gwalla

Thanks to derakon (damn his eyes), I've gotten somewhat addicted to Dwarf Fortress, a freeware "sim" game with elements of roguelike adventure games (like Nethack). Basically, you're in charge of a group of dwarven pioneers in a fantasy setting, and your job is to lead them to create a successful fortress. But not just a fortress. It starts out as a small outpost, but over time it grows with the influx of migrants (and eventually, children), whose presence demands ever greater production, until the thing is basically one enormous city. You have to manage not only digging and building, but food supplies, farming (which can be done underground! mushrooms are delicious), brewing (even more important than cooking), trading with caravans from the elves, humans, and other dwarves, little dwarfy justice, defense against monster and goblin attacks, keeping nobles happy, making clothes, felling trees, and and and and.... It's ridiculously in-depth, but you can't micromanage (you can't just tell specific dwarves to go specific places, you can only set their tasks and tell them where certain things should be put). And you have to keep them happy, because surly dwarves sometimes go on rampages! It's like an intricate dollhouse full of dolls with minds of their own. And there's even a wiki with articles on all of the different aspects of the game.

It's definitely got its problems. The pseudo-ASCII "graphics" have their charms, but are frequently cryptic (What is that @ sign and what's it doing wandering through the storerooms?!). Recent versions have 3D landscapes, but earlier ones were all on a single plane, and the interface for dealing with the z-axis seems tacked on and hard to deal with. The game is so complex that you really have to read all of the introductory articles on the wiki (especially Quick launch, Starting builds, What should I build first?, and Your first fortress) plus the articles on the basic workshops, buildings, and items, and the one on noise, before you start or you'll find that you've screwed yourself over from the beginning (and remember to always check the wiki on any given building before planning it, so you don't put the only door to the room in a place that's blocked off by the contents!). And it's keyboard-only, which is clunky.

But damn, once you start playing it's hard to stop!

( Plans for teh futare )

(For lulz, and to see what got me to check out the game in the first place, see this "Let's Play!" of an earlier (2D) version, by some Something Awful goons trading off being in charge of the legendary fortress "Boatmurdered". It's a laugh riot.)

Oh god.



(thanks to heykidzcomix)

This Sunday I found out that one of my favorite songwriters, Roky Erickson, will be performing in San Francisco this Thursday. AIUI, he doesn't tour very much, so this is a rare opportunity. Unfortunately, Thursday is Game Night for me & my friends. Normally I'd just skip game night, but we didn't game last week and I'll be skipping it for sure next week (to see Night of the Lepus as part of the Parkway Theater's Thrillville b-movie series with some friends from work). So that's three weeks down, two of which my character* won't be leveling up with the other characters, which would put him pretty far behind, and he's already one of the weaker party members. And, well, I've kind of been fiending for some D&D action (I'm not proud). Either way I'm going to regret my decision.

Oh well. I'll be seeing a documentary on Roky tomorrow night, and I can make up my mind then.

*Kamandi, a Wild Elf scout. It's a prehistoric D&D campaign. Dungeons & Dinos!

The Gilligan's Island theme in the form of a board game recommendation list.

Game fans will also get a kick out of some of the comments.

Been a while since I've messed with chess variants. Here's one based on chess's predecessor, Shatranj (aka medieval chess). It uses a standard 8x8 board, and can be played with a standard set of pieces with a couple of additions (checkers will do in a pinch).

There are 7 kinds of pieces in the starting array:

• Pawn - These behave just like Shatranj pawns (i.e. like modern chess pawns without an initial double-step option or en passant).
• Knight - The same as modern chess knights (leaping in an L-shape over any intervening pieces). The knight promotes to a warrior.
• Fers (councillor) - Steps one square at a time diagonally. In Shatranj, this is the equivalent of the modern queen, but here it replaces the alfil (elephant), which is the equivalent of the modern bishop. The fers promotes to a bishop.
• Thief - Leaps two squares diagonally or orthogonally over any intervening pieces. Fairy chess problemists call this piece an "alibaba" (alfil + dabbabah), so I called it a thief. It is colorbound, and can only visit ¼ of the squares on the board. If necessary, it may be represented on the board by a single checker (black for black, red for white). It promotes to an assassin.
• Wazir (vizier) - Steps one square at a time orthogonally. Represented in a modern set by the queen. It promotes to a grand vizier.
• Rook - The same as the modern rook: sliding any number of squares orthogonally until reaching an obstacle or the edge of the board. It is the one starting piece that does not promote.
• King - Same as the modern chess king. Moves one square at a time orthogonally or diagonally. It may not move into a threatened square nor remain under attack at the end of the player's turn (check), and the game is lost when it cannot avoid capture (checkmate). It promotes to a warrior king.

