(no subject)
Nov. 15th, 2007 01:55 pmI was flicking through, on top of the pile of books to give away, a Gor book. Amongst many other peccadillos it describes a chess variant. My original thought had been that it was so stupid, obviously chess with a few ill-thought out extra rules tacked on that are totally incompatible. Okay, that's still what I think, but having experimented with penultima, I'm going to admit it's *possible*.
The key characteristics described:
* A slightly larger board and slightly larger number of pieces
Perfectly reasonable. Unnecessary, in my opinion, to make it more impressive, more complicated interactions would sound better, it's not like chess is "solved", but perfectly reasonable.
* The king-equivalent piece, and some others, are placed on the board within the first n moves.
* Weaker opponents playing experts often claim advantages, eg. handicapping the expert by several pieces.
Yes, that works. It's a lot harder to calibrate than in go, where it works well: missing a queen is a decisive disadvantage. On the other hand, good players can certainly beat me starting from behind. I suspect most of the time one or other would still have a notable advantage in the game. But it's possible.
* In the game described, the expert appears to be losing, makes three random moves, which ultimately reveal a "check", allowing a minor piece to take the king-equivalent piece on the last move, one move before the other player would have won.
That's a reasonable description of an expert winning against a weaker player in an apparently strong position. It didn't ring true to me, though. At first, I missed what they were describing. But even after, I know how easy it is to fall into fool's mate or similar, but with more of the pieces clear of the board, and examining the meaning of an apparently bizarre move, you think you could easily examine every piece.
My current rationale is that the pieces interact in some way, so that the minor piece was unusually strong (a vague description along these lines was made, but not clear if it meant only used in conjunction with, or it actually altered how the piece can move), eg. its move depends on the configuration of others, so the weaker player forgot that it might be able to move like that.
I don't think that was in the mind of the author, but it's consistent.
* A weaker player is often given an advantage, to move thrice in succession once in the game.
This just sounded mad. The king-equivalent piece was described as "captured", not "check-mated", so in most positions, this would be an instant win! How is that not completely unbalanced?
I really don't think this was thought through. On the other hand, it's not impossible. In go, for instance, it would be similar to starting with several pieces on the board, or the expert player conceding several areas of the board at once, both of which are negatives, but completely recoverable.
My rationale is that something like check-mate applies even if it's described, eg. pieces prevent other pieces from moving near them, or similar, so protection applies even when it's not your turn, or that check-mate applies to the king. Then, it might just be possible to guard even intermediate points, so the weaker player can't bring in the pieces necessary for even a fool's mate. But I still don't think it was a good idea.
* A naturally gifted player can beat a good player on their second ever game.
I just don't believe it. However gifted, whatever you've heard, it surely takes longer than that to learn the moves of the pieces?
The key characteristics described:
* A slightly larger board and slightly larger number of pieces
Perfectly reasonable. Unnecessary, in my opinion, to make it more impressive, more complicated interactions would sound better, it's not like chess is "solved", but perfectly reasonable.
* The king-equivalent piece, and some others, are placed on the board within the first n moves.
* Weaker opponents playing experts often claim advantages, eg. handicapping the expert by several pieces.
Yes, that works. It's a lot harder to calibrate than in go, where it works well: missing a queen is a decisive disadvantage. On the other hand, good players can certainly beat me starting from behind. I suspect most of the time one or other would still have a notable advantage in the game. But it's possible.
* In the game described, the expert appears to be losing, makes three random moves, which ultimately reveal a "check", allowing a minor piece to take the king-equivalent piece on the last move, one move before the other player would have won.
That's a reasonable description of an expert winning against a weaker player in an apparently strong position. It didn't ring true to me, though. At first, I missed what they were describing. But even after, I know how easy it is to fall into fool's mate or similar, but with more of the pieces clear of the board, and examining the meaning of an apparently bizarre move, you think you could easily examine every piece.
My current rationale is that the pieces interact in some way, so that the minor piece was unusually strong (a vague description along these lines was made, but not clear if it meant only used in conjunction with, or it actually altered how the piece can move), eg. its move depends on the configuration of others, so the weaker player forgot that it might be able to move like that.
I don't think that was in the mind of the author, but it's consistent.
* A weaker player is often given an advantage, to move thrice in succession once in the game.
This just sounded mad. The king-equivalent piece was described as "captured", not "check-mated", so in most positions, this would be an instant win! How is that not completely unbalanced?
I really don't think this was thought through. On the other hand, it's not impossible. In go, for instance, it would be similar to starting with several pieces on the board, or the expert player conceding several areas of the board at once, both of which are negatives, but completely recoverable.
My rationale is that something like check-mate applies even if it's described, eg. pieces prevent other pieces from moving near them, or similar, so protection applies even when it's not your turn, or that check-mate applies to the king. Then, it might just be possible to guard even intermediate points, so the weaker player can't bring in the pieces necessary for even a fool's mate. But I still don't think it was a good idea.
* A naturally gifted player can beat a good player on their second ever game.
I just don't believe it. However gifted, whatever you've heard, it surely takes longer than that to learn the moves of the pieces?