News about future projects of Musketeer Chess

Hi

Some pictures of the next figural pieces (Dragon & Griffin). Still in development and polished.

Have you ideas of how you would like these new pieces to move?

In the next hours i will update my forum with many informations concerning novelties and future plans. 

Hi Zied,

 I have become an enthusiastic fan of your Muskeeter Chess and already own three sets and am in the process of completing my collection with the remaining two. I am also interested in chess variants in general. In fact I originally got the Fortress&Unicorn kit simply because I needed a unicorn figure for a chess variant of my own I was working on, but as I began to study more about fairy chess pieces I became interested in muskeeter chess itself. 

 I was very interested when I found this forum post and discovered that there might be more sets in the near future. The new figures are looking pretty cool. Griffin's also happen to be among my favorite mythological beasts. I am a little confused about the dragon, considering that you already called the Queen + Knight compound the dragon in Muskeeter Chess. Your post seems to indicate that this is a new piece however. In any case you asked for suggested moves and I thought this would be a great opportunity to get to contribute, even if only in a small way, to something I have become a fan of.

The first thing that came to mind is to simply give the griffin it's traditional move as defined in grand acedrix. In grand acedrix, the griffin first moves one space diagonally, and then can choose to go in one of the two orthogonal directions that formed the diagonal. Here is a diagram using your board painter tool:

*by the way, this board painter tool is actually pretty cool

 In this form the piece has a value very close to that of a cannon, according to computer calculations I made regarding average mobility across a wide variety of board conditions. With the original muskeeter pieces there is a lack of orthogonal movement. Only two pieces possess it, the chancellor and the series 1 dragon, and that's mainly because they are pieces that predate muskeeter chess. The grand acedrix griffin can easily attack all the traditional chess pieces from a safe square, and can even attack any other muskeeter piece safely as well. Thing is, muskeeter chess doesn't always follow the historical movements of pieces. The unicorn in muskeeter chess moves the same as the "gnu" in the usual fairy chess nomenclature. Meanwhile the unicorn in grand acedrix moves in a completely different way, making a knight move first, followed by a diagonal sweep outwards. What are your thoughts on the traditional fairy chess nomenclature?

If such a movement is not suitable for muskeeter chess this raises the question, just what kinds of moves are suitable? What are the parameters that define a good muskeeter piece? Based on the existing ten pieces some things can be gleaned. For one it's clear that these pieces are mainly designed to be valuable enough to be an interesting addition to the game of chess, but not so over powered that they become the only strategic consideration. Towards that end, it seems that the pieces are deliberately designed to fall between a rook and queen in value. This seems like a good idea anyway since there is a huge gap in power between these pieces. The only exception to this rule is the series 1 dragon which appears to be about 3 pawns past a queen in value and is by far the strongest muskeeter chess piece (the second being the chancellor, the third, perhaps surprisingly being the spider). The second principle seems to be the avoidance, for the most part, of pieces with unlimited range. Again, only three pieces have this ability (archbishop,chancellor,s1 dragon), and they all predate muskeeter chess. When "sweeps" are allowed they are limited to two or three squares. "Leap-squares" which we're once the exclusive purview of the knight, now become very common in muskeeter chess, perhaps owing to the turning away from "sweeper" pieces. Leap-squares however are very powerful however, especially in the middle game, because they can not be blocked, and therefore should be used sparingly. As a result many of the muskeeter pieces earn alot of power simply from their leap-squares. The spider is the strongest simply because it has the most leap-squares, a total of 12 (20 if you count the middle 8 squares). Another noticible pattern is that pieces typically have a maximum number of squares of either 16 or 20, the only exceptions again being the archbishop,chancellor, and s1 dragon. Lastly, the moves are always symmetrical. Specifically they have radial symmetry and 4-fold mirror symmetry.