Each player has 8 pawns, one king, one wazir, and two of each other piece. Pawns start on the third rank, rooks in the corners of the first rank, and everything else on the second rank in the order. The thieves are the outermost pieces, followed by the knights, then the fers, with the king and wazir in the middle. The king is on the left and the wazir on the right for white, and vice versa for black: think a stardard chess setup with thieves in place of rooks, fers in place of bishops, and wazir in place of queen.

The following pieces are obtained only through promotion. To mark them, I suggest placing a checker under the basic piece (so a warrior would be a knight on top of a checker, an assassin would be a stack of two checkers, etc.).

• Warrior - This piece may move as a knight, or may move one space orthogonally.
• Bishop - The same as a modern bishop: sliding any number of squares diagonally until reaching an obstacle or the edge of the board.
• Assassin -The thief does not gain a new form of movement by promotion. Instead, it gains a new form of capture, by overtaking: the assassin may capture by jumping over an enemy piece and landing on an unoccupied square. While it is still can only visit ¼ of the squares on the board, it is capable of capturing pieces on all squares with the exception of the player's first rank and the file opposite where the thief started. Note that the assassin may only capture by overtaking if its landing square is empty; it cannot capture two pieces (one by overtaking, one by displacement) in a single move.
• Grand Vizier - Moves as a king (one square, any direction), but is not subject to restrictions against moving into or staying in threatened squares, and it may be captured like any other piece. It may additionally promote to a regent by returning to the player's first rank.
• Warrior King - May move as a king or as a knight. Rules regarding check and checkmate are still in force.
• Regent - Moves as a king or grand vizier. When a player has a regent, he is immune to check and checkmate, and his king (or warrior king) may freely move into or stay in threatened squares. If the king is captured, the regent immediately becomes the new king (thus there is no more regent, and check and checkmate are once again enforced). Note that if a warrior king is captured, the regent still only becomes a plain king, not a warrior king; however, it may promote as a king.

A piece is promoted by landing on the 8th rank (the opponent's home row). Promotion is automatic.

Checkmate is a win. Stalemate is a win. Baring the king (capturing all of an opponent's pieces except for the king) is a win, unless the opponent can bare one's own king in the next move, which is a draw. There is no castling and no en passant. These rules are all the same as in shatranj.

The occasional rule that a king in check may switch places with a friendly piece once in a game is not present (the wazir/grand vizier/regent promotion track serves a similar purpose). The medieval chess rule of the "king's leap" (the ability for a king to make a knight's move once per game) is also not present (the promotion of the king to warrior king gives a more general mechanism for this).

The idea is to get a more dynamic game using primarily short-range pieces (like classic shatranj). The two sides start very close to each other, letting the weaker pieces get into the thick of things more quickly. All of the pieces' movements are either found in shatranj or shatranj variants (like Tamerlane Chess), or are combinations of those moves. For example, the thief combines the 2-square diagonal leap of the traditional shatranj alfil (a very weak piece, only capable of reaching 1/8 of the squares on the board!) with the 2-square orthogonal leap of the dabbabah (war machine), which is found in some old variants. The only exception is the assassin's capture, which has no equivalent in any predecessor or traditional relative of chess (with the possible exception of the chu shogi lion, which is considerably more powerful). The double promotion of the wazir and "substitute king" rule is adapted from the "pawn of pawns" and "pawn of kings" rules of Tamerlane Chess.

The assassin's capture can be quite dangerous: an assassin may capture a piece that is "protected" by another piece without risk of being captured.

I haven't decided how pawns should promote. One option is to let them promote to any other starting piece (other than the king, of course), which can not promote further. Another is to stick with the shatranj promotion rule in this case and only allow them to promote to the queen-equivalent (in this case, the wazir) without being able to promote further. Still another would be to allow promotion to any basic type, with the ability to promote further by reaching the player's 1st rank. I'm undecided.

