logo Sign In

How about a game of Japanese Chess, i.e. Shogi? Now playing Shogi4 — Page 41

Author
Time

Kn-10.  Gotta go to bed.  Did you switch your RS and GC?  I value your opinion in this game, so I'm curious about your thoughts on the switch.  Anyhow, goodnight, and talk to you soon. :)

Author
Time

Gs-22

I made the switch. I'm too tired to give any further comment and I haven't taken a closer look at the piece arrangement to see exactly what you mean, but I'll do that tomorrow. :)

Author
Time

I think the switch is good. It gets the gold cannon in a better position for attack, because it doesn't have to jump over the RS anymore. It also works to my advantage a bit in this game because the RS is now in a better position to defend my offensive pieces.

I'm not entirely satisfied with the arrangement of the front pieces either. I think that either the lance needs to move back or be put in front; perhaps even in front of the pawn (in which case the pawn would move back a square or two).

So something like this:

-(centre)
-
-
L
P
-
-
Kn
N
-
Gs
-
GC
RS
-
C
K

Unfortunately, this extends the board even more (to 33 squares) and it sacrifices some spacing further back. I haven't examined it very thoroughly, so maybe it doesn't solve any problems, but it's an idea.

Author
Time

N-17

I don't like the idea of the lance in front.  First of all, it could immediately trade with the other lance.  Not that this is necessarily bad, but it gives the first player control over the first few moves, should he choose to exchange.  Also, if lances were not immediately exchanged, then the pawn cannot move.  If a player wants to move his lance so his pawn can advance, he must move his lance away from the pawn defending it, leaving it open to counter attack.  Just to make the lance or pawn effective in the early moves, it would require moving other pieces from behind.  It really limits a lot of options.

It might actually be best to completely remove the piece.  But at the same time, it's kind of nice holding a piece that can't jump but can cover so many squares.  It sort of is a two-edged sword.

Author
Time

Very true. Maybe we should just move the lance back to where we had it, two squares behind the goose (we'd move the GC and RS each back a square). It's nice to have a piece like that close to the front, but it seems to cause other problems.

Gs-18

Author
Time

P-14

Or like I said, maybe we should just remove it.  Last game it didn't do much.  I'm also considering more changes, like maybe removing the gold cannon and ramshead soldier and just combining the bishop and silver cannon.  I'm not sure about this yet.  I really need to rethink more items.

Author
Time

L-22

When things slow down a bit, I'll spend some time trying out different arrangements and pieces and see what works well, but that won't likely happen for about two to three weeks.

Author
Time

Well, after much thought last night, I am positive that the lance has to go.  So any future arrangements you experiment with, cut him out.  He is more of a hindrance than a help for anyone.

Px15+GB

Author
Time

i also am convinced that while it's good to have pieces that are able to move backward, even before promoting.  Or possibly some pieces that start out promoted, and end up demoted after capturing.  The first phase of this game is its weakest, when players are trying to figure out how to get their armies to clash without coming off at a disadvantage.  Forward movement forces players to interact, but with some ability to retreat (especially good if different from advancing, such as the goose), players can arrange and rearrange their front few pieces and thus plan a better attack.  So I'm thinking of making the knight a heavenly horse, for instance, with the promoted value the cavalryman.  Still thinking of other ideas.

Author
Time

Gs-14

I agree with you about the lance and heavenly horse, and I'll get back to you either late this evening or tomorrow morning.

Author
Time

Your pattern indicates...one dimensional thinking.

Author
Time

GBx14+P

@TV's, there are successful three and four dimensional chess games, but as far as I know, this is the most successful one dimensional game.  It still has flaws, but I am proud of how it is turning out.

Why don't you comment in the Trek thread, since you made such a clever reference? :)

Author
Time

P-18

I can't believe I did that. I was in a rush, so I forgot to promote your pawn and didn't realize my goose was in danger. :(

I think you may be right about the lance. However, in the first game we played, your lance/reverse chariot was all that really prevented me from dropping pieces on your side of the board and gaining the upper hand. So it does have its uses. If we do decide to keep it, the middle rather than the front seems to be the best place to put it. But if you want to get rid of it, then that's fine with me as well.

As for the heavenly horse being the unpromoted value of what is now the knight/cavalryman, I think that's a good idea. The knight has no ability to retreat until it captures and with its promoted value now being the cavalryman, there is a huge difference between the two. So heavenly horse it is in future set-ups.

As I said, I'll work on some alternate ideas in a couple weeks or so, when I have the time to properly analyze the board and explore a bunch of different options. Meanwhile I'll just work on minor tweaks and whatnot.

Author
Time

I thought you were aiming for some trap.  If you want to take your move back, it's fine.  And don't worry about over-analyzing this game.  It doesn't have to be a perfect science.  I'll still tweak it and I like to test ideas with you.  But perhaps you will be too busy to even play much.  If so that's fine.

And in response to Frink's last comment:

Author
Time

Thanks, I'll move L-20 instead (yes, I know your knight can take it :P).

I've been pretty busy lately, but things will slow down in a couple weeks or so. Then I'll have plenty of time to play around with the board.

Author
Time

Here's another idea for the piece arrangement:

(centre square)
-
-
P/GB
-
-
-
HH/Cm
Kn/Ln
Gs/Ph
-
GC/SC
B/DK
-
C/S
K

I kept the board the same length, but made a few changes in piece position. I moved everything between the pawn and the copper general back a square. This way, all three front pieces can make the first move and the pawn doesn't get in the way of any of them. The heavenly horse gets in the way of the kirin's second move, but I don't think that'll be much of a problem. The bishop is stuck behind the kirin, but it works as a defense early on.

