Waterloo

White resigns

 

Good game. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to play it. This is an awesome variant.

Good Luck!

Ivan, I do want to offer a piece of advice; and, you can absorb it or throw it in the trash can, as you desire.

I think that there are too many Guards in the game: there are 4 of them and only two Marshalls and two cardinals, both of which are less powerful than the Guard by at least a slight. 

I'm about to share my material point analysis with you. If you don't want to spend time reading it, you may skip the blue section

(HGMuller might be able to provide a much more accurate analysis, but based on some of what I have learn from him, here is my understanding of their powers.)

The Guard may be worth around 8.5 material points. Consider that the Advisor, which is the FIDE Queen piece, is worth about 11.5 or 12 points. (The FIDE Queen's power is increased when we expand the dimension of the board from 8x8 to 10x10; whereas she was worth 9 points on 8x8 board, she is now worth about 12 points on 12x12. This is the same for Rook and Bishop: Rook, on 10x10, is worth ~6.5 points and Bishop is worth ~4 points.) More than half the Advisor's power is found within the first 2 squares of its range, as it also is with the Bishop and Rook. Being able to control 2 squares in all 8 directions is, itself, worth ~6.5 points; which is as powerful as the Waterloo Rook.  This 2-range is exactly that of the Guard's. And then, the Guard can leap to its destination, regardless of what piece might obstruct its path. This is a powerful weapon when combined with all-directional sliding power. Another ~2 material points is added. That adds up to ~8.5 points.

The Cardinal (Archbishop) is worth ~7 points. 2.5(Knight)+4(Bishop) is 6.5 points. We and another ~1/2 point for leaping power allowing long diagonal to get around more effectively; and for allowing Cardinal to leave the square color it starts on, which is still a restriction for the Waterloo Bishop. Total is ~7 points.

The Marshall (Chancellor) is worth slightly more at ~7.5 points.

Basically, we have four Guard pieces that are more in quantity and more in power than the Marhsall and Cardinal. This doesn't make much sense, since having these extra Guards render the existence of the Cardinals and Marhsalls half-pointless. It's understandable why there are 4 Knights (because the Knights are much smaller in power, being the only minor piece (besides the Spy) in Waterloo Chess) but not 4 Gaurds.

I was thinking that maybe having two Guards at the center of its rank, while re-arranging the Knights and Bishops to the side, might work better. Or, perhaps replace the inner two Guards with two Bishops. That way, the 2nd rank would read as the following:

"G, B, B, N, N, N, N, B, B, G."

Again, this is just my suggestion. You may or may not agree with me. This is completely up to you.

My suggestions in diagram:

 

#1: G, B, B, N, N, N, N, B, B, G

 

#2: S, S, N, B, G, G, B, N, S, S

 

Again, I respect your decision to take it or leave it. 

Aside from (what I see is) this small issue with too many Guards, this really is a great variant; I may even like it better than my own. =)

A new chess variant is primarily the art of composition, in which everything is decided by the harmonious arrangement and interaction of all pieces. The idea is not mine, but the unforgettable Robert Fisher and his predecessors. So any bargain is inappropriate in chess. But if things go by the wrong way of rationing power of pieces, I do not give Guard more than 3.5 units. Bishop is the long ranged piece but guard is the melee piece, so the Guards should be more then Bishops. Of course I like my variant better, but I don't mind if you play here with someone your variant. Let chess fans without us decide which variant is best. It's more objective.

Ivan, I had the impression that Waterloo is a variant invented by you; not by a Grandmaster. Had I known otherwise, I wouldn't have suggested castling and piece re-configuration.

Did Grandmaster Fischer call it Waterloo? Because I google-searched, and nothing of this variant came up. And then, when I searched it by its Chinese name (which you called it on your blogspot website), "百田棋", only the images from the blogspot website came up and nothing else.

 

As far as the Guard is concerned, the Guard is WAY more than 3.5 points! I would absolutely know this, because I invented a piece that takes on 2/3's the power of the Guard (My piece can only leap two squares in all directions to capture! Otherwise, if no capture happens, it can move 2 squares diagonally only.), and on 8x8 board, it is worth 5.5 points; ~5.25 points on a 10x10 board. I did not make this up, as the piece was mathematically calculated by a fine material point analyst right here on chess.com. (His screen name is HGMuller.)

So, if my Magician piece is worth ~5.25 points, the Guard has to be worth more than that.

Even if the Waterloo Bishop (4 points) is long ranged, he can still never leave the color squares that he starts on, causing him to become vulnerable. The Guard, on the other hand, can move not only in all directions like the Queen,  he can also leap; giving him 2 to 3 times the advantage that the Bishop has; even if the Guard is short-ranged, many of his abilities that the Bishop doesn't have (leaping, all directions) are far more potent than the lost of long ranged.

One may easily think that, because the Bishop can move far, he is more powerful. However, as I too have learned, range is hardly the whole picture. I think HGMuller might agree with me. lol

Yes! Waterloo is a 10x10 chess variant invented by me. But you didn't understand my English. I'm sorry.