Another change I'm pondering is adding two more thieves to the initial array (bringing it up to 4 thieves per player), starting on the 1st rank, each a knight's move away from the closest thief on the 2nd rank. This would allow all of a player's thieves, taken together, to visit any square on the board. Since these 1st-rank thieves could never reach the 8th rank, they would have to promote on the 7th. I'm currently leaning towards this.

The Super Smash Bros. Brawl trailer...done in a WWE wrestling game! Pikachu as a wrestler is freaky as hell.

Thanks to danihana for the link.

Happy little trees on the Nintendo Revolution.

A Bob Ross video game.

Yeah.

I've been to a couple more poker nights since the first, and have enjoyed myself (even though I have yet to come out ahead). I'm not a great gambler by any means, but I do like calling weird variants. Here are a few that we've played (aside from plain old Texas hold 'em, which is our default game):

• My invention Crosstown Traffic was well-received. It's been called more than once since I first called it, and not just by me. At the last game, John said he thought the pattern in which cards are dealt to the board was a little hard to remember. I'm not sure what would be easier to remember though. Still, it makes for a pretty good game, and would probably play even better in a larger group.
• Sixpack was another good one (and the one I was most successful at).
• Baseball was a surprise hit. vcwhitey called it the first time, but John really liked it, probably because it makes people bet like lunatics. The way we play, 3 and 9s are wild, a player who receives a 3 as an upcard must pay a penalty of 10¢ (one white chip, the lowest denomination) or fold, and a 4 dealt as an upcard means the player receives an additional hole card before the final betting round. Silly, but fun, and the pot gets pretty big. Last Friday, another guy (Thomas) called the type of Baseball he was used to, with 4s resulting in an immediate hole card, the ability to turn a 4 dealt to the hole up to receive another card, and payment only required to make 3s wild. It wasn't as popular.
  
• Last Friday I introduced Oxford stud, a combined stud/community card variant invented at MIT, and it was also well received. The combination of upcards and community cards is an interesting twist.
• Ivy League Baseball was an ad-hoc invention I called last Friday: it's Oxford stud with Baseball rules. Community cards count as an upcard to everybody, so a 4 to the board gets everyone an extra hole card, and a 3 means that everyone (starting with the highest hand showing and going clockwise) must pay up or fold. It was kind of chaotic, but people seemed to enjoy it.
• Low hole wild was called by Thomas. 7-card stud with each player's lowest card in the hole, and all cards of the same rank, wild for them only. Pretty fun.
• We tried out Anaconda. Thomas's version gave everyone 7 cards and included 3 passes in alternating directions, and a rollout. It was confusing and nobody was particularly happy with it. I called the version I knew, where everyone got 6 cards, the passes all went to the left, and there were betting rounds between passes with no rollout. It too was a bust. I think we've all decided that nobody's going to be calling Anaconda again.
• Thomas also called Screw Your Neighbor. It's technically not poker at all: everyone antes up three stakes of a set amount (usually one white chip), and receives a card. Starting with the player to dealer's left, the player may keep his card or exchange it with the player to his left. The last player in the rotation may keep his card or discard it and draw one from the deck. Then everyone reveals their cards: the lowest card must put one of their stakes into the pot. Then everyone is dealt a new card and the rotation starts again with the next player. Once a player has lost all three of his stakes, he is out. The last player standing wins the pot. A good game, although the winnings are a bit limited. We played a few times with 10¢ stakes, at least once with 20¢ stakes, and one time with $1 stakes. $1 is probably too much, really.
• I called Russian Revolution, which is another 7-stud with a bunch of wild cards and penalties like Baseball. In this case, aces, 9s, and 7s are wild (think 1917). Receiving a face card (K Q J) requires you to pay a penalty and receive a replacement—you can't win with royalty showing (although face cards in the hole are safe). The reaction was mixed. I dunno if I'll bother calling it again.

We played a couple of other variants, but I've forgotten what they were.

I've got some ideas for other variants floating around in my head. I may post about them when I feel like they've solidified.

