logo Sign In

How about a game of Japanese Chess, i.e. Shogi? Now playing Shogi4 — Page 43

Author
Time

I'm also thinking about the nature of this game.  It is very difficult to force a checkmate unless you have a significant material advantage, as I ultimately did last game.  I have fallen prey to trying to make this like a regular shogi game, and I had the right idea in the first place.  This needs to be a game with a strong offense and weak defense, otherwise it lasts forever.  If players are close in strength, they might never get to the end.  So we have to get generals away from the king, for instance.  We need it to be only slightly defensive so that no player can force a mate with a single drop on the right square.  Another reason to get rid of the gold cannon (as I started envisioning it as a defensive piece).  Perhaps we even need to have pieces starting further ahead of the king, with a gap pf at least 3 squares between him and his army.

Author
Time

Perhaps another idea is to have pieces promote when they capture (as in very large shogi variants), but when captured and dropped, may only be dropped in their weaker form.  This would keep the focus on the offensive, forward moving faces.  Still not sure about that.  Just an idea for now.

Author
Time

Oops, I mixed it up with the silver general. I will move to 29 then. I also forgot to clarify your move. Your GB is already on 15, so did you mean 16?

Author
Time

Okay, these are some of the ideas I've come up with in order to meet the following shortcomings of the existing game:

1) Unpromoted pieces in general (though not always) should have some backward movement, but different and preferably weaker than their forward movement.

2) Pieces need to be more offensive than defensive.

3) The setup needs to also be geared more for offense than defense.

4) There should not be too many pieces regardless of board size, or else they defend too many squares and the board gets really cluttered and difficult to effectively move on, particularly in certain sections where action is taking place.  It is especially wise to avoid moves that cover too many adjacent squares so there are "holes" in a piece's coverage.

5) Promoted pieces should have stronger abilities, including improved backward movement, but should still not be too powerful; there still need to be gaps in their coverage.  The only exception would be the lance or similar piece, whatever we decide on, and this is compensated for by its inability to jump at all.

6) Though I believe alternately promoting and demoting adds an interesting dimension for both sides when their moves are very different (as in Micro Shogi where a gold general promotes to a rook), since pieces have similar style moves in most cases on both sides, it might be best to at least try permanent promotion and the ability to drop only the weaker face up.

7) I therefore wish to use the following pieces with brief descriptions of their moves.  All are based on pre-existing pieces following strict interpretive rules for changing them to single-dimensional moves, which you already know.

Pawn/Go Between - You already know this one
King - You know this one too
Tile General/Copper General: T-jumps to second square forward or steps one square back/C-steps one square forward or back, or jumps to second square forward
Heavenly Horse/Cavalryman: HH-jumps to third square forward or back/Cm-steps one square forward or back or jumps to third square forward or back
Goose/Phoenix: This one you know
Howling Dog/Silver Cannon: I'm still not sure about how I want to do this one.  I was talking about using the reverse chariot, but I also might just want to use the howling dog instead, which moves like a lance, but also has the option to take a single step backwards
Flying Swallow/Bishop: FS-like a bishop foward, or one step backward/B-you already know

That's it for now.  I may want to still use the reverse chariot instead of the howling dog, but otherwise, I think I want to try this piece combination.  I'm almost tempted to end our current game and give this a chance, but I still need to work out the setup.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

darth_ender said:

Okay, these are some of the ideas I've come up with in order to meet the following shortcomings of the existing game:

1) Unpromoted pieces in general (though not always) should have some backward movement, but different and preferably weaker than their forward movement.

Definitely agree, especially if you go with permanent promotion.

2) Pieces need to be more offensive than defensive.

I agree for the most part, but I think there should be one mostly defensive piece in back, closer to the king.

3) The setup needs to also be geared more for offense than defense.

I agree, but I would argue that this is already the case.

4) There should not be too many pieces regardless of board size, or else they defend too many squares and the board gets really cluttered and difficult to effectively move on, particularly in certain sections where action is taking place.  It is especially wise to avoid moves that cover too many adjacent squares so there are "holes" in a piece's coverage.

