For posting:
- invitations to games (you can also use the New Game menu)
- information about upcoming tournaments
- discussion of games (please limit this to completed games or discussion on how a game has arrived at a certain position ... speculation on who has an advantage or the benefits of potential moves is not permitted)
- links to interesting related sites (non-promotional)
dicepro: Look at go rules. For illustration white would start with 8 points, black with 0, exact value would be either calculated somehow from game evaluation or just determined from experience, with black/white wins ratio closing to 1 as a target.
O čem je toďten plk: Random Cheversi first move ...
Should the initial number of points, even before the first move, be displayed and taken into overall count, or not ? Who should move first, just White like in any other chess variants, or maybe, the one who has MOST points, to offset the last opponent's move ? Or maybe just a player who has less points before the game starts ? The depth of Random Cheversi is completely unknown and we cannot judge which color has a real advantage ... the one (White which attacks) or Black (which has the last move) . Or maybe we should add 16 more moves (8 each) and let the players put their pieces one by one on the board and then start moving them (one by one again) and collect points ? I am in a the eye of brain storming ... waiting for your opinions. Andy.
this number is so great that there is not possible to even touch the "debiut theory" ... colorful game, never the same (compare to any other board game). Thanks Abigaill.
dicepro: can you calculate how many different placemet of 16 pieces can be on a board with 64 squares
That's fairly trivial. Not counting rotations and reflections of the board, the number is (6462605856545250*49) / (2^6) which equals 159708538424128885551360000. (You might want to turn of the stupid smileys).
when I started to think about improving Cheversi I cannot stop, lol ... one thing is for sure with random placement of the pieces ... someone will have an advantage from the very beginning ... does this advantage really mean much ? Look at Ludo for example ... the other thing is, that with random placement White (starting color) has usual advantage as a first player (leader) like in Five in a row, or Reversi ... but Black has the last move which balances this advantage by White ... To play well random placement Cheversi is a real art and I think that computer power should be emplyed in order to solve this game ... by the way, can you calculate how many different placemet of 16 pieces can be on a board with 64 squares ... ? This is how many starting positions we may have. In our lifetimes we will never encounter the same position. And this makes Random Cheversi an exciting game. and that's it for now. Andy.
here is another idea ... let the program randomly put all the pieces on the board. Players then move their pieces, one by one, and the piece that just moved becomes "dead" for the rest of the game. After each move a score for a player is updated. The number of possible moves and responses is astronomical ... the one advantage I can see now by using this version is as follow: as a White I can choose such a move that Black player wouldn't be able to block my paths and I can gain advantage righ away, which is impossible with the current version simply because a Black player is able to block my long shot wit any "weak" piece ... by having pieces randomly on the board I can manouver much more freely ... I think we should give it a try. What do you think ? Andy.
how about changing the whole philosophy of the game, reverse the goal and state that the winner is one who has the least points after the last move ? Regards, Andy.
O čem je toďten plk: Re: Black's advantage at Cheversi
joshi tm: I think what AbigailII was meaning, and I some-what agree - even if they were to make the worse first move they can think of - I would still want to be the one with the last move since 85% of the time you can win with that move - no matter how bad the start was.
I still like my idea of making each player play at the same time so there is no advantage for either player. (and if the 2 pick the same spot to play on, then they try again with that spot unavailable to choose on the next try)
O čem je toďten plk: Re: Black's advantage at Cheversi
joshi tm: Since the player in disadvantage has the swap option, the player in advantage should try to play those first two moves in balance, otherwise White will swap and probably win.
I'm not convinced by this argument. The advantage of black isn't in the first move, it's the fact that he has the last move. Swap rules work (although I won't say 'fine') for games where there's an advantage of having the first move. But in Cheversi, it's the advantage comes at the end.
there is some problem with this site right now. But it will be ok, this is a serious site. Yes, the last move may be very interesting and the second from the last also and so up the staires to the first move. How about adding another interesting feature to the above, original rules: move has to be with like figures. When started with a King, a King has to follow, after a Bishop, another Bishop has to follow ... Regards, Andy.
dicepro: I'm unable to get onto the chessvariants link you gave right now - but limiting the move to a privious played attacked space might be good - since which can just plan to put the king next to last to make sure the queen is put in a limited area.
As for MadMonkey's Dark Cheversi - the problem would still be black last move would be an advantage. But an idea that just came from that - make it so both players move at the same time.
That is both players pick a spot on the board to place a piece at the same time. Then after both players choose, as long as they do not pick the same spot - then play the piece. If by chance the 2 players pick the same spot, have them replay that move - but don't allow anyone to play that spot for the next move.