I also just received a 6-handed 500 deck I ordered online from Newt's Playing Cards. This is a regular Bicycle deck but with extra ranks: 11s and 12s for all suits, and 13s for red suits, making a total of 62 cards. I might try breaking this out on poker night just to see what happens. I'm also considering getting a Stardeck (13 ranks with a 5th suit) and/or an Empire Deck (13 suits, 6 suits). I wish I could find a Sextet deck (another 6-suit deck, but with the new suits in blue instead of one red and one black), because that would actually make the russ (a nonstandard hand: 5 cards of the same color) somewhat valuable, but they're long out of print. One of the variant ideas I've been playing with would basically require a 6-suit deck with 2 jokers to be playable without running the risk of running out of cards.

My gaming group's current campaign has nearly reached its conclusion and is starting to wind down. Consequently, we've been talking about what our next game should be. We'd pretty much settled on a homebrew Star Wars D20.

But today I ran across this.

Hmm.

I'm at a loss as to what to do at this Thursday night's gaming session. My character's on a quest to obtain an ancient artifact and bring it back to his people (it was originally theirs, or rather the property of one of their gods, but was stolen and taken to another country). I was basically expecting a search-for-the-long-lost-doohickey situation, but when the group got to the capital city of the country where it was taken, it turns out it wasn't long lost after all. In fact, it's on display in the front of the temple of their god*. One of my allies is a priest of that god. And he's starting to question why he should be helping me do this, since it'd essentially be stealing his people's prized artifact (see, to them it's the weapon of their legendary hero, and they don't think of it as stolen, more a "spoils of war" sort of thing).

There have been hints that the one on display is actually a fake (I won't go into details, because I'd have to describe a lot of the game world and it'd take forever). That means grabbing & dashing isn't really an option, which is just as well since my guy is a (rather weak & lousy) warrior, not a rogue. But that doesn't help with the main problem, which is balancing accomplishing my quest with not pissing off my teammate.

I'm completely at a loss.

God only knows what possessed me to devise my own poker variant, as the one time I've played poker (Texas hold 'em) I didn't enjoy myself very much. I suppose it's the same reason I fiddle with constructed languages, and come up with video game designs that will never get programmed. I find playing with ideas more interesting than how they are put into practice. So, even though I didn't enjoy playing, I still had a grand old time looking up existing types of poker*. And whenever I go info-trawling, I end up thinking about putting my own spin on the subject. Hell, I even half-assed came up with my own fictional Gnostic sect after reading a bunch of pseudepigrapha.

Without any further ado:

Crosstown Traffic
(aka Three-By-Three Hold 'Em)

This is a community card variant (like Texas hold 'em or Omaha), with a board of nine cards arranged in a 3×3 square. It's inspired by Double-Board Hold 'Em (the way the pot is split by boards rather than high/low), Tic-Tac-Toe Poker (the square board), and to a lesser extent Sixpack (the way the board deals are arranged to evenly distribute information between phases).

The initial deal is three hole cards face down to each player, then a betting round. After that, the shared board is dealt three cards at a time in three phases—the flop, turn, and river—each followed by a betting round. The flop, turn, and river are dealt in the following pattern**:

F T R
T R F
R F T

where F is a card dealt in the flop, T one in the turn, and R in the river. Within each phase, the cards are dealt left to right.

After the river and the final betting round is the showdown. The highest row hand (two of the player's hole cards together with any three-card row) and the highest column hand (two hole cards plus any column) split the pot, cards speak. It is possible for a player to scoop by having the highest row hand and the highest column hand. There is no rule that the player's row hand and column hand use the same two hole cards (although obviously they will have at least one in common). Also, if playing with wild cards, a wild card on the board does not have to play as the same rank and suit in the column as it does for the row for the same player.

*Incidentally, poker variants have some of the silliest names, like Spit in the Ocean (actually seems to be two different variants by that name), Crazy Pineapple, and Kenosha Cheese Porn. The Los Angeles Science Fantasy Society (which Larry Niven once belonged to) was rather prolific when it comes to oddly-named poker variants, among which are Double Jesus, Low Flying Outhouse, Hot Pastrami, Metaphysical Hyena, Piggish Mopsqueezer, and Terminal Acne.

**Actually, any arrangement that results in each row and column receiving exactly one new card per phase would work. The order of these subpatterns could be swapped around, or the whole pattern could be mirrored, or both, and the players would still have the same amount of information about the board at the end of each phase. Likewise, the actual order of cards dealt within a phase is irrelevant. However, it's important to follow a mutually agreed upon pattern to avoid accusations of dealer cheating, and the given arrangement is as good as any other and less confusing than some, so it's recommended.