 With this in mind, and a general design goal of trying to create pieces that can safely oppose each other at least from one key position, I have designed a very unique move for the griffin and dragon. There are two ways to create a safe attack. One is for piece to control a square the other doesn't. The problem is that another unwritten design principle is that the 16 or 20 squares are all relatively close to the starting square. Specifically, every piece can fall within the "third perimeter", except for the unlimited sweepers. This means however, that there is a lot of sharing of squares. If both pieces share the same square and it's a leap-square, then there is no way to avoid mutual threat on that square. However two pieces can share the same square and still not be in mutual threat, provided they get there by different paths. So for example, the spider can attack the s1 dragon safely, provided there is a piece between them.

So without further ado, here is my proposal for the griffin. The griffin can move one space diagonally followed by a knight move provided this lands on the third perimeter, or it leaps two spaces orthogonally. Here is a diagram:

 Some points of interest:

 The griffin here covers exactly 20 squares. It covers all of the opposite colored squares on the third perimeter. It's an example of a new style of piece I call a "double-leaper". The double-leap reduces the amount of mobility slightly to better balance the piece. It lands on the "zebra-squares" on the third perimeter which no existing muskeeter piece lands on. From this vantage point it can attack any other piece. However it is vulnerable from orthogonal, diagonal and knight moves. The griffin here as an estimated value above the leopard and just a tiny fraction of a point below the fortress. It is basically a glorified knight. There is a checkmate position with a lone griffin but it's not known if it's a forced win against a lone king. It retains a feature of the original griffin that it's return path is different than it's initial path. This means that the griffin above is the only example of a symmetric piece so far that can actually attack itself safely. See for example:

Here with white to move, the black griffin is threating the white griffin, but the pawn is in the way of the white griffins attack path.

 I play tested one game with the griffin and unicorn. The griffin proved to be a strong piece in the middle game, but was a little more difficult to visualize due to it's many unorthodox features. It did however make for an interesting game and the discovery of an interesting checkmate position, illustrated below:

Early on, the black griffin was able to win a rook with it's unusual move but then was trapped. Meanwhile the black b pawn was able to advance until the first position was reached. At this point the king is in serious danger. The black pawn at b2 is blocking the griffin, but when it promotes at b1 it's unblocked. If 1.Nxa1 then bxa1=Q. Naively I thought I'd do 1.Ud2 to try and take the Queen and still have the option of taking the griffin. However when replying with b1=Q this now becomes checkmate! Even though both pieces are under threat, only one can be taken and therefore there is no way out of checkmate. In retrospect Ud2 actually blocked the king in, but it's still an interesting checkmate combination.

 For the dragon I came up with the idea of inverting the griffin move. It moves like a knight followed by a diagonal move into the third perimeter. Here is a diagram:

This s2 dragon covers 20 squares. It covers the same squares in the third perimeter. Due to the fact that it's an inverse of the griffin, only two things are possible on these squares. Either the s2 dragon and s2 griffin are in mutual threat, or they are mutually blocked. Just like the griffin the s2 dragon can safely attack itself with the correct intervening piece.

So what do you think?

I also have some designs for other pieces if you're interested. I think ultimately the important thing in expanding muskeeter chess is that the pieces properly complement each other and create opportunities for one player to gain the high ground. I have not done a thorough analysis comparing all these pieces against each other, and I haven't constructed them in a systematic way, but that is probably the most important thing going forward.

Sincerely,

-- Finitus

Update:

Hi again Zied,

I'm currently working on a muskeeter chess fan site that will address the more mathematical and theoretical aspects of the game, and game design, that I don't see being discussed anywhere else. It will actually only be a part of a larger "fairy chess" site, which itself will only be a part of my hub site on recreational mathematics.

If your interested I can send you a link and you can give me useful feedback. I'd like to know a few things about the "Modern Chess Variants" product line. Firstly, when was it first released? Secondly, were all 5 sets available immediately or did they come out in succession? If they were released at different times, in what order were they released and what were there release dates?

All I have been able to gather from the internet and the packaging itself is that it was copyrighted in 2015, which makes it very modern indeed.

