar with ordinary chess: the novel game would seem an empty, arbitrary exercise in fitting pieces into spaces.
It doesn't take many plays to get some idea of what you should be doing. It helps to have a well designed game.
Attacking (mixing) an enemy figure without moving to that square or even at all would probably be over-powered, at least on an 8x8 board.
A lot of these proposed pieces are stupendous, but as some other posters have opined, they should be relegated to an approximate power\value of standard room or less. The biggest single boon to digital-variant chess us possibility for nerfing or removing the standard queen; no single piece should be worth more than two whole moderate to strong pieces 'beliw' it! That said, they should also be stronger than standard pawns (or perhaps consist of many more) ---which brings up another point that was mentioned:
8x8 is too small for these proposed types of dynamics. However, much bigger than 9x9 would get to be hard to follow i would imagine, at least for mediocre players. This is what I envision for a well-designed (superior) analogue to standard chess, in broad terms:
10x10 with slight outline around middle 8 (3x3) and slighted still around inner four (2x2), OR ~15x15 with 3 colors of squares (and corresponding bishops-type deal, perhaps some swapping or two-color ability) instead of just two
at least five different types of pieces not counting king and pawns if present, none of which is much stronger than two other pieces combined in most typical positions, if at at all.
no cheap-o transportation in such a way as to capture enemy king too easily or what gave you
different types of moves beyond simply combining movements from standard chess pieces'
since a bigger board, likely with higher ratio of total squares to initial occupancy and general mobility as in standard chess (64:[2*16] = 2:1, and 64:45 or so in standard chess; I propose ratios closer to 7:4 and 7:5 respectively), have plenty of relatively short-re -range figures ,to promote cohesiveness for human players.
I would like to see the concept of igui capture come to the game, but I feel it’s more of a shogi concept than a chess concept, and I think it might prove counterproductive trying to introduce the concept to Western players without any pre-existing pieces which possess the ability to capture without having to move.
It might be a good idea to invert some of the existing movement patterns given to the musketeer pieces and assign them to some of the new pieces planned. Take the cannon, for example, it moves as a king, as a dabbabah or as a wide knight. What’s stopping anyone from inverting the dabbabah and wide knight move and giving this new movement pattern to one of the pieces proposed in the lineup? A piece moving as a king, alfil, and wide knight would without a doubt find itself at home in musketeer chess. I’ll call this the archer for now (because I’m not sure which of the existing names would fit this movement pattern).
With the spider, do the same thing - invert the B2 move and the dabbabah move, so that they’re R2 and alfil instead, and you’ve got yourself a scorpion (trying to go with the arachnid theme).
Just as the chancellor is to the archbishop, so too is the cannon to the archer, and the spider to the scorpion; their orthogonal, diagonal, and hippogonal analogues have been inverted to make entirely different pieces.
How about an imitating piece, two per side: on each that moves like the nearest friendly or enemy figure, respectively. The friendly immitator takes preference for piece closer toward own King or perhaps 1st rank whereas espionage immitator mocks nearest enemy piece toward enemy king or perhaps last rank. If two or more equidistant contenders, choice up the player, perhaps requiring 'weakee' piece if hierarchy. Only in instance of possibly putting enemy in check s player to state imitated piece; nay change on following turn.
I thought up a piece a few months ago. I believe that it fits the name of "Glider" well. It moves as a jumping queen, leaping to a place that a queen could go on an empty board, but not capturing. I moves and takes like a king or a knight. For some reason your board painter does not work for me, unfortunately.
Hi
when you browse my website you enter to tools. Then in the Tools page you have to click on the link below the diagram to have a working tool. I'll change this because it's not very friendly as it is done. But once you are in the API all works fine.
New pictures where added (a new lion, Lioness, Mammoth, Dragon, frog, Bear, wolf, Dog etc.)
I got there, but when I push the "save image" button, it gives me a txt file.
I got a couple ideas for pieces / moves. They would further change the dynamics, but perhaps for excitement.
move: lay a landmine. Not sure which piece this should go to, but it works like such: on the player's turn, if she opts to move the bomber piece, she must say so and record where on that piece's path of movement (straight-forward for orthagonal and diagonal movers; for hippogonal, just count the possible squares that for jumped over) the mine was laid. Here's a kicker: the opponent does not know specifically which square (unless the landmine-layer moved only 1 or 0 squares on that halfturn). This does add a degree of chance, but the fascinating part us that it is derived solely from the player's on a game arena with otherwise full vusibity and no pure probabilistic elements like dice or drawing cards. Should the opponent land that square, it gets deployed; or rather, the player that set it must deploy it by announcing it to ignite. If the opponent had previously landed on the square with another piece after it was laid without it getting deployed, then he can dispute the detonation. There could be other aspects to this weapon such as not going off for certain small pieces like fairies or pawns unless the player that laid it uses a full halfturn to deploy it, its effective lifespan (maximum turns until it wears off regardless of getting tripped), possibility or restrictions on the side that laid it to move her own pieces onto the bomb'd square<s>, and how many or how often the respective pieces and lay these landmines.
piece: sniper. can move like a king without capturing (full halfturn) and can attack by sniping via queen-like movements (full halfturn), perhaps only up to a few squares initially (analogous to bow'n'arrow) until evolving via promotion to full_sniper. Perhaps certain pieces of more armor or girth could withstand a shot without falling; sort of like hitpoints, but in limited scope. Additionally, if the sniper piece as described above is not too powerful, then here is a novel idea: option to mount onto a room (possibly a similar piece) to enable shooting over one piece (friendly or enemy) to the desired target. Ok, stickybombs! okay now that us a little carried away. But a physical chess set with a couple pieces that cabin together like puzzle pieces would be nifty. It should cost one full halfturn and the sniper must be directly adjacent to the camel or whatever piece to be mounted, and another full halfturn to get down, and the mounted piece either cannot move at all or in only limited or reduced extent while sniper is on it/him/her.
Here is another meta idea: a hybrid between stationary capturing (with or without obstruction, probably just the latter) and moving without capture: move up and capture an enemy piece but fall back one square (like after lunging onto it, rebound), or perhaps even in a more complex fashion that may offer some choice but with restrictions as well like with 'regular' movements but in a more limited capacity. Also, possibility for different (but correlated in an intuitive or at least sensible way, ideally) movement set for capturing as opposed to noncapturing, although that get a bit overly complicated. (just look at the frog action-diagram as_is, and try dedicating it quickly to heart hlol.)
It would be interesting if someone could develop a coherent set of novel 'chess' pieces for an 8 x 8 or 10 x 10 board, write up a definitive set of rules, and also sketch out some of the basic theory of the game. People on this forum could then suggest ideas or improvements, and then the inventor could commission someone to fashion the pieces an a single working model of the game so it could be patented and marketed. Perhaps it would be a hit. Bobby Fischer, after all, said that chess had been overanalyzed and was becoming uninteresting because of that, but here would be a whole new territory to explore.
Wow, I'm not sure. There was a Wizard in Omega chess. It moved 1 diagonally or as a long knight 3:1, so it was restricted to same color squares.
Which is why it might be a good idea to couple the wizard with the warrior and have them be bishop + 3:1 and rook + 3:1 respectively. The warrior wouldn’t be 100% colourbound (at least the camel move sort of counts) but it would still be the perfect analogue to the wizard. The wizard would pay homage to omega chess while bumping up its value to something more akin to the existing pieces.
The warrior is the piece with the axe, right? It’d be great if you were to reupload the images of the new moulds you’ve posted in previous threads here.
What is the triangle sign muskteerchess?