England can't be the sole empire, because in the chess there are two.
Waterloo
Sort:
Jan 17, 2016
0
#143
Oh, there are more than two!
We have:
FIDE Chess
Xiangqi
Shogi
Makruk (Thai chess)
Jianggi/Chianggi (Korean Chess)
Cambodian Chess, which specific name escapes me at the moment
Chaturanga, the one that started it all
=)
When I say two , I mean two opponents: blacks and whites.
The chess variants are only dialects of one chess Idea.
Jan 17, 2016
0
#145
Ah, I see. Well, either way, you make a fine point when you say that English doesn't and shouldn't have a monopoly. ^-^
Jan 17, 2016
0
#146
Instructions on new pieces are updated with clarification and correction.
I have not measured piece values on precisely this board (10x10), but I don't expect them to be very different from those on a 10x8 board like in Capablanca/Gothic Chess, as the Pawns start on 3rd rank, and there is only an extra rank in the back where you normally would not want to be or go anyway.
Piece values on 10x8 are:
Pawn 1.0
Knight 3.0
Bishop: 3.5 (first) or 4.0 (second)
Rook 5.0
Guard 7.5
Cardinal (BN) 8.75
Marshall (RN) 9.0
Queen 9.5
Amazon (QN) 12.5
Jan 17, 2016
0
#148
Thank you, Muller. I knew I could count on you to provide some reasonable analysis for these pieces.
On the other hand, I think any slightness and nuance between 10x10 and 10x8 does matter. We are, after all, adding two extra ranks, and 16 more squares are included in consideration; not to mention that the center of board is shifted. I've noted that Knights take longer to traverse the board. Also, Advisors, Bishops, and Rooks are granted advantage on a 10x10 because they can now "stretch their hands out" longitudinally; whereas the 8x10 seem to restrict the Bishop to be no better than on an 8x8.
Now as far as the Guard goes, perhaps I over-estimated the piece. If on a 10x8 you think it's worth only 7.5, it would then make sense to me to be worth no more than 7 or 6.5 points on 10x10. (Albeit, it's still much strong than 3.5 points). In either case, I thought it was slightly more powerful than the Archbishop, but perhaps I got it flipped.
The idea is that extra board ranks, where you would never need or want to go, hardly affect things. For most of the game the battle is waged between the Pawn ranks, and the pieces would never get to exercise the moves that bring them 8 or 9 ranks forward.
Note that distant moves contribute very little to slider value; For a diagonal mover on 8x8 all moves with range 3 or more are worth only as much as the power to jump directly to the second square, rather than the access to it being blockable on the first square. The maximum number of captures of a piece (and especially forward captures) is more important for the value than the maximum number of total moves. Bishops might seem to have many more moves than Knights, and get even more so on bigger boards, but on any size board the have at most 4 captures, (2 of those forward), while a Knight can have 8 captures (4 forward). Wider boards benefits a Bishop by making it more likely that both its forward slides hit the enemy lines, rather than the board edge. Deeper boards don't have that effect (or even the opposite). Deeper boards actually benefit a Knight, because it gets a better opportunity to catch passers before they promote. (In other words, the Pawns suffer more than the Knight from the extra ranks, and piece values are mostly determined by how efficiently a piece supports or combats Pawns.)
William Shakespeare
Richard III
ACT V Another part of the field.
SCENE IV
[ Alarum: excursions. Enter NORFOLK and forces fighting; to him CATESBY ]
CATESBY Rescue, my Lord of Norfolk, rescue, rescue!
The king enacts more wonders than a man,
Daring an opposite to every danger:
His horse is slain, and all on foot he fights,
Seeking for Richmond in the throat of death.
Rescue, fair lord, or else the day is lost!
Alarum. Enter KING RICHARD III
KING RICHARD III A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!
CATESBY Withdraw, my lord; I'll help you to a horse.
KING RICHARD III Slave, I have set my life upon a cast,
And I will stand the hazard of the die:
I think there be six Richmonds in the field;
Five have I slain to-day, instead of him.
A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!
Mar 8, 2016
0
#151
I wonder what happened to MasterMatthew. He still has yet to make his move...
Dear friends! I hasten to please you. Now you can play the chess set Waterloo in a 3D format on two conventional chessboards. In addition, pairs may also play it. Who wants to play?
That's a simple transformation 2D chess to 3D chess. There are nothing new.
Mar 13, 2016
0
#155
"2D" is an abbreviation of "2nd dimensional"; likewise, "3D" is an abbreviation of "3rd dimensional". It doesn't have anything to do with updated version.
I think what you mean is "v2" (as 'transformed' from "v1"); since both of these boards are in 2D, not 3D.
Regardless, your new board looks cool. BUT, I have to say, I still enjoyed the first version very much.
"Three-dimensional chess (or 3D chess) refers to any of various chess variants that use multiple boards at different levels, allowing the chess pieces to move in three physical dimensions. " (from Wikipedia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_chess
Mar 13, 2016
0
#157
Oh, that kind of 3d chess is what this is. Well, my apologies.
That is an interesting kind of Upgrade. Do we use the original Waterloo game as the base level? Or, is that version completely excluded from this version?
Waterloo shouldn't to be understood better as a game but as a standard set of 80 pieces, like a deck of (20+20+20+20) cards. You can play a variety of games (solitaires) on the boards 8x8x2, 10x10, or classical 8x8 as a subset.
Mar 14, 2016
0
#159
I think I understand: you mean that the umbrella name "Waterloo" is a series of chess variant games that involve the new pieces: Advisor, Waterloo Queen, Marshalls, Cardinals, Guards and Spies?
Yes! This is already the history of the world of chess and cards. And I was lucky enough to affect it slightly. Therefore, I would like to consolidate the status quo for this standard set Waterloo with complete freedom in the choice of variants of the game.
By the way , look at the last 4th edition planar Waterloo:
http://chess-checkers-go.blogspot.com/2016/01/waterloo-4th-edition.html
Huh. This is interesting. I suppose that, because we didn't get to promotional stage in our game (because I resigned early), I didn't yet have to think about the fine subleties in the rules.
I should update my instructional tutorial sometime today and inform all people of whom I PM-invited to a match. (Including MasterMatthew52, who is currently playing me on Black.)
By the way, your English is good enough for us to understand. As I stated in an earlier page, no one made English THE required language of the World; imperialism has merely pompously made it the dominant one.