Thanks in Advance,

Sincerely,

--Finitus

Hello,

I am a fan of your pieces and personally own several sets including 2 elephant and hawk sets and a chancelor and archbishop set which I purchased before I had heard about musketeer chess. I'm very excited about the other pieces I have seem and plan on purchasing them soon. I really love the dragon and Griffin you have posted here. I would love to purchase both. Will they be going into production anytime soon? Thanks.

Hey zied,

I was wondering of you are still planning on releasing these pieces as I would very much like to purchase them.

About piece values: Hawk + King (KADGH in Betza notation) would indeed be far stronger than Queen. It is a piece with 24 unblockable moves. The only short-range (i.e. up to 2nd 'perimeter') leaper with so many squares can leap to any square in the surrounding 5x5 area, and turned out to be about 1.5 Pawn stronger than Queen. The fact that KADGH also hits squares in the 3rd perimiter probably makes it even stronger.

One can also compare it with a range-3 Queen that can directly leap to the 2nd square (but must slide to the 3rd), Betza Q3AD; this piece turned out to be exactly equal to Queen in opening value. The Hawk+King in comparison leaps directly to the 3rd perimeter, which should be far better than a slide that can be blocked on 2 intermediate squares. The 8 squares that can be reached through such slides are probably worth only as much as 2-3 direct leaps. (On a 50% filled board there would only be a 25% probability of not being blocked.)

IIRC the Grant Acedrex Griffon was worth 870 cP on 8x8 (when Q=950 cP).

The proposed Griffin is almost upward-compatible with the Half Duck (Betza HFD) of Chess with Different Armies. (Except that the most distant moves can be blocked, which is usually no longer relevant when you are trying to checkmate a bare King.) This piece is known to have mating potential.

board painter does not working.

Well, the ultimate method will always be the empirical one:  observing how pieces of unkown value perform against pieces of well-known value in games. The main problem is that this takes a very large number of games. Even when this is done most efficiently, by ensuring that the imbalance under study is present in all games by starting them from an (otherwise symmetric) position with this material imbalance, it can take thousands of games. The advantage of a full Pawn is good for somewhere near 15-20% extra score between equal players (depending a bit on the level of play). So to determine the value up to 1/10 of a Pawn you would have to measure result differences to an accuracy of 1.5-2%. And it requires 400-625 games to get the random statistical noise below that level. With fewer games you would not measure how strong they are, but how lucky the player having them has been.

It would be nice if there was a simple method (say based on move counting, and somehow (weighted)  averaging that over the board). For fully symmetric short-range leapers the formula 33*N+0.7*N*N (centi-Pawn) appears to do reasonably well, although it is blind to the subtle difference between pieces with the same number of moves in a different pattern. For sliders I was never able to find a satisfactory formula, e.g. one that would get a correct value for the Archbishop.

It also is a problem that giving pieces some fixed value that can be totalled to get the strength of the army is in itself just an approximation, and that the precise value of a piece depends on what environment it operates in. E.g. on how the Pawns move. Or the royal piece. Or simply on what other pieces are present.

You are right about the leaping moves, at least for leaps to the second square. Sliding moves get progressively less important as their distance grows, as they have a progressively larger chance to be blocked. So for far leaps the factor must be even larger. A 'Modern Elephant', which steps 1 or jumps 2 diagonally, is already worth as much as an orthodox Bishop on 8x8. But a direct leap to a square where you could also go with a slide must always be worth less than a leap to an entirely new square.

But the point I tried to make was that in the late end-game, when it gets to checkmating a bare King, the difference between sliding and leaping almost entirely has evaporated. There is just nothing left to block the sliding moves. This makes the dependence of the value on game phase of pieces with distant leaps different from that of sliders. Even though the opening value of a range-3 Queen that can jump to the 2nd square (Betza Q3AD) is exactly equal to that of an orthodox Queen, the balance will tip in favor of the latter as the board empties. Because the benefit of being able to jump evaporates, while the distant slides become more often possible.