In this way - there would not be a first & second player.
yes, it looks there is infinite number of different path to improve Cheversi ... but I am coming to a conclusion, that the original (published at chessvariants) version would work fine. White in the last move can force very limited numbers of ways for Black to respond ... this way the last black's move wouldn't have to be a killer one. What do you think about this. Andy.
dicepro: Remember when we had this conversation last year (i think lol)
I think Dice is the obvious change, but having another quick think (as i have to rush to a dart match lol), maybe some kind of Dark Cheversi, where neither player knows what opponents pieces have been placed until the game end. Once a piece is placed, that square becomes unavailable and only the player would know what piece is there. Once all pieces are placed. th final board and scores are revealed
it's interesting and kind of satisfying that the game of cheversi stirs so much brain power of our friends. My original idea was to play this game with all the pieces (including pawns) ... it could be really crowded and situation can change very rapidly. Now, look please at the original rules I posted to chessvariants page. The rules say that a piece can be put ONLY on a square attacked by the opponent in the last move. I suggested to Fencer to play variant no.3 where tyhe player is free to chose any square. Maybe the original version was the best idea I had ... in this way I can influence greatly the moves of my opponent, forcing him/her to some unwanted positions ... Now I can see that too much freedom is not freedom at all. Please read the original rule. http://www.chessvariants.com/crossover.dir/cheversi.html
There is something that I've been thinking about - but I would have to sit down and play around on the exact setup and such - but lets called it:
Choice Cheversi
The choice is that before the game starts, you decide which set of pieces you want to play with. (and you will not know your opponents set until after you start - or possible keep it hidden and learn 1 piece at a time as they play)
For example, let say there are 4 sets to choose from.
So it would be a game of power vs. quantity - you can choose a few powerful pieces - or a more less powerful pieces to help block the power play.
AGAIN - the above is just off the top of my head - I would have to sit down, try to figure out the "strength" of each piece in the game to come up with a good set of pieces. But as you can tell - if you have "power" pieces, you have less moves - and if you choose more bulk, you will have more moves - in which you can block the power pieces
how about using a dice ? this what, as I remember, Big Bad Wolf was suggesting long time ago ... 2-knight, 3-bishop, 4-rook, 5-queen, 6-king and 1-joker (any piece chosen) ... and like in Dice Chess, program would detect which piece is still available to play ... Or, this is something I was suggesting ... that maybe this game should be played on a 6x6 board ... making it more crowded and difficult to get the long shot in the last move ... What do you think ? Andy.
O čem je toďten plk: Re: Black's advantage at Cheversi
coan.net: Since the player in disadvantage has the swap option, the player in advantage should try to play those first two moves in balance, otherwise White will swap and probably win.
Extra pawn is also a good idea to make another game variant.
Those two new extra games could be submitted to Fencer. But the original version is still imbalanced, and these suggestions' rules are so different in comparison to the original, those are total different games.
O čem je toďten plk: Re: Black's advantage at Cheversi
dicepro: Well now would be a good time for any type of rule change.... since there are under 50 current games going on.
I don't know if Swap is good - seems like everyone would still try to be black. Maybe give white an extra piece, a "pawn" for their last move.
Anyway, if anyone can come up with a good rule to make the game more equal - this is the perfect time to get Fencer to change it since very few games are going on right now.
Cheversi is a quick, nice game, but there is a problem - even with the rules change in January, Black's odds are still too high to win. Any ideas to solve the problem?
Edit: I know something; Swap Cheversi: White plays his king in the extended center, then black places his queen anywhere, places another White and black piece on the board and White get the Swap option.
O čem je toďten plk: Re: (IYT) It's Your Turn's=> Atomic Chess version
nodnarbo: well, maybe 2 or 3 bombs could be a better strategy game, and if they all get captured then 'best of luck' on trying to check mate the king. I think captured the king is also another win, but I'm not sure, since I haven't played it in over a year.
O čem je toďten plk: Re: (IYT) It's Your Turn's=> Atomic Chess version
nodnarbo: It sounds like a good game. Is the play fairly even at the beginning as compared to how White dominates Atomic Chess here in the early going with Black walking a minefield until he can even things up?
O čem je toďten plk: Re: (IYT) It's Your Turn's=> Atomic Chess version
Walter Montego: it blows up any piece touching it even pawns. no your opponent doesn't know which piece has been chosen. that's a lot of the strategy of the game. picking the piece to be atomic and making sure it doesn't get captured, because if it's captured it's the same as any other piece, it doesn't explode
O čem je toďten plk: Re: (IYT) It's Your Turn's=> Atomic Chess version
SKA: There's certainly room for both versions here. Just have to name one of them differently or call it version 2 or something. IYT's version could be called Atomic Bomb Chess, while leaving the BrainKing version as Atomic Chess.