Being the kind of guy I am, I say the bigger and more numerous the better, but that's probably not the way to go. :) I think that pieces with universal coverage, like the lion, can be restricted with a short range. Right now, the lion can only move two squares at a time, which really restricts its range. If you go with dropping the pieces at their lower value, the lion and similar pieces would work better than they do now. I think that having holes in a piece's coverage is good, but I don't think it matters if there are pieces like the lion, since they are limited in other ways. But the final decision is up to you of course.

5) Promoted pieces should have stronger abilities, including improved backward movement, but should still not be too powerful; there still need to be gaps in their coverage.  The only exception would be the lance or similar piece, whatever we decide on, and this is compensated for by its inability to jump at all.

As I have said, if the piece can't move very far in a single turn, then I think it's limited movement makes up for it's ability to cover the entire board.

6) Though I believe alternately promoting and demoting adds an interesting dimension for both sides when their moves are very different (as in Micro Shogi where a gold general promotes to a rook), since pieces have similar style moves in most cases on both sides, it might be best to at least try permanent promotion and the ability to drop only the weaker face up.

I'm certainly willing to give this a try. Would there be a promotion zone like there is in regular Shogi, or would pieces promote upon their first capture? If you meant the former, I suggest going with the latter instead. Most Shogi variants either have the promotion zone or alternate between promoted and unpromoted values, but I think a first capture promotion makes a lot of sense. So much of the action takes place in the middle of the board that few pieces would get promoted until being dropped and moved. I don't think the game would be as much fun if pieces didn't get promoted as often, since there aren't a lot of different pieces. In other Shogi games, pieces often promote to the value of pieces that are already on the board, so the player has most of those moves available from the start. But in variants like this, the player starts out with the weaker values and has more limited options. Increasing the likelihood of promotion is a good thing in small variants, in my opinion.

7) I therefore wish to use the following pieces with brief descriptions of their moves.  All are based on pre-existing pieces following strict interpretive rules for changing them to single-dimensional moves, which you already know.

Pawn/Go Between - You already know this one
King - You know this one too
Tile General/Copper General: T-jumps to second square forward or steps one square back/C-steps one square forward or back, or jumps to second square forward
Heavenly Horse/Cavalryman: HH-jumps to third square forward or back/Cm-steps one square forward or back or jumps to third square forward or back
Goose/Phoenix: This one you know
Howling Dog/Silver Cannon: I'm still not sure about how I want to do this one.  I was talking about using the reverse chariot, but I also might just want to use the howling dog instead, which moves like a lance, but also has the option to take a single step backwards
Flying Swallow/Bishop: FS-like a bishop foward, or one step backward/B-you already know

That's it for now.  I may want to still use the reverse chariot instead of the howling dog, but otherwise, I think I want to try this piece combination.  I'm almost tempted to end our current game and give this a chance, but I still need to work out the setup.

 I think you should use the RC rather than the HD unless you think it's important to counterbalance the powerful SC.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RicOlie_2 said:

darth_ender said:

Okay, these are some of the ideas I've come up with in order to meet the following shortcomings of the existing game:

1) Unpromoted pieces in general (though not always) should have some backward movement, but different and preferably weaker than their forward movement.

Definitely agree, especially if you go with permanent promotion.

2) Pieces need to be more offensive than defensive.

I agree for the most part, but I think there should be one mostly defensive piece in back, closer to the king.

Perhaps one, but even then I hesitate.  I'll give it some thought.

3) The setup needs to also be geared more for offense than defense.

I agree, but I would argue that this is already the case.

As I mentioned earlier, I'd like a three square space between the king and his neighboring friendly piece.  The more offensive, the more exciting games can be.  I know this sounds counterintuitive, and it can be overdone, but games that are too defensive are actually punitive to the player that takes initiative, and therefore the game becomes very long as both players imply hunker down and wait for the other to make a bold (and stupid) move.

