ch00beh

✨ software pretengineer ✨

i'm here to dumb ass and chew bubblegum and i'm all out of bubblegum

name gen: @onomancer

capybara dating app: @capybr


vogon
@vogon

Two players, Black and White (or 先手 sente and 後手 gote), play on a board ruled into a grid of 36 ranks (rows) by 36 files (columns) with a total of 1,296 squares. The squares are differentiated by marking or color.

Each player has a set of 402 wedge-shaped pieces of 207 types. The players must remember 253 sets of moves.

[...] Because the game was found only recently after centuries of obscurity, it is difficult to say exactly what all the rules were. Several documents describing the game have been found; however, there are differences between them. It is not too clear how accurate the rules given by modern sources for the game are, because many of the pieces appear in other shogi variants with a consistent move there, but are given different moves in taikyoku shogi. The board, and likewise the pieces, were made much smaller than usual for the other variants, making archeological finds difficult to decipher. Research into this game continues.

It is not clear if the game was ever played much historically.

the only video of it being played appears to have been a segment on a japanese trivia/comedy show where they recruited two professional shogi players to play it. the game ended after 32 hours and 41 minutes, and 3,805 moves.

they did not like it that much.


Willow
@Willow

colin post the tamerlane chess board too


vogon
@vogon
  • the king, knight, and rook are the same as in normal chess.
  • pawns can't capture en passant and can only move one square.
  • instead of there being one type of pawn, there are 11, one for each type of piece; they all obey the same movement rules, but they are committed to promoting into the corresponding piece upon reaching the farthest rank.
  • there's no castling.
  • there's no threefold repetition or 50-move draws.
  • there are no queens or bishops.
  • the queen has been replaced with the general and vizier, which can move like half a king; the former only diagonally, and the latter only orthogonally.
  • the bishop has been replaced with the picket, which moves like a bishop but has to move at least two squares.
  • there are two new pieces called the elephant and war engine, which move exactly two spaces (diagonally and orthogonally) and can jump other pieces like knights.
  • there are two more weird knights: the camel, which moves in a 3-by-1 L; and the giraffe, which can't jump and moves in an L that is 1-by-at-least-41.
  • the board isn't a fucking rectangle; it has two little nubs hanging off the side. these nubs are called citadels, and you can only move into them with the opposing king; if you do, the game immediately ends in a draw.
  • remember how I said that the king is the same as in normal chess? that was a lie. once per game, when checked or mated, the king can switch places with any other piece on its side. this elevates the citadel from "vestigial" to "conceivably could matter at some point"; if you check the opposing king while he has a piece unthreatened near your citadel, your opponent might be able to force a draw.
  • okay so remember earlier how I mentioned that there's one pawn for every type of piece? I didn't forget to mention any exceptions -- there is also a "pawn of pawns" and a "pawn of kings".
  • so here's, impossibly, the more straightforward of those two promotion rules: when promoted, the pawn of kings turns into a prince, which acts like a second king. either the king or the prince on a side with both has to be captured before the other can be checked or mated.

this brings us to the pawn of pawns, which is the most bizarrely overwrought set of game mechanics I have ever seen in maybe any board game.

when you promote the pawn of pawns the first time, it gets locked on the last rank like you're saving it for multiball on a pinball table. the next time your opponent is forked or otherwise forced to lose a piece to any of your pawns, the locked pawn is automatically dropped into a square that can attack one of the threatened pieces, even if that square is occupied (the occupying piece is removed from the game, even if it's yours), and it goes back to moving as normal.

... that is, until it gets to the final rank again, at which point it starts over by immediately moving to the starting square of the pawn of kings.

if you're anything like me, this immediately foreshadows something truly silly that happens the third time you promote it, and I'm happy to tell you that what happens is that this pawn -- which has now moved, like, 30 times minimum -- becomes the adventitious king, a special king that can move into his own citadel, permanently blocking his opponent from forcing a draw.

aside from the rules about the citadels and pawn promotion, Tamerlane chess honestly seems pretty reasonable, but the citadels and pawn promotion are absolutely nightmarish.