Does the bomb in the IYT version blow up nearby Pawns too? It certainly is different having it possible to blow up both Kings for a draw too. Do the players know which piece their opponent has chosen to be the bomb?
O čem je toďten plk: Re: (IYT) It's Your Turn's=> Atomic Chess version
Walter Montego: Yes, I played this game before. I like it very much. But, since I don't play (IYT) It's Your Turn anymore...I'm hoping it would be a nice addition and I agree with you that it's more a regular chess than the current Brainking's version. :-)
O čem je toďten plk: (IYT) It's Your Turn's=> Atomic Chess version
Atomic Chess (CT) Atomic Chess has similar rules to regular chess, except that at the beginning of the game you designate a piece to double as the 'atomic bomb'. You can detonate this piece/bomb at any time during the game, which will destroy that piece and all pieces in squares immediately adjacent to that square (both straight and diagonal squares). You can detonate a piece to get out of check. Detonating a piece counts as your entire move, so you cannot make any other moves on the turn that you detonate your piece.
If your opponent's king is in one of the detonated squares, then you win the game, otherwise you'll need to checkmate the king. The exception to this is if both kings are blown up at the same time, in which case the game is a draw. If you blow up your own king during a move, you lose the game. All other rules are the same-- castling and en passant are enabled in this game.
At the beginning of the game, you will be asked to 'place' the atomic bomb on a piece. Then your opponent will be asked to do the same, and the game will begin. The atomic piece stays on the same piece throughout the game, and if that piece is captured or destroyed, then you will not be able to detonate an atomic piece for the rest of the game, because your bomb is gone.
To detonate your atomic piece, click on the DETONATE ATOMIC PIECE link under the game board. Remember, this counts as your entire move, so you have to click this before clicking on anything else. ======== ========== ======== ========== ========
Has anyone here played this version? I thought the version on BrainKing was the standard way to play it. IS this way of playing as good of a game? I imagine the play is a lot more like regular Chess than BrainKing's Atomic Chess is. :)
nabla: I'm also not quite versed enough, it takes more of an expert than me. However I'd be interested in hearing what line you believe is so good for white and I'll try to refute it for black.
mangue: I have to agree. While it might be true that the theoretical value of the best openings is not that bad for Black, the non-losing path is very, very narrow. Even statistically speaking, White has so many dangerous lines that it is probable that one of them will be found to give him a big advantage. But maybe I am not versed enough in opening theory to speak.
mangue: I think you'll change your mind after playing some of the better players. I used to think white had a big advantage until i saw some of the counterattacking opportunities open to black in most lines.
grenv: maybe... I cannot tell, but I feel that surviving more than 10 moves with black is a performance (or a mistake of white). I just like quick games, but I am maybe insane
wetware: That's the nature of games with a high random factor like Dice Chess or Behemoth Chess. Or even Logic, which you can also lose on the fourth (or even first) without doing anything 'wrong'.
There are lots of games you can play here where this cannot happen.
why should not be the game that short? it is not a forced move and it is not a bad move, why should it be prohibited? well, I like very short games, especially in atomic actually
O čem je toďten plk: Re: short games of Dice Chess
mangue: I admit to having a particular fondness for defensive play and for endgames in nearly all variants. Variants in which those are less frequently seen, or which call for no skill in those areas are less appealing to me. I consider the thematic Dice Chess Nc3-Nb5-Nxc7-Nxe8 (and mirror image for Black) maneuver to be a blemish in the game itself. In my experience, it's only executed in about 5% of games, but is threatened in perhaps 25%. It reminds me of the scholar's mate in chess: fascinating to beginners, but a horrifying thing for a knowledgeable kibitzer to behold.
I'm also not thrilled by compulsory king moves in the single-die version, although one can adjust one's play to account for it, both offensively and defensively. Two-dice versions typically don't suffer from this defect; dice rolls alone cannot compel a king move, in versions I know of.
To make the game more interesting and to avoid fast losses in style Nc3-Nb5-Nc7-Nxe8, immortality for the king for let's say first 10 moves would be perhaps helpful.
Also a variant where pieces are more likely to be rolled if there are more possible moves with those pieces would be interesting, this was mentioned earlier, but it can be different named game, for example advanced dice chess .
May be some immortality in behemoth chess as well, but I didn't try this game.
As usual, I'm playing way too much Dice Chess here. Yes, it's making my head spin!
And lately I've taken up Backgammon here as well, and now I'm beginning to think that Dice Chess would be pretty cool if matches could include the use of a doubling cube.
It's just a half-baked notion, and not at all a serious request.
(do skréše) Održoj si přehledny Vzkaze skladovánim dóležitéch zpráv a co chvila pooživánim čudla Smáznót všecke zpráve v oddilo Zpráve, co přicházijó. (pauloaguia) (okázat šecke vechetávke)