4) There should not be too many pieces regardless of board size, or else they defend too many squares and the board gets really cluttered and difficult to effectively move on, particularly in certain sections where action is taking place.  It is especially wise to avoid moves that cover too many adjacent squares so there are "holes" in a piece's coverage.

Being the kind of guy I am, I say the bigger and more numerous the better, but that's probably not the way to go. :) I think that pieces with universal coverage, like the lion, can be restricted with a short range. Right now, the lion can only move two squares at a time, which really restricts its range. If you go with dropping the pieces at their lower value, the lion and similar pieces would work better than they do now. I think that having holes in a piece's coverage is good, but I don't think it matters if there are pieces like the lion, since they are limited in other ways. But the final decision is up to you of course.

The limits of a one-dimensional game cannot be overstated.  maneuverability is reduced, and the distances between pieces and objectives is increased.  With too many powerful pieces, ultimately players simply end up trading.  I almost feel we are at that point it our game.  I'm ahead in material, but I don't see how I'm going to break through your defense without sacrificing my own pieces, which could ultimately lead to my own fall.  And if we are simply trading, there is almost no way to win.  A player has to keep winning more and more pieces before he can get through.

I agree that the lion's range is limited, which can be a good thing.  However, there is no good way to approach it with short-range pieces.  In Chu Shogi that is okay, as there are lots of long-range pieces and another powerful lion to counter this.  But there are only a few, and the opposing lion is also very short range, so our lions can't even get close to each other to offset each other easily.  I just am having a hard time enjoying its abilities, which so far have not even been really used.

5) Promoted pieces should have stronger abilities, including improved backward movement, but should still not be too powerful; there still need to be gaps in their coverage.  The only exception would be the lance or similar piece, whatever we decide on, and this is compensated for by its inability to jump at all.

As I have said, if the piece can't move very far in a single turn, then I think it's limited movement makes up for it's ability to cover the entire board.

What makes chess/shogi combinations interesting to me is that no piece can counter every single piece that attacks it; there is always something that can attack it which it cannot return attack upon.  The queen can be attacked by the knight, the dragon king by the bishop, etc.  In Ito Shogi, the lion can be attacked by long-range pieces, but the lance and bishop hardly get used until later in the game, and the knight and goose almost stand no chance, as if they even attack the lion, it just gets closer where they can't reach.  My point is, the other pieces have too many holes in their coverage to make the lion's move very fair.  In shogi, two generals alone can defend each other against a lion.  This is much harder to obtain in Ito Shogi.  So I'm still kind of against it.

6) Though I believe alternately promoting and demoting adds an interesting dimension for both sides when their moves are very different (as in Micro Shogi where a gold general promotes to a rook), since pieces have similar style moves in most cases on both sides, it might be best to at least try permanent promotion and the ability to drop only the weaker face up.

I'm certainly willing to give this a try. Would there be a promotion zone like there is in regular Shogi, or would pieces promote upon their first capture? If you meant the former, I suggest going with the latter instead. Most Shogi variants either have the promotion zone or alternate between promoted and unpromoted values, but I think a first capture promotion makes a lot of sense. So much of the action takes place in the middle of the board that few pieces would get promoted until being dropped and moved. I don't think the game would be as much fun if pieces didn't get promoted as often, since there aren't a lot of different pieces. In other Shogi games, pieces often promote to the value of pieces that are already on the board, so the player has most of those moves available from the start. But in variants like this, the player starts out with the weaker values and has more limited options. Increasing the likelihood of promotion is a good thing in small variants, in my opinion.

Definitely no promotion zone.  In larger shogi variants, such as Dai Dai shogi, promotion is achieved by capturing.  I would use the same rule, whereby any piece that captures is promoted by compulsion, but stick with the regular shogi rule that once it is captured, it could only be dropped at demoted value.  So yes, I agree with you completely here.

7) I therefore wish to use the following pieces with brief descriptions of their moves.  All are based on pre-existing pieces following strict interpretive rules for changing them to single-dimensional moves, which you already know.