P.S. Does anybody else think that stud poker should be played with a bigger deck than other kinds?

Found a fun new flash game: Levers

The object is to cause the little dial at the top to turn, by hanging objects on the scales (just click and drag the hooks to the hanger loops). Every time it makes a full revolution, you get a new object to hang. Each object has a different weight, and some have special properties:

• The water bucket has a spigot at the bottom that can be opened by hovering the pointer over it. You can adjust its weight in this manner. To refill, dip it in the water at the bottom of the screen.
• Hanging the birdhouse for the first time summons birds. They will sometimes go into the birdhouse, but also alight on the hangers, and they have their own weight. They're kind of frustrating, because they have a habit of moving right when you're about to achieve the necessary balance. You can cause them to take off and find a new roost by hovering the pointer.
• The snowman will eventually melt until only his hat is left. This takes a while.
  
• The sponge absorbs water if you dip it, but will dry out (and become lighter) over time.

I've gotte up to what appears to be the Head of God, but after that I'm kinda stumped.

Waiting For Godot: The Interactive Adventure. This could be the next Nanaca Crash.

Telltale Games has announced that they will be producing new Sam & Max games and that Steve Purcell is doing a new Sam & Max webcomic! The first installment is already up.

Looks like Purcell is using a blog format for his comic. Also, be warned that he seems to be playing with mouseovers for some panels.

On a lighter note, your video game humor for the day.

Justin Pierce is an evil genius.

My other idea for a 3D adventure game actually has a name: it's called (currently) "Runic". It's based around a play mechanic somewhat reminiscent of Black & White, but geared towards real-time action/adventure. The main character is an apprentice mage: on a Dual Shock-like controller, the left analog stick controls movement (as usual), but the right analog stick controlshis staff, which is used to cast spells. Spells are built from symbols you "draw" with the staff, in a sort of ideographic language with a simple grammar. While you learn complete spells throughout the game, if you experiment with the symbols you learn you can create spells of your own.

The game would start with the main character receiving a lesson on some basic spells from his master (an opportunity for an in-game tutorial), with whom he lives in a remote cottage in the mountains. After accomplishing the basic tasks in the tutorial, the old wizard receives a visit from a mysterious figure, and promptly packs up and leaves, telling you to take care of things while he's gone. But shortly after he's left, the cottage is attacked by monsters, and after you've managed to escape you set out to find your master and find out what's going on. The plot will turn out to revolve around a rogue wizard who has resurrected knowledge of a forbidden element and is trying to take control of the kingdom. The mysterious figure is an emissary from the Council of Mages, of which your master is a member. The evil wizard is the final boss, and you have to fight him without knowing going into the fight what the symbol is for his forbidden element (you need to know the symbol of an element to cast protection against it), forcing you to pay attention to the symbols he traces so you can learn to cast the protection spell on the fly.

The game would also feature two different kinds of steeds for the hero: a warcorn (a type of tough unicorn) and a falcor (a large bird you can ride).

Unlike most Zelda-like adventures, you mostly don't get money for beating monsters. Instead, you have to work for your pay in different places, but with creative use of your spellcasting abilities you can make many tasks easier. However, you learn early on that you can't let people know about your magical abilities (it'd make you a target of the villain), so you have to hide it.

This whole thing is inspired by some things I find to be lacking in how magic is used in most adventure and RPG video games. Usually, spells are set in stone. In adventures specifically they are used as "another type of weapon/item", no different from a bow & arrow or grappling hook (think Zelda 64's 3 spells) except that they use "magical energy". In RPGs, magic users are basically heavy artillery (sometimes with the ability to heal). I want to turn things on their head so magic, not swords & shields, is primary, and is a flexible tool. The main character is a mage, and the player's tactics have to take that into account.

I've been re-playing Zelda 64: Ocarina of Time recently, and that's gotten me thinking about my as-yet-unnammed fantasy adventure game idea.

The main play mechanic centers around magical gems (original, I know) that "bond" with pieces of the hero's equipment and give them magical powers. It's partly inspired by the Materia system from Final Fantasy Whatevernumberitwas, and the tunics and boots from Ocarina of Time. Each piece of equipment has "slots" that power gems can be assigned to (number of slots is a property of the item, along with other qualities like attack strength, defense, etc.), and a single gem can be assigned to multiple pieces of equipment at a time (depending on the power of the gem, which can be raised with experience). The "bonds" between gems and pieces of equipment can be changed on the fly.

