Well, not a championship game, just like a testing the hunter... I think the capture mechanic should be expanded a bit, possibly...
New piece rules and combos, your advice is needed
Sort:
How can the Hunter be about half as strong compared to the Centaur?
HorribleTomato wrote:
Well, not a championship game, just like a testing the hunter... I think the capture mechanic should be expanded a bit, possibly...
I think that could be a good piece. If it captures 12 squares it might have a value of about 5 (better than a knight, but weaker than a hawk). But its non-capture move is slow - like a king, right? That could be perfect for an 8x10 board. Do you think two or four on the board? Here is a board, with possible positions and graphics:
Two/One hunters should be good, 8x10 is normal bulldog, right? Hunter could be a possible variation in bulldog, with one guard and one hunter. Also, I think we should go "grim reaper", since helmet is too "warrior" and scratched face is too "zombie"
A value of 5 for this enhanced Hunter is an overestimate. Normally leapers with 12 complete moves (i.e. capturing as well as non-capturing) are worth about as much as a Rook on 8x8 boards. Pieces with 8 moves are worth about a Knight (i.e. 3.25). This Hunter has only 8 non-captures, but in general the captures are twice as important. So you could expect (1*3.25 + 2*5)/3 = 4.41. And on 10x8 the Rook probably gains compared to short-range leapers.
The shortage of non-captures will hurt extra, because all non-capture moves only have range 1, makig this a very slow piece.
I think the *Prince* height is perfectly fine for a guard like piece, almost on par the knight. What do you guys say?
It looks more like a small Queen then as a small King, because the vertical cross section of the head curves, while the King's head is strictly conical. So my natural association for this piece would be the Ferz (Shatranj Queen, or Xiangqi Advisers). I would also think a Man deserves to be a bit larger, its colar at least at the same level as that of the Bishop.
Yes, you're right. Need slight height adjustment.
In my opinion it would be better if the piece was more distinct from other pieces. It should not be quite as tall as the bishop, but it should be stout with a strong appearance (but not as strong as the rook). To match the style of other pieces, the guard (or man or non-royal king) a variation of the rook's base would look good, like this:
Top of this fairy piece can be used for representing Guard/Prince/Commoner piece.
This piece is called *Crowded Rook* Rook + Man.
Guard / Prince / Commoner symbol used on Green Chess variant site:
Is it possible to somehow make 3D piece out of that 2D image?
The problem is that there can be no such thing as inventing just a new piece for the game, since what you are really inventing is a piece plus its entire pattern of interaction with all the other pieces, with game strategy, with opening principles, with end game theory, with defensive ideas and attacking patterns, etc. It is like trying to suggest individual notes to add to a symphony without thinking of what it will do to the entire composition, so you can't really understand what your suggestion is doing in isolation.
I suspect that many of these suggested new pieces would simply ruin the game, as interesting as they are in themselves, since chess as is now a game which has evolved over the centuries so that the pieces play well together to generate an interesting game. Add a new kind of piece and it may well not fit in the sense that it may promote stalemates, constantly generate closed games, speed up play in an uninteresting way, ruin the balance between attack and defense, stall the ability of pawns to promote, etc.
@Luitpoldt: the problem is that fairy chess is never on the agenda. So vast majority of players never get the feel of how each new piece fits & suits different roles.
Mar 23, 2018
0
#115
So as far as all those fairy pieces you mentioned in the first post, do we have official rules for them?
Note that the proposed Huter turned out to be the weakest combination of Knight and King moves in a divergent piece. Captures contribute about twice as much to the value as non-captures in divergent pieces, but the Commoner/Man and Knight are of approximately equal value. So that you don't expect much difference between Man, Knight, proposed Hunter and a piece that captures like King and moves like Knight. It turned out the latter was about half a Pawn stronger than the other three. Probably because it combines the speed advantage of the Knight (being able to catch passers) with the concentrated attacking power (and mating potential) of the Man.