Pawn/Go Between - You already know this one
King - You know this one too
Tile General/Copper General: T-jumps to second square forward or steps one square back/C-steps one square forward or back, or jumps to second square forward
Heavenly Horse/Cavalryman: HH-jumps to third square forward or back/Cm-steps one square forward or back or jumps to third square forward or back
Goose/Phoenix: This one you know
Howling Dog/Silver Cannon: I'm still not sure about how I want to do this one.  I was talking about using the reverse chariot, but I also might just want to use the howling dog instead, which moves like a lance, but also has the option to take a single step backwards
Flying Swallow/Bishop: FS-like a bishop foward, or one step backward/B-you already know

That's it for now.  I may want to still use the reverse chariot instead of the howling dog, but otherwise, I think I want to try this piece combination.  I'm almost tempted to end our current game and give this a chance, but I still need to work out the setup.

 I think you should use the RC rather than the HD unless you think it's important to counterbalance the powerful SC.

 You are probably right.  I think I will go with the reverse chariot for now.  That piece is already limited as is, so it's good to have a more worthy lower value to better match its higher value, as well as simply being a more worthwhile piece in its lower state.

I hope you don't mind when I shoot down your ideas.  As I said, when we've hammered out these rules, I don't mind trying more powerful pieces and less powerful pieces.  But for now, I want a basic, playable game.  I haven't decided on a setup yet, but you are welcome to make another suggestion if you like.  You may even make use of your last suggestion, which I know you spend a lot of time working on and I haven't yet shown full appreciation for.  If the pieces are different, you might want to substitute the most similar piece I offer here.  If you don't want to, I can work on something, but I will probably use your last suggestion as a guide anyway :)

Author
Time

darth_ender said:

I hope you don't mind when I shoot down your ideas.  As I said, when we've hammered out these rules, I don't mind trying more powerful pieces and less powerful pieces.  But for now, I want a basic, playable game.  I haven't decided on a setup yet, but you are welcome to make another suggestion if you like.  You may even make use of your last suggestion, which I know you spend a lot of time working on and I haven't yet shown full appreciation for.  If the pieces are different, you might want to substitute the most similar piece I offer here.  If you don't want to, I can work on something, but I will probably use your last suggestion as a guide anyway :)

 No, I'm fine with constructive criticism and dismissal of my ideas. I throw a lot of things out there just to provoke new ideas, so don't feel badly about telling me you don't like them. It is your original invention after all, so you get the final say. :)

I'm glad my last suggestion was worth something, and I'll try to develop some new layouts for the game; probably using your ideas and working with the new rules of promotions in mind.

I've thought about the lion a bit more, and I agree with you now. My lion hasn't done much more than move back and forth this game, so I may as well have done away with it altogether. I was originally opposed to the idea of a lion anyhow, and I think my reasons still apply.

If you ever want to reference an earlier version of the board, just let me know and I'll upload the latest version of my excel document to 4shared. I include just about every board layout either of us present here, so I'll have pretty much any version you want to look at on the spreadsheet.

Author
Time

I'm glad you take it so well.  Sure, if you want to shoot me a PM with the latest version, I'll take a look and see what works best.  I'd love to hear your feedback on some of the substantial piece changes I've suggested.  And it looks like you were right in the first place about the lion :)

Thanks for being such a good game partner.  I really enjoy this and appreciate all your feedback. :)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

darth_ender said:

I'm almost tempted to end our current game and give this a chance, but I still need to work out the setup.

 "Almost tempted" you said.... Well is it "almost" or are we done? :D I'm perfectly happy with continuing for now, if you want to. And if you don't, then that's OK too.

Author
Time

I figured I would throw an idea your way to see if you liked it at all before I went through with it. How about putting the T/C behind the king, instead of in front? The T/C would be at the end of the board with the king immediately in front of it and two or three squares between it and the next piece. Having the king forward gives it more ability to defend itself and putting the T/C behind it prevents an opponent from dropping a piece on that square (with another piece defending that end square so the king can't move backwards and take it). Alternatively, however, you may want to move the king forward without putting the T/C behind it since that would be more conducive to paratroop offenses against the king.

