Draughts variants on the web
Ralf Gering
1.
Altdeutsche Dame
--> called "Gothic Checkers" in English
http://www.di.fc.ul.pt/~jpn/gv/gothic.htm
2.
Bushka
--> strange mixture of Fanorona and International Draughts; by Christian
Freeling
http://www.mindsports.net/Arena/BushkaTutor/
3.
Celestial Checkers
--> by Chris Huntoon
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/games/celestialcheckers.html
4.
Checkers to the Max
--> English Draughts variant by Stan Druben
5.
Croda
--> Turkish Draughts variant by Ljuban Dedic
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/games/dameo.html (bottom)
6.
Cube Checkers
--> English Draughts variant
http://www.hellofriend.org/events/cube_checkers/cube_checkers.html
7.
Dam
--> Singhalese Draughts
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/3298/my_dam_12by12.html
8.
Damas Espanolas (Juego de Damas)
--> traditional variant
http://www.terra.es/personal2/jlgsanz/
9.
Dama Italiana
--> traditional variant
http://www.fid.it/corsi/corsoita.htm
10.
Damate
--> by V.R. Parton
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/games/damate.html
11.
Dameo
--> Turkish Draughts variant by Cristian Freeling
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/games/dameo.html
12.
Draughts
--> traditional game; in some remote areas called "Checkers" ;-)
http://home.earthlink.net/~allyman/
13.
Extreme Checkers
--> English Draughts variant by Peter Aronson
14.
Fairy Tale Draughts
--> Turkish Draughts variant by Chris Huntoon
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/games/fairytaledraughts.html
15.
Frysk Spul
--> traditional game (Frisian Draughts)
http://www.cybercomm.nl/~dfs/
16.
Give and Take
-->Turkish Draughts variant by Chritopher Elis
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Field/2900/givetake.htm
17.
Gorgon
--> variant of Altdeutsche Dame; can be played with or without
compulsory capturing; the more challenging game is with
compulsory capturing (just my opinion)
http://www.di.fc.ul.pt/~jpn/gv/gorgon.htm
18.
HexDame
---> variant of International Draughts by Christian Freeling
http://www.mindsports.net/Arena/HexDameTutor/
19.
Jeu de Dames Canadien
--> traditional variant in Quebec
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Arthur_H_Olsen/Canadian.htm
20.
Jeu de Dames International
--> the most popular traditional Draughts variant
http://www.fmjd.nl/
21.
Kharberg
--> modern Italian variant (second player has strong advantage)
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Sideline/5299/grulkhar.htm
22.
Lasca
--> by Emanuel Lasker; influenced by Bashni and English Draughts
http://research.interface.co.uk/lasca/about.htm#
23.
Polarity
--> variant of Damas Espanolas by Chris Hunton; first player has a very
strong advantage
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/games/polarity.html
24.
Pool Checkers
--> traditional variant influeced by Spanish Draughts
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Arthur_H_Olsen/poolchec.htm
25.
Shashki
--> traditional variant
http://www.shashki.ru/win/index.htm
26.
Türk Damsi
--> traditional variant
http://www.geocities.com/karakusk/dama/
----------------------
Notes:
Several good Draughts variants are not yet described on the web such
as Bashni, Dragon, Dornröschendame, Westfälische Dame ...
Cheskers and Schachdame are Chess variants, not Draughts variants.
Chinese Checkers is neither a Draughts variant nor a Chess variant (nor
did it originate in China).
Hartunga
didn't get mentioned: Tourney and Faustus.
Also, Armada began as a Draughts variant. Whether it can still be seen as one
after all the concepts I threw into is open to interpretation.
>23.
>Polarity
>--> variant of Damas Espanolas by Chris Hunton; first player has a very
> strong advantage
Interesting. The strong first player advantage didn't come out during play
testing. I'd like to hear more.
Ralf Gering
Hello Chris,
> There are a couple of my Draughts variants found on the Zillions site that
> didn't get mentioned: Tourney and Faustus.
Tourney:
According to my classification system of abstract games (mostly goal
oriented) Tourney isn't a Draughts variant, but a "Grundreihenspiel". I.e.
the player who is the first to reach his opponent's home rank or his own
wins.
(In my opinion, everybody may use his (or her) own classification system.)
Faustus:
I didn't know the game. It's a draughts variant according to my
definition.
> Also, Armada began as a Draughts variant. Whether it can still be seen
> as one
> after all the concepts I threw into is open to interpretation.
Armada:
As the goal of the game is to control the enemy's dock (one peculiar
square), I don't call it a Draughts variant, but a "Felderspiel" (i.e.
"squares game").
> >23.
> >Polarity
> >--> variant of Damas Espanolas by Chris Hunton; first player has a very
> > strong advantage
>
> Interesting. The strong first player advantage didn't come out during play
> testing. I'd like to hear more.
Strange. I'm a rather stronger Draughts player and usually win
against average players. When I did the play testing it was my impression.
I think the strongest strategy is to force your opponent to capture all
your negative pieces.
