darth_ender

H-f3 check

You have to respond K-e2

H-g1 check

Now this trap was surprisingly well set up, and though I wish I could take credit for it all along, I just happened to see its potential suddenly.  You may have realized that capturing my cannon would lead to the deaths of both chariots, but if you didn't capture my cannon and kept defending the crucial spot where I have now placed my horse, instead moving your king to e2 to avoid the check from my cannon, I could have then placed my chariot on b2 and delivered mate.  So really capturing my cannon and letting me have both rooks was your best move at this point.

This to me shows how handicapped the kings are with only orthogonal moves available, not to mention the fortress in which they must hide.  Korean chess is probably a better game in this regard.

Hmmm...I think if I understand the rules correctly, I am in check :(

P-5d

Cxc1 check

S-i5

I guess I'll start. F-4d

TV's Frink said:

I enjoy darth_ender's posts most of the time, so it's annoying to see he's posted something in off-topic only to find that he's making a chess move.

 I am honestly quite flattered you would say that. I am actually try to scale back on my addiction to this site and the Net in general, so I don't alwas respond even when I want to in some topics. But I will try not to disappoint you so much in the future ;)

V70H

R2-D2

Bump

Sorry Ric.  It's just that my time is often quite limited as well, and I'm interested in getting as much playing in as possible.  As I thought about it, though I felt bad depriving the game of a satisfactory ending, the fun was sucked out of it by such unbeatable odds, yet knowing that my part would likely drag on for days or weeks.

So I don't remember just how restricted you are when you get back to Alberta.  Are you completely unable to play?

Do you want to try Shogi4?  I'm sure we could finish a little game like that in less than 18 days.  If not, feel free to suggest something else.

Post, it's been a pleasure, you'll be missed, but I hope to see you around when work lightens up.

Yeah, it's weird.  The horse and elephant both descended from such a modification to Persian chess, where the horse and elephant there moved exactly as here in Chinese chess, except that they could jump (and there was no river restriction).  Removing the jump seems like a strang move in the evolution of the game.

R-b10

I will be honest, it's been taking a while to get this game done.  If I know it's a fight worth fighting, I don't mind waiting a couple days between moves, but it's been pretty slow coordinating this.  Judging by how easily I am being dismembered, would you both consider ending early after all and trying with some modified rules?  Do you want me to resign (which I believe is permissible) and you can continue to duke it out from here?

Would you like to take it back? You can't save your cannon, but you will save yourself a move, which can be quite valuable.

If you choose not to take back, my move will be H-g5

As another observation, those cannons really strengthen this game which I otherwise find full of weaknesses, as I pointed out before.  There are some fascinating tactical combinations that they can perform, and they really can exert a powerful influence from a distance.

Another thought: in chess, some brilliant moves by one player (or idiotic moves by the other) can mate the king early in the game.  But here, it seems the only solution is to wear down your opponent's army.  Defenses are pretty strong, and without a diagonal attack, the only real option is to simply wear your enemy down till there are no longer enough defenders.  Definitely gives the game a different flavor.

Exg6

R-i7

No worries, I was just giving you a hard time ;)

Eg6-e8

I'm a little curious how your cannon is capturing on the square it already occupies.

All good thoughts.  Must continue to ponder on all of this.

P-9rs+

C-g8

Post, you might be right.  However, there is one potential problem.  If I could capture your king in two strikes, and Ric couldn't do anything to save you in between, I could easily capture your king before you had the chance to move him.  The only way this could be fixed is by requiring that I cannot move the same piece twice consecutively, but then this turns the tables against me and is harder to keep track of.

I personally see two moves in the same turn perhaps the better option.  A good limitation would be requiring that one of those moves be the king and the other being some other piece or a drop.  That seems like it doesn't overly imbalance things.  The double move would be optional, and I could stick with a single if I desire.  To help keep it in balance, the first move would be limited to a single move, partly so I don't score a victory by Pleasure Garden on the first move.

The illumination without defense sounds cool, but as I thought about it after posting last, it seems a little too unfair.  Then I could easily fry so many pieces without fear and incorporate them into my army.  The limitation to one's own pieces defending them makes it better, but it still might be too much power for me.

Looking at my other suggestions, I don't think they are good enough or fair enough for you guys.  I am pretty convinced that suggestion 1 is best at this point.  Still I welcome further thoughts or recommendations, including more limits for me.

All this time I say "me" as if I'm destined to be the lone player every time, but if someone else wants to try it next round, I'm okay with it.

I could have sworn I moved but it must not have gone through.  I will move when I get home.

When I first heard of this game, I imagined the advantage went to the lone player.  Since imbalance is unavoidable, it would seem that the point of creating such a three player game would be to reduce the tendency in such games to gang up on a third player.  It is supposed to encourage fair fights.  But I am quickly seeing that no amount of ingenuity on the lone player's part can compensate for the two player's teamed against him.

That said, I intend to finish the game.  My fight is hopeless, but I wish to point something out.  The game does not end when I lose.  Nay, but you two must fight it out.  I bring this up because it might affect your strategy, including how you choose to carve me up.  Indeed, it might even buy me time.  Yes, I admit that.  And I want you to finish the game after I am gone, as it will illustrate the difficulties of three player games.

But I want you guys to think of some way to better equalize this game.  Clearly even a powerful king is not enough.  I have a few ideas:

1. Allow up to two moves per turn, the king and a non-king piece or drop.

2. Give the king the lion power from Chu shogi, plus the illumination power, as opposed to the queen power.  In essence this gives the king two moves.

3. Allow the illumination power to capture pieces, even if they are protected, or perhaps protection only comes from the same team's pieces (i.e. your rooks couldn't protect each other from death by illumination).

4. Create perhaps more Pleasure Gardens, perhaps a total of three or four, with new Gardens at 10op, 7rs, and 10uv, or alternately 8op, 11rs, and 8uv.  The central one could be removed or remain.  Perhaps they would only serve their purpose (promotion for regular pieces and victory for the lone player's king) for the Pleasure Gardens furthest from that particular player, with the closest Garden only being an ordinary cell for each player.

You might think these rules sound a little too much in the loner's favor, but I don't believe so.  Consider that you have not only double the army that I have, but also double the moves, which really is the more potent advantage.  I can never counter two threats on the same turn, no matter how powerful my king.

I await your thoughts.

Hxi4

My apologies.  The pawn was from 10aa/ab.  And yes, with this capture, that makes for a fourth pawn to my stash that I may never find the opportunity to drop.

Px11z/aa