I mis-understood you. I thought you said that Waterloo was invented by Grandmaster Fischer.

 

However, my point still stands. The Guard is worth much more than 3.5 points, according to the point analysis conducted by HGMuller; who uses a computer software to calculate power of chess moves. I could be wrong that it is worth ~8.5 points, but it is definitely worth more than 5.5 points.

You talked about harmonious configuration of pieces, and I agree with you.What I don't agree with is that there should be 4  Guards, since you're not using 4 Bishops. (As mentioned before, the Bishop is worth less than the Guard; again, HGMuller will confirm this!).

You with your friends have right to say any cybernetical nonsense and so make me laugh because all your algorithmic soft for the machine of J.N. is stuff!

Ivan, HGMuller's analysis is based on a mathetical formula that has been used to calculate the powers of the pawn, Bishop, Rook, Knight and Queen in regular FIDE chess. I personally wouldn't call it nonsense, because this is exactly how it was figured that the Queen is worth 9 points and that the Rook is worth 5 points and so on.

It's not something we "have a right to". It's what needs to be known when we invent new chess pieces. You mentioned GM Fischer's sentiment on Variant invention being the "art of composition". I think in order to aid with that composition, you would need to more accurately understand how powerful your pieces actually are.

When I invented the Magician, I too thought that she was worth no more than 3.5 points (and her powers were slightly weaker than the Guard's here!). I wasn't readily moved to learn from HGMuller that she was actually worth more than the Rook's power. Unfortunately for me back then, his analysis made a lot of sense. There is a LOT of power in the ability to leap to capture; a power which is also owned by the Guard. 

Computer programs to help determine material points aren't always 100% accurate, granted, but it usually gives a very good idea of where pieces stand in terms of power.

Anyways, I've encouraged HGMuller to come back to this thread to, if he chooses, do a material-point analysis on the pieces. Again, you can take it or leave it. (I assume, at this point, that you are leaving it, and that is fine. Still, I would like to know myself how powerful these pieces are on a 10x10 board).

Waterloo is great as it is; with or without this minor revision. And, I've enjoy our first game on it together. 

added - I do plan on hopefully playing another game in the future. I just need to know if you want to keep the old board or make revisions to it.

I do not respect FIDE due to the sabotage of the chess progress. I do not understand what kind of an algebraic assessment can be discussed in the pure logical problem.

"I do not respect FIDE due to the sabotage of the chess progress "

Actually, you are not alone in your attitude for FIDE. (Ace569er has an even stronger disdain for FIDE than you do!)

I suppose we aren't going to agree as to the productiveness/efficiency of the type of point analysis that HGMuller conducts. I'm also guessing that, from this, Waterloo will simply stay as it is. Again, this is fine. It was my 2 cents. 

Anyways, I look forward to another possible game in the future! =)

O.K. I hope for your support.

 

The history of one chess invention.

You tell me of the FIDE. The irony of Fate! The 10x10 chess Waterloo is unique in its kind of Underground, because it has been invented really underground in the computer gaming club Sumsung in Metrograd under constant pressure from various political and mafia clans.To my deep regret this club was brutally crushed by the police, and I got a heart attack and survived only thanks to Hinduism. Now this is a story of far bygone days.

3/8/16: Game is adjourned, due to MasterMatthew52's inactivity for more than several weeks.

Game can be resuming anytime, once he/she makes his/her move.

 

 

 

I guess I'm on White again. ^-^

 

Game: Waterloo (chess variant)

date: 1/16/16, 9:56pm PST

location: chess.com, forum correspondence

White: BattleChessGN18, Black: MasterMatthew52

Game type: untimed; forum correspondence 

 

1.Ng2h4            1...

2.                    2...

3.                    3...

4.                    4...

5.                    5...

 

2D diagram of White's (BattleChessGN18's) view: click here

Render of White's (BattleChessGN18's) view: click here 

A reminder of the new pieces' powers: click here      click here for the updated version

Legend of 3d rendered pieces: click here

A slight inaccuracy in the rules for the promoted pawn: Spy - only 8th row, Knight, Guard, Bishop - only 9th row. This is uncritical but traditions is traditions.

http://chess-checkers-go.blogspot.com/2015/12/waterloo-3rd-edition.html

Do you mean that pawns cannot promote to Spy on 9th or 10th rank? Only on 8th rank?

Yes! And the Pawn promotion isn't necessary.

I should clarify that it is optional. (I thought that the language, "has the power to" implies that it is optional, but I'm sure that without saying "optional", it would be a bit more confusing. lol)

Now that we clarified 8th and 9th row,

On the 10th row, promotion is mandatory, right? And, all pieces except King is an option for promotion, including Spy, right? Or wrong?

My English isn't perfect.

I follow Emanuel Lasker. On the 10th row: only Queen, Adviser, Marshall, Cardinal, Rook.