I also made the RS/B a bishop/dragon king and of course made the changes you suggested (removed the lance and changed the knight to a heavenly horse).

Author
Time

Gs-16

I really appreciate your looking at this.  I'm going to take another look at this in a bit, as I'm about to go to bed.  But I like what I see so far.

I did have another idea: remove the lance and gold cannon, but keep the reverse chariot and silver cannon as one piece with the chariot as the starting value.  This still keeps the piece count down, still keeps the sliding move available but with more flexibility (to get out of the way when needed), keeps the cannon from being too dominating in the game, and still matches up two pieces that move in a similar fashion (as I've tried to do with all the pieces).  So if you like, you may fiddle with that idea as well.  I'll give more feedback on your setup in the morning.  Thanks for your help.

Oh, I will say that I like the idea of bishop/dragon horse (which I'm thinking you probably meant instead of dragon king).  The ramshead soldier is cool, but I am glad you're experimenting with some more backward moving options.  We'll keep brainstorming.  Thanks again!

Author
Time

Great, now I've trapped my goose. :P 

Kn-22

Yes, I did mean dragon horse, not dragon king. I'll play around with the RC/SC idea and maybe some other combinations. Would it be a bad idea to also get rid of a jumping piece and add another general or two (maybe a stone general/iron general)? Or that piece could replace the gold cannon and lance instead, replacing medium strength pieces with weak pieces instead of getting rid of them altogether. That might be a bad idea, but then there would be more generals defending the king, like other shogi variants have it. I haven't given the idea a whole lot of thought, so it might not be very good, but I'm just brainstorming...

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Hey, I'm staying up later than I should because I had a thought.  I've actually thought of it before, but I've resisted it because of the power of the piece.  But maybe it would be a good thing when we have a crowded board with a sort of deadlock in place, like right now.  In Tenjiku shogi, there are some very powerful generals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenjiku_shogi#Individual_pieces

Note the vice general, great general, bishop general, and rook general.  Perhaps the use of a rook general could actually spice up the game.  If I understand their rules correctly, they may only jump or capture pieces of lower "rank".  In a game with no other such generals, this would mean they cannot capture or jump each other, nor could they capture (meaning no check) or jump the king.  So they'd be powerful, but still not invincible.  They'd be scarier than the cannon, but also would be able to offset each other a bit.  They would only move like a rook (or on this 1D board, a reverse chariot), and if kept in the front, would offset each other rather nicely.  They'd be powerful, but severely limited.  And players would be hesitant to trade with them.

It might be too much though, and it might be better to just stick with the cannons.  Still not sure.  Just brainstorming as well.

As for weaker generals, I've been thinking along the same lines, except I thought it'd be good to have one towards the front and one towards the back.  I'll keep thinking, and if you want to keep proposing ideas, I'm open to them. :)

JEDIT: Correction: it appears that such generals either move and capture the same (i.e. a bishop general moves and captures just like a bishop), or it may jump over a number of pieces, subject to the above restrictions, but only when making a capture and not simply moving.  So I believe rook generals in Ito Shogi would be able to capture each other or check the king, but only when moving as rooks, not when jumping.

Author
Time

There are some interesting pieces there. I had no idea there were so many different ones...

Something like a limited fire demon might be worth a try too. The piece regularly has a value of 83, so it is obviously a very powerful piece, but on a one-dimensional board, it could only burn pieces on either side of it. This would still allow up to a three piece capture. If we do decide to use it, I suggest we limit its moves so that it can only move like a kirin, or something like that. Maybe it could be the opposite value of the lion. Those other generals are definitely worth a look though, and I'll try incorporating them into some set-ups.

Author
Time

I have another idea...

What if, rather than always trying to balance the pieces, you split this into two Shogi variants. One with weak to medium-strength pieces and another with more powerful pieces? You can have a powerful piece in the former and a weak piece in the latter, but you wouldn't have to worry as much about finding the kind of balance you need now. The one with powerful pieces could be played on a longer board, since powerful tends to be synonymous with long-range in most cases.

What do you think? Do you want to keep just one single-dimensional variant, or do you want to experiment with two and split up the powerful and weaker pieces?

Author
Time

I forgot to move last night.  Kn-10

I do worry about the fire demon for a couple of reasons:1) except for the king (and now the lion), I've tried to remain faithful to the original pieces as much as possible.  The more I change, the more it bothers me that this isn't a true 1D adaptation.  2) The cramped quarters of this game make the fire demon far too powerful.  In Tenjiku shogi pieces are completely removed, and there are pieces to spare, but in Ito Shogi, there is a small number, and either it will capture too many and add them to that player's arsenal, or it will completely destroy them, reducing armies to nothing very fast.  I have worked to try to limit the powerful pieces because I want this to be a game of combinations and tactics.  I'd worry about such a powerful piece reducing rather than enhancing the game's complexity.

That said, I agree that it might be good to have multiple variants with different degrees of power in the pieces.  Not so powerful as the fire demon, mind you, but nevertheless, one could probably have an interesting game with more exotic pieces or a game with more stepping pieces.  It'd be good to play with ideas.  We'll see.

Author
Time

Your kirin is already on 10 (see post 1001). If you meant either K-8 or K-12, then GC-23.

Author
Time

I think you're right about the fire demon. I'm thinking of making a board that's two or three squares wide but about the same length as the one we're using now. Maybe a weak fire demon-type piece could work there since there would be more pieces. Another idea with the fire demon is that it could only burn the piece in front of it, allowing it to capture up to two pieces. And if we wanted, we could make its demoted side a pawn or something to balance it out. But you're probably right about keeping it out of Ito Shogi. We do want to keep it Ito Shogi after all, so it's best to keep it similar to the original.