My definition of Draughts variants includes:
1.
All pieces can theoretically be part of winning or losing the game (i.e.
fulfilling the winning or losing condition). A game is won or lost if all
pieces of one or several types were captured by the opponent. In contrast
to Chess variants all pieces are potentially part of the winning
condition, not just some of them.
2.
Secondary Goal: Some Draughts variants also allow to win by blockading
your opponent, but only as a second possibilty.
3.
Pieces promote when they reach the opposite end of the board (in Gorgon: by
returning to the own side).
Ralf
Ralf Gering
Hello,
> >23.
> >Polarity
> >--> variant of Damas Espanolas by Chris Hunton; first player has a very
> > strong advantage
>
> Interesting. The strong first player advantage didn't come out during play
> testing. I'd like to hear more.
I tested the game a long time ago and couldn't exactly remember why I made
the note: "Enormer Anzugsvorteil!" ("enormous advantage for the first
player") in my folder "Damevarianten und andere Schlagspiele" ("draughts
variants and other capture games").
I checked the game again and came to the following result:
Polarity is a sure win for the first player. The game is flawed.
Reasons:
It's easier to get rid of your negative pieces than to capture your
opponent's positive pieces, because the opponent can much easier defend
his positive pieces than he can defend against an attacking negative
piece. For this reason, White's strategy should be to win by losing all
his negative pieces first. Now look at the starting position which is very
unfair to Black:
http://www.zillionsofgames.com/games/polarity.html
White (Lower Side) has two groups of negative stones, wheras Black (Upper
Side) has four groups. Even worse, two of Black's groups of negative
pieces are blockaded by his positive pieces, wheras none of White's
negative groups are blockaded. This means, that White can easily move his
negative stones towards Black, where they are captured and he can also
much more effectively use sacrifice techniques than Black can do.
This solution is rather trivial and easy to find.
BTW, I doubt that you really use all the rules of Damas Espanolas as it
is claimed by Zillions ("Other than this, the game follows the
rules of Spanish Checkers"). According to the Federacion de Damas
Espanolas Clasicas there is the following rule:
"In the event of two branches of capture (same number of pieces), it is
compulsory to jump over that with the maximum number of powerful pieces
(kings) This is called the Rule of Quality."
http://www.terra.es/personal2/jlgsanz/checkers/rules.htm
See the Spanish description for the complete rules:
http://www.terra.es/personal2/jlgsanz/damas/reglas.htm
However, whether you use the "quality capture rule" in Polarity or
not doesn't make any difference in the strategical solution I outlined
above.
Note:
Spanish Checkers has always been described with wrong rules by
US Americans. Probably this is because you still confuse Metric and
Imperial measures ;-)
Ralf
Ralf
Hartunga
>Hello,
>
>> >23.
>> >Polarity
>> >--> variant of Damas Espanolas by Chris Hunton; first player has a very
>> > strong advantage
>>
>> testing. I'd like to hear more.
>
>I tested the game a long time ago and couldn't exactly remember why I made
>the note: "Enormer Anzugsvorteil!" ("enormous advantage for the first
>player") in my folder "Damevarianten und andere Schlagspiele" ("draughts
>variants and other capture games").
>
>I checked the game again and came to the following result:
>
>Polarity is a sure win for the first player. The game is flawed.
>
>Reasons:
>
>It's easier to get rid of your negative pieces than to capture your
>opponent's positive pieces, because the opponent can much easier defend
>his positive pieces than he can defend against an attacking negative
>piece. For this reason, White's strategy should be to win by losing all
>his negative pieces first. Now look at the starting position which is very
>unfair to Black:
>
>http://www.zillionsofgames.com/games/polarity.html
>
>White (Lower Side) has two groups of negative stones, wheras Black (Upper
>Side) has four groups. Even worse, two of Black's groups of negative
>pieces are blockaded by his positive pieces, wheras none of White's
>negative groups are blockaded. This means, that White can easily move his
>negative stones towards Black, where they are captured and he can also
>much more effectively use sacrifice techniques than Black can do.
>
I appreciate the feedback. It seems the obvious solution is to invert the
Lower Side's set-up so it has the same grouping of negative pieces as the Upper
Side. This would help balance the game and force the use of more positive
pieces.
>This solution is rather trivial and easy to find.
Sometimes it just takes a set of fresh eyes to see the obvious.
>
>BTW, I doubt that you really use all the rules of Damas Espanolas as it
>is claimed by Zillions ("Other than this, the game follows the
>rules of Spanish Checkers"). According to the Federacion de Damas
>Espanolas Clasicas there is the following rule:
>
>"In the event of two branches of capture (same number of pieces), it is
>compulsory to jump over that with the maximum number of powerful pieces
>(kings) This is called the Rule of Quality."
>http://www.terra.es/personal2/jlgsanz/checkers/rules.htm
>
>See the Spanish description for the complete rules:
>http://www.terra.es/personal2/jlgsanz/damas/reglas.htm
>
>However, whether you use the "quality capture rule" in Polarity or
>not doesn't make any difference in the strategical solution I outlined
>above.