Quite nice. If not the 20 will be available simultaneously (+ i see no tiger, hippo), there will be priorities. These protoypes confirm confusion between existing musketeer pieces (archbishop, falcon, elephant, leopard, knight) and some of those here (cardinal?, buzzard, mastodon?, lioness, donkey?) and also between wolf and dog. There are 11 (from the 20) that I would select if I were u.

I don't know any jungle game with lioness. I know jungle game, dou should qi, with elephant-lion-tiger-leopard-wolf-dog-cat-rat. Don't take my opinion as critics, is always good and advisable to collect opinions. It is nice to have a lot of choice. But too similar pieces are of no use for a real game, players need to see a clear difference and not be confused. Of course you do as you want, is not my money. I suggest to also design a giraffe often found in medieval oriental  variants, also Giraffe chess gaining success in India today.

I see. 

There is one African Animal Chess set on the web, I can't put the link here. They have a Panther  for the Queen. Panther=Leopard. You have it already!

It is wonderful that it is actually possible to purchase pieces for Sharper Chess and for Capablanca Chess thanks to your efforts - in addition to Musketeer Chess itself. As this is a somewhat older thread, and as House of Staunton seems now to be selling your product at clearance prices, I hope nothing untoward has happened. (EDIT: I have now visited the Musketeer Chess web site, and I see that the pieces will be sold from there in future instead of through House of Staunton and Amazon. I hope this does not reduce their visibility.)

The traditional move for Grande Acedrex is fine for the Griffin; one possibility for the Dragon might be this: a multi-step move where each step involves a course-change of 45 degrees from the previous one. Such a piece moves in a circle, or an octagon - the first step can be either orthogonal or diagonal, and the piece can self-unpin.

But what I would personally like to see doesn't really fit in the pattern of the sets you are making, each with one each of two different pieces for both White and Black. After Capablanca Chess, the next thing I'd like to see available is Courier Chess - someone was making sets of pieces for it for a while, but that ceased.

I see, too, that this is an old thread, and the new pieces are not in the future, any more; they've arrived. Also, the suggestion I made of a piece that moved around in circles - when I invented that piece, I called it a Rhinoceros, and I see that one of your new pieces has that name. But it's too late to suggest moves now, as they're all already here.

Hi

Your idea is nice.

Please submit it here using board painter for the diagram and the rhinoceros as a model.

Also the rules are just suggestions. The most important is to use the pieces and create your own game. The idea behind musketeer chess is far more important than the piece rules themselves (apart from some of the series1 pieces). The most important idea is the introduction of 2 pieces (that could be Classic pieces) and the way these pieces are introduced during the game, so your rules are interesting and could be used. The diversity in terms of possible rules for the pieces is important to keep the game interesting and refreshing.

I have already drawn a diagram of its move,  using conventional paint tools, and for now I can give you that:

This diagram shows how a single Rhinoceros move works, it can also work in the opposite direction, starting with an orthogonal move. Here is a second diagram, showing all the possible squares that can be reached on an empty board.

I hope this will be sufficient.

However, I have now tried Board Painter, with its assistance, I was able to do this:

It shows one single possibility for the move of the Rhinoceros. This is my second try, after having reviewed the instructions for using it, so I was able to specify a reduced size, and save the image properly.

I was hesitant to use arrows, as I couldn't find what the conventions were for the meaning of an arrow in an illustration of the move of a piece, but now I have made two more diagrams. The first,

shows the two possible Rhinoceros moves beginning with one particular diagonal step, forwards and to the right. For the second step, there are two choices, and then the remainder of the moves are strictly determined, to continue in a circular path.

Then the next diagram

shows the two possible Rhinoceros moves beginning with a particular orthogonal step, this time a move one space backwards. The second step may be diagonally backwards to the right or the left, and then all remaining steps are strictly determined.

A move may be from one to seven steps - I should actually have omitted the final arrow in each case, since I believe the rules should forbid the piece from moving in a full circle back to its starting square.

Interesting idea