Author
Time

Do you have a minimum/maximum number of spaces you want between opposing sides? How about the minimum/maximum length of the board? I don't want to shrink it too much or leave too large of a gap between the two sides, so I want to know what size gap/board-length you want.

Author
Time

I've made three new versions, as well as changing the board length for one of the versions. I didn't add/remove pieces, but I might do that before I send you a copy, which I'll do once I hear back from you about the board-length, gap size, etc.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

darth_ender said:

I'm almost tempted to end our current game and give this a chance, but I still need to work out the setup.

 "Almost tempted" you said.... Well is it "almost" or are we done? :D I'm perfectly happy with continuing for now, if you want to. And if you don't, then that's OK too.

I'm very certainly close to calling it quits, and let me explain why.  I cannot see a single move that I can do that will be beneficial.  I have two options: try to break through your defense, but likely at what will ultimately be at my expense for little to no gain; make time wasting moves hoping you'll try something bold and thus expose yourself.

This illustrates my point about games that are too defensive.  There comes a point where no one really wants to move.  I have nothing I can do to try to break through your fortress without losing powerful pieces, and likely it will be a failed attack, while you have nothing you can do little to try to break through, except maybe try to drop some of those pieces you're holding behind my lines, but then I doubt that will do much for you in the long run either.  It's too defensive a game.  We need more offense compared to defense.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Fair enough. We'll call it a draw and move on. I'm not keeping the board, so if you change your mind for some crazy reason, then too bad. ;)

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

I figured I would throw an idea your way to see if you liked it at all before I went through with it. How about putting the T/C behind the king, instead of in front? The T/C would be at the end of the board with the king immediately in front of it and two or three squares between it and the next piece. Having the king forward gives it more ability to defend itself and putting the T/C behind it prevents an opponent from dropping a piece on that square (with another piece defending that end square so the king can't move backwards and take it). Alternatively, however, you may want to move the king forward without putting the T/C behind it since that would be more conducive to paratroop offenses against the king.

 Both sound like interesting ideas.  Id' be willing to try them, but again, I'm worried about too much defense.  So I'd probably want to try a game with these pieces and without the T/C there first (and by the way, I was thinking that maybe it should be a T/S, just so the backward move is different from the unpromoted state, but I'm not positive about that), and if the offense is then too strong, or perhaps just to see how it plays out, have a second game with the general piece behind the king.

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

Do you have a minimum/maximum number of spaces you want between opposing sides? How about the minimum/maximum length of the board? I don't want to shrink it too much or leave too large of a gap between the two sides, so I want to know what size gap/board-length you want.

 I'd say five is the minimum, seven the max.  It really shouldn't be too far or too close, and that feels about right.  The size of the board doesn't really matter too much, though I'd say upper 20s or lower 30s feels about right for this many pieces (though we've removed a couple, so on the lower end of that estimate might be the way to go, though not necessarily so).

Author
Time

Regarding the T/C being a T/S, I agree. That gives the promoted value a greater ability to retreat than the demoted value, which is what we were going for anyway.

Author
Time

Good, I'm glad we agree there.  I've been looking at your suggested openings, and I like version 12 the best.  But what do you think?  Is there too much space?  Maybe three squares between king and comrade is too much?  I mean, if a player wants more defense, it isn't hard to pull the reverse chariot and goose in closer.  Let me know what you think.  If you think that my suggestions (to which you faithfully adhered) are still worthwhile in that regard, then let's play that game.

Author
Time

I don't think three spaces is too much. If we want to set up a better defense, then we can do so during the game. Right now, each square in front of the king is defended by two pieces (including the king) at the start, so it should be fine.

We seem to have a pattern going here: we've played version 4, 8, and now 12. :)

I'll make the first move: Gs-22

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I'm curious about your thoughts on version 13. Do you think the addition of those pieces is a bad idea? Did I place too many restrictions on them, not enough, or do you think I limited them enough but not more than enough? Would they work in a version of the game with more powerful pieces? If so, should they have fewer or the same limitations?

I'll hear/see from you in the morning, hopefully. Good night.