Re: [spoon-discuss] Nomic Chess

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/26/03 at 9:19 AM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>I've been thinking about this Chess subgame thing, and I had an idea
>for how to make it into a more multiplayer game:
>
>There's a chess variant whose name I can't remember where two separate
>games happen at once; the white player in the first game is partners
>with the black one in the other, and vice versa. Whenever you capture a
>piece, it will be the same color as your partner's pieces. So when you
>take a piece, you give it to your partner (and you get the pieces he
>captures). A turn consists either of making a legal chess move, or of
>placing any piece you've been given by your partner on the board under
>your control, anywhere in the first two rows of the board.
>
>
>I was thinking we could set up something sort of like that, with
>societies as the teams. Each society would have a pool of pieces; a
>society could 'sponsor' one of its members in a game against someone
>from another society with the pieces captured by the society's champion
>becoming property of the society.
>
>Each piece could be identified by four characters, the first two
>defining the player, the second two defining the piece (so a Bishop of
>mine might be WoBi, a knight of Glotmorf's could be GmKn, and an
>Elephant of the Baron could be BrEt, etc.) When pieces are taken, they
>become 'owned' by whoever captured them (and go into the possession of
>the soc. e represents); players can't take pieces they own from a
>society (so you can't use the pieces you capture; only those taken by
>other members in your society).
>
>
>Perhaps also, each society could destroy pieces it controlled to gain
>'power points' (more pps for better units); these could be spent to
>cause a variety of nifty effects. I'm not sure what effects... the
>creation of new pieces on the piecelist? Curious effects within
>sponsored games ("My queen has an uzi in her purse...")?
>
>Anyway, I figured I'd get some input wrt whether or not people would be
>interested in such a game before I spent a lot of time writing it up -
>the game's completely pointless if I'm the only one who wants to play,
>and mostly pointless if there are fewer than four willing players...
>Anyone have any comments?

We used to call this Siamese chess, at least the basic four-player kind.  Really needed a clock to play, so you don't get lockups from both sides waiting for their partners to do something.  Made for some truly bizarre strategies, as well as pawns on the first row.  And it could ruin your regular game...you did NOT want to go into a tournament match and find yourself waiting for a knight...

Do you anticipate a way of creating extra pieces?  Or would cashing in a piece or pieces for other pieces result in general game entropy?

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.
http://ix.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss