New rules

I don't like the idea of adding a knight move to the queen. The queen already is by far the most powerful piece on the board, the knight being the onnly piece which can attack her without being attacked itself. If you take that away, the game will be completely dominated by the queen.

@chessvariantlover: What does the hawk move like?

The hawk can jump 2 or 3 squares in any orthogonal or diagonal direction. It's not a huge range, but since it jumps it can move into the game quicker or attack blocked pieces (but I have no idea what it would be worth - anyone have a guess?).

Musketeerchess and I are using a hawk in a game (here) if you'd like to see it. But please don't make any comments about the game since it's in progress.

Often times, the issue with inventing/incorporating variant pieces is that different pieces too often use the same names for pieces as used in other variants. In the famous Seirawan variant, the Hawk is a Knight+Bishop compound which can only validly appear on the board after a Bishop has moved. Never have I heard a Hawk move like a Queen as a Range-3 leaper; unless you yourself invented that piece and called it the "Hawk". (In my own variant, that exact piece I called the Freyjan;  at least I'm trying to use an original name that isn't used by others. haha)

On a tangent, this Hawk piece would be a bit too powerful for the 8*8 board, unless you're playing a deathmatch type of game. The Freyjan appears on a 12*16 board, so it at least balance is there.

Valid as that may be, the point of fact is that the Queen was already dominating the Bishop and the Rook: she has each of their individual powers and a whole lot more. Now, does that render the Bishop and the Rook useless? Absolutely not. Just because another piece has all their powers and more doesn't mean they can't contribute to the game.

In some variants, we can have the Queen and the Amazonia.

So, there are different hawks?

May I suggest that one of them is renamed "owl"..... In honor of the nice person who revived this thread, after six years of sleeping?

The Hawk is one of the 10 choices of new pieces that can be played in Musketeer Chess. There's also a queen + knight which is called the Dragon (in this variant), and this would be played on a normal (8 x 8) board too. I'm sure that's a  lot of power for a small board. I'll see how the Hawks play out. (So far at 12 moves it's not a deathmatch but things can change quickly!)

I also like the name Freyjan for a range-3 leaper.

Musketeer chess tends to like to use pieces that has already been invented and then overlay them with names that have already been used for other pieces. The "cannon" in musketeer chess doesn't move like the real cannon (from Xiangqi). Neither does the "Hawk" move like the real Hawk from Seirawan.

My suggestion, since it seems you are one of the developers of Musketeer: use a larger board. Perhaps 10x10 is a better suit and more beneficial. I've been inventing chess variants for more than 2 years now, and I speak from experience when I make this claim.'

As far as my Freyjan Giantess piece:

In Norse Mythology, Freyja was the Goddess of Harvest and Fertility, but was also known as the Goddess of war and death (amoung other things irrelevant). She is often represented by a Frost Tree, which symbolizes the harvest and life that she is known for. The Mythical beasts, which are the Freyjan Frost Giants, Spread her love and beauty through snow. They had major territorial control, albeit pretty lunkheaded. This can sometimes work to their advantage, especially when unintentionally damaging enemy units during War, due to their clumsy and tactless maneuvers.

All of this translates into a piece that can leap in ortho+diag. directions for as far as 3 pieces; and also capture any unlucky enemy piece that may be leaped over during a capture maneuver.

However, if one considers more closely the nuances, Seirawan's Hawk piece is not the Archbishop. The Arhcbishop does not appear on the board after the Knight or Bishop has moved. That power is reserved for the Hawk.

While these two pieces may be very similar, they are in fact different pieces. So, the separate names are justified. (I'm sure Seirawan, the Grandmaster who invented the game, may have possibly thought about Capablanca's, but  no matter.) Now, the two may easily confuse each other, granted. but, that one little difference makes separate names appropriate.

Having said that, since the "Hawk" is already taken, I would personally highly recommend that a new name be used for your interesting piece. ("Hawk" is too overused. Hey, the more creative and original, the more intriguing, right?)

On another tangent, is there a reason why you chose to omit the 1st square in range? I really don't know if this is strategically a good idea. Imagine that you had a Queen, and she cannot occupy any square within her +2 range; everything farther than that is allowed. Seems highly handicapping, doesn't it?

Hi Battlechess,

I'm just playing a game. I didn't make the rules for either Seirawan nor Musketeer Chess. (I like to do some work with other games but there is nothing I can do about the name or rules of the Hawk).

As for using the Hawk, both black and white use the Hawk in the same way and have the same handicap. The game so far seems very strategic, fair, and balanced. And fun!

Regardless of both armies having the same disadvantage of handicap, the fact that it's a disadvantage at all for even one player should should be enough for revision.

Now, maybe I'm wrong, since I haven't played Musketeer yet. Maybe missing +1 range isn't so much the problem that I think it is. From a logcal point of view, however, +1 range is, as I would think, the most important part of a piece's power, for this is where the bulk of the material points of any piece is located. As taught by material-point analyst HGMuller, anything beyond the +2 or +3 range is materially depreciated; the farther the destination square is in range, the less valuable it is.

Now, I know you're not the inventor. But, you did say that you will pass this note of feedback to musketeerchess. This is all just my casual critique, but thanks all the same.