Enter Your Reply The Comment You're Replying To Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Mar 1, 2007 09:49 PM EST:In the comments on 'The Scout' [M. Winthers], there were a couple of statements that I wanted to examine further. They are: M. Howe: 'Leaping-riders can be awkward and unbalancing because of their ability to attack through pawn walls, but this is a good solution.'[referring to the M. Winther Scout] M. Winther: 'If anybody wants to study the characteristics of a certain type of new piece, how it affects the strategical situation, and what new tactical themes are introduced, then my conservative implementations are ideal.' Let me mention a pair of [what I consider excellent ;-) ] leaping riders in the game Grand Shatranj, the Oliphant [moves diagonally] and the Lightningwarmachine [moves orthogonally]. They are each 2-step linear riders, sliding 1 square or leaping 2 squares then doing either again at the player's option. So each may move 1, 2, 3, or 4 squares, leaping over up to 2 pieces - if those 2 pieces are [or can be] lined up exactly right. While a mere pawn wall cannot keep them out, their [short] range allows a 'lion defense' - post a piece or two inside the wall [back far enough] and kill them when they land. Of course, their agility requires a really solid defense, but it can be done, with the right piece mix. This game was fairly well received; people seemed to like it, and it's gotten some play. All the pieces were designed to leap, with the exception of the king and the pawns. The rook analogues and bishop analogues were specifically designed to crash pawn walls or any barrier. They are very dangerous pieces, but, after a bit of playing, ways to handle them were devised, and a pawn wall may work after all, it just has to be part of a defense in depth, a new requirement. Chess, changed a bit. More strategic, if my correspondents are right. And this game introduced both new 4-square rider pieces along with 3 more different 2-square leapers that I thought were new when I posted the game [2 of which I believe are still new, as no one has shown precedence, though I consider them fairly obvious, and posted them in this and a companion game at the same time]. But the game works well because all the pieces [except N and K] are new [or close to it] and rather different. I guess my point here is that sometimes you have to make a leap of faith to get a good game. My questions, asked in all seriousness and humbleness, because both of you are obviously talented designers and I want to explore the avenues this game opens up, are: Is this game [Grand Shatranj] actually as good as I claim? Can it be, if it's as radical as some might think? Does it 'break the rules' in some sense and get away with it or not? If it does, how does it manage it? Anyone who hasn't gone away by this point, please feel free to join in. someone could ask: 'If it's such a good game, how come it isn't wildly popular?' Mats would probably say, I suspect, that it's not conservative enough. Is he right? Edit Form You may not post a new comment, because ItemID Long and Short does not match any item.