The gems represent the four elements, plus light, shadow, lightning, and nature; the elements oppose each other in the usual way, light and shadow are opposed, and lightning and nature oppose themselves. The pieces of equipment they can bond with are the helm (sensory and mental abilities), breastplate (resistance to environmental effects), gauntlets (touch and lifting), boots (are made for walking), shield (defense), sword (sword attacks), and the secondary weapons (bow & arrows, magic staves, etc.). For example, bonding the shadow gem to the helm allows the hero to see through illusions (which are light-based), while bonding the light gem to the helm allows him to see in the dark. The earth gem when bonded to the boots aids in traction, the water gem allows you to walk on water, the air gem lengthens your jump and cushions falls, etc.

Part of the idea is that the gem you start out with in the beginning of the game is either randomly determined or chosen, and that to a certain extent determines the order of the main dungeons (at least for the first part of the game). I've always liked the Mega Man system, where you can attempt the stages in any order, but the powerup you get in one stage makes another stage easier.

alun_clewe's recent posts on logic mazes have also prompted me to think about how puzzles should work. What I'd really like to see is randomly generated (but provably solvable) puzzles and mazes. The problem with preset puzzles is that they're no longer puzzles as soon as somebody writes up a walkthrough on GameFAQs; they're just tasks. Dynamic puzzles would fix that problem, and would also contribute replay value.

Got another chess variant for y'all. This one is partly inspired by Alice Chess.


This is played with a standard chess army (plus two extra kings) on two 8x8 boards. The regular armies are set up as normal on one board (the World), while the two extra kings are set up on the usual king positions on the second board (the Underworld). The object is the checkmate the opponent's king on the World.

Play is the same as in orthochess, except that when a piece is captured it is dropped on the nearest unoccupied square on its home file in the Underworld (pawns cannot occupy the first rank when dropped, and are dropped on the same file they are captured on). Play on the Underworld is the same as play in orthochess, with the following differences:

• Only the enemy Underworld King is capable of actually capturing pieces permanently. Otherwise captures in the Underworld are treated exactly the same as captures in the World, resulting in the piece being dropped back in the Underworld.
• There is no pawn promotion. To pawns, the board is cylindrical, with the first rank following the eighth.
• Underworld Kings have the same restrictions as regular Kings, except that "checkmating" them does not end the game, and if the Underworld King cannot escape check, its player may make any otherwise legal move. Successfully capturing an Underworld King with a regular piece results in the regular piece being returned to the World in the closest unoccupied space on its home file (the file it captured on for pawns). If the capturing piece is the other Underworld King, the capturing player gets to choose any of his pieces (including "permanently" captured ones) to return to the World, and the captured Underworld King is returned by its player to any unoccupied and unattacked space on his first rank (2nd rank if there are no qualifying spaces in the first).

The full turn order is: white on World, black on World, black on Underworld, white on Underworld. So, while white has the same first-move advantage on the World as he does in orthochess, black has first-move advantage on the Underworld. If either board is reduced to only its native Kings, it is rendered inactive immediately and play there stops until another piece is introduced. White always gets the first move after activation of the World, and black always gets the first move after activation of the Underworld, regardless of who had the last turn before it was deactivated. Deactivating both boards (which can only be done by capturing all non-Kings with Underworld Kings) counts as a draw.

In this chess variant, named after the concept of an "ideal government" from Plato's Republic, the King is a "Philosopher"-like piece. The supplemental 4×4 board is called the Æon, and the King's two kinds of movement are represented by a pair of markers caled Ideas, which move one space at a time orthogonally on the Æon (and cannot share a space). However, unlike in Dialectic Chess, the two Ideas do not correspond to passive and capturing movements: the moves represented by either marker can be used to move passively or to capture. The Ideas start on {1,0} and {1,1}, meaning that the King moves at the start just like a standard chess King. The same restrictions on repeating positions on the Æon between board moves apply as in Dialectic Chess.

Obviously, you couldn't move an Idea if your King is in check, since it could not remove check. It's also impossible to give check by making an æonic move, since doing so would also put your own King in check.