  1. wikipedia helpfully describes it as "a restricted gryphon", which is I'm sure useful to at least one person on earth


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @vogon's post:

my favorite part of the video is when they walk in and one of the shogi pros says 「これが有名な…」 which literally means "oh this is famous" but you can tell by the tone of his voice that he's saying it like "oh... this fucking thing"

in reply to @vogon's post:

I've got this 1968 book "Chess Variations: Ancient, Regional and Modern" (this might be where @love heard about Timur/Tamerlane chess) which has the interesting property the author actually handbuilt boards for, and made serious attempts to play with a partner, each of the variants he discusses. This gives him the opportunity to (although he's usually frustratingly brief about it) express opinions on which variations are actually interesting and what's interesting about them. In the "Timur's Chess" chapter (that's what he decides to call it) he expresses the opinion Timur's Chess is actually both playable and fun, claiming that although the rules take a long time to write out they're easy to remember and reason about once you actually start thinking. But he does also express the specific opinions that:

  1. The "pawn of pawns" winds up not really having an impact on the game because it's very easy to prevent it from reaching the end of the board and few players would probably ever allow this to happen even once.

  2. The citadels have a major impact on game strategy, especially in the endgame.

I'm not sure I remember this right but I think he might praise Timur's Chess more highly as a game than anything else in the book except Shogi (which he absolutely fell in love with, and goes to some lengths to try to sell readers on various 1968-centric ways to acquire a set and play).

Oh, I forgot to mention why I was making this post in the first place. What's interesting to me about Mr. Gollon's differing responses to the "pawn of pawns" rule is that contra Mr. Musk's statements about Chess, introducing complexity to a game's rules does not necessarily result in more complex gameplay; it's actually kind of subtly difficult to design rules in a way that results in an actually deeper game. In fact one of the more compelling proposals going around right now for making Chess more interesting is to remove a rule, I.E., castling, which (longer explanation here) would produce more active games ending in fewer draws, by making you work harder to play defensively.

(But maybe I'm wasting time / feeding the troll by responding as if Mr. Musk was saying these things sincerely rather than just being smarmy about the fact Chess doesn't hold his attention.)

yep! I agree, even though it seems like I was ragging on it -- in particular, the lack of ranging pieces in Tamerlane chess really makes me interested in trying it, because it seems like it'd give combat a texture (for lack of a better word) that I don't find in normal chess; the fact that so many pieces can threaten from across the board is one of my least favorite things about chess.

and yeah, the pawn of pawns rule definitely has the feel of something added after the creator realized that the original draft of the ruleset was incomplete and he had to tie up a loose end somewhere.

Right ok so I might be saying something you already know here but

In general, virtually every chess variant other than Mad Queen Chess (modern/"European" chess) has less reliance on ranged pieces. The original Chaturanga in India has no ranged pieces except the rooks (the bishop equivalent just does a 1-step checkers hop). As chess moved west people tended to tweak it by adding more complex piece movements (peaking with the Mad Queen) and as it moved east the tendency was more toward introducing complexities to the board itself, IE the terrain in Chinese and Korean chesses, and then Shogi simplifies the terrain but introduces two new ideas (the drop rule, and pieces with short-range but complex/asymmetrical movesets).

I do think Shogi is really interesting— the sharply limited ranged pieces (one bishop, one rook, two "lances" that can move forward freely but only forward), combined with the unusual variety of movement types, mean there's this heavy focus on building "fortresses" with complex shapes— and the fact your mobility is so low at the start of the game (ranged pieces locked in, can't drop yet) means each player actually has time to maneuver one of these into place. This said if you're just looking for limited ranging basically any Persian chess will have that, and Tamerlane and Citadel chess both offer some new complexity to make up for the simpler piece movement.

Looks like you forgot the link to the argument for removing castling, which I'd be interested to read! My attempts to search for it just turned up a few chess.com forum threads that didn't seem very useful.

is nobody gonna suggest General Chess / Xiangqi? the elephant is a straight copy of the ones in general chess, and general chess has the artillery which like, can only take if it leapfrogs over another piece which is great

The basic idea of the “adventitious king” and the “prince” shows up in a lot of shōgi variants—upon promotion, you get a second king, and to beat you your opponent needs to capture both kings.

The really terrible thing about not just taikyoku shōgi but really all the large and extra-large shōgi variants is that the promotion rules are baroque and difficult to reason about. The fascinating thing about them is how forward-centric the pieces are: most pieces have more options for moving forward than they do backward, and this persists even after promotion (which usually gives them a larger backwards-moving repertoire). The rules really encourage balls-to-the-wall aggressive play.