I'm conflicted about castling. Of course, you could play with traditional castling, or with no castling alowed at all. My current idea is that castling is allowed, but only if the King could arrive at the proper spot by repeated use of one of his moves in the same direction (in other words, one marker would have to be on any of {1,0}, {0,1}, {2,0}, or {0,2}). The usual restriction on inability to move the King through a space under attack holds, but if the King would not land there during his moves, the attack is irrelevant: e.g. if space F1 is under attack and one of the markers is on {2,0}, the player could castle kingside as the King would not be considered to have passed through F1 (however, this would leave the rook vulnerable to attack, so it might not be the best move to make in practice). The only real problem with this is that it's kind of hard to describe, but it does make the Æon relevant to castling.

( Royal Philosophers )
( Philosopher's Army )
( Grand Philosopher's Army )
( Chiron's Chess )
( Guru and the Sages )


Philosopher-hoppers are possible.

All of these "philosophical" variants of chess use a smaller two-dimensional chessboard to control the "philosophers". It may be possible to expand these concepts. For example, adding a third dimension in which the "thoughts" can move, which could determine another component of the affected piece. Or, staying in 2D, adding a "sub-thought" piece that can split from and merge with a rider's thought that would determine the direction of the first step of a rider's move, allowing a rider to become a bent rider (like a gryphon or unicorn) or a "skip rider" (a similar idea, except the initial move is in the same direction as the rest and only differs in length, like a wazir + dabbabahrider). In fact, there is no reason why the meta-"board" must resemble a chessboard at all!

One of the more intriguing chess variants to be found in The Chess Variants Pages is Philosopher's Chess, a small chess variant (40 spaces total on the board) that introduces an odd new piece: the Philosopher. The interesting thing about the Philosopher is that its movement abilities can change over the course of the game, controlled by another piece (the "Thought") on a separate board (the "Mind"), by both players.

This has inspired me to invent several chess variants with Philosophers and Philosopher-like pieces. Here's one; I'll post the others later:


This variant is played on a standard 8×8 board with an additonal separate 3×3 board. It uses standard chess armies (the knight pieces can be used to represent the Philosophers) plus two differently-colored markers (a pair of checkers pieces would do).

The 3×3 board is the "dialectic", and its ranks and files are numbered 0–2. The two tokens are the "Thesis" and "Antithesis". The position of the Thesis on the dialectic determines how the Philosopher moves passively, and the position of the Antithesis determines how it moves to capture. They start on squares (1,2) and (2,1), respectively (meaning that, at the start, all Philosophers move and capture as Knights). Either player may, on his or her turn, move the Thesis or Antithesis one space orthogonally instead of moving one of his or her own pieces, with the caveat that a dialectic position cannot be repeated between moves on the main board (meaning that you can't simply undo your opponent's dialectic move immediately).

The setup on the main board is identical to that of othochess, but with the Philosophers taking the place of the Knights. Philosophers are leapers (making a single step for a move, ignoring intervening pieces, like a Knight), moving according to the positions of the Thesis and Antithesis: the coordinates are interpreted as a number of spaces in any orthogonal direction followed by a number of spaces at 90° to that, e.g. if the Thesis is at (1,2) or (2,1), the Philosopher moves passively as a Knight, at (1,0) or (0,1) as a Wazir, at (1,1) as a Ferz, and at (0,0) not at all. If a Philosopher captures another Philosopher, it is promoted to a Great Philosopher. Great Philosophers behave like Philosophers, but are riders, taking any number of Philosopher steps in the same direction, rather than leapers. So, with the Thesis at (1,2) or (2,1) a Great Philosopher moves passively as a Knightrider, at (1,0) or (0,1) as a Rook, and at (1,1) as a Bishop.

The usual restrictions on moving into and in check apply to moves on the Dialectic: you cannot move the Antithesis such that it would cause an enemy Philosopher to immediately threaten your King, and if your King is in check you may only make a Dialectic move if that would remove check.

Variant: Hegelian Dialectic Chess — the Thesis and Antithesis may occupy the same square, and if they do they may be moved as a unit, called the Synthesis. This removes an odd side effect of the basic rules, which is that a Philosopher that can move passively on the diagonal cannot capture in the same way that it moves, and vice versa. It also makes a little less than half of the Dialectic pointless, so you could play with all of the Dialectic squares nothwest of the main diagonal removed, giving the Dialectic a stairstep shape.