>
>Note:
>Spanish Checkers has always been described with wrong rules by
>US Americans. Probably this is because you still confuse Metric and
>Imperial measures ;-)
>
>Ralf
This is the first time I've heard of the "Rule of Quality" although it makes
sense. The typical book on games doesn't attempt to be as thorough as the
Federation rules. (For instance, the usual description of Spanish Checkers
I've seen in books is only about a paragraph long.)
The zrf for Polarity did include the "maximal-captures" command. However, I
doubt the Zillions program distinguishes between "quality captures."
BTW, I only used the rules for Spanish Checkers as a basis for Polarity for no
other reason than a personal fondness for that game. Polarity's basic concept
can be transferred to pretty much any form of Draughts.
Chris Huntoon
Ralf Gering
Dear Chris,
I appreciate the discussion with you! Where do you live? In the USA or in
some other country? I live in the state of Germany of the European
Union (i.e. the slowly emerging "United States of Europe"). You are among
the most creative artists who design games. I love Tourney and Gorgon.
> I appreciate the feedback. It seems the obvious solution is to invert the
> Lower Side's set-up so it has the same grouping of negative pieces as the Upper
> Side. This would help balance the game and force the use of more positive
> pieces.
This should be tried out! Giving Black a positional advantage in the
beginning in return to White's advantage of having the first move is an
elegant philosophy. It's reminiscent of Renju, where the rules were made
unfair to make the game fair.
Have a good day,
Ralf
Hartunga
>
>I appreciate the discussion with you! Where do you live? In the USA or in
>some other country? I live in the state of Germany of the European
>Union (i.e. the slowly emerging "United States of Europe"). You are among
>the most creative artists who design games. I love Tourney and Gorgon.
>
Thank you. To answer your question, I'm an American.
>
>> I appreciate the feedback. It seems the obvious solution is to invert the
>> Lower Side's set-up so it has the same grouping of negative pieces as the
>Upper
>> Side. This would help balance the game and force the use of more positive
>> pieces.
>
>This should be tried out! Giving Black a positional advantage in the
>beginning in return to White's advantage of having the first move is an
>elegant philosophy. It's reminiscent of Renju, where the rules were made
>unfair to make the game fair.
>
There seems to be two choices as how one can handle this. First, one can
essentially reverse the board, giving the Lower Side four groups of negative
pieces and the Upper Side two groups of negative pieces. This would give the
second player a more advantageous set-up than the first player. The question
is the first player advantage that significant that it warrants giving the
second player such a strong edge?
Second, one could give the Lower and Upper Sides the same set-up of four groups
of negative pieces. This change would balance both sides and would force the
use of more positive pieces, which is more in the spirit of the game. The
question now is the first-player advantage still too strong?
Chris Huntoon
Ralf Gering
Hello,
> Thank you. To answer your question, I'm an American.
Great! I've been in your country for 7 months and lived in communes.
America has many faces...
> >>(...) This would (...) force the use of more positive
> >> pieces.
> There seems to be two choices as how one can handle this. First, one can
> essentially reverse the board, giving the Lower Side four groups of negative
> pieces and the Upper Side two groups of negative pieces. This would give the
> second player a more advantageous set-up than the first player. The question
> is the first player advantage that significant that it warrants giving the
> second player such a strong edge?
I tested the reversed set-up. First, White won still all the games (!),
later it was Black. It's not easy to reach a definite conclusion,
however, I suspect that Black has an advantage if the game is played well.
> Second, one could give the Lower and Upper Sides the same set-up of four
> groups of negative pieces. This change would balance both sides and
> would force the use of more positive pieces, which is more in the spirit
> of the game.
I do not really understand what you exactly mean with "the use of more
positive pieces".
Polarity will always remain in practice a variant of Give-away Checkers.
Whatever you chose as the initial set-up, getting rid of your own
negative pieces will always be far more easier than to capture your
opponent's positive pieces because it is far more difficult to
defend against an attacking negative piece (which wants to commit
suicide) than to defend one's own positive pieces which are attacked.
This doesn't depend on the initial set-up. Basically Polarity is a race
game: you try to get your negative pieces killed as fast as possible (there
are only 6, so it's not good to fall behind in the race). The positive
pieces are usually only used to get your negative pieces killed. I had only
one game, where a player had one negative piece left and had to play
cautiously, but he intentionally caused the situation himself because he
sacrificed all his other positive pieces to gain the lead in the race, and
he knew many moves ahead that he would win by losing all his negative pieces,
while having just one positive piece left.
However, just for theory, who wins when a player
loses his last negative and positive piece in the same move (by multiple
capture)? Is this a draw?
> The question now is the first-player advantage still too strong?
Must be tried out...
Ralf
Hartunga
>> Second, one could give the Lower and Upper Sides the same set-up of four
>> groups of negative pieces. This change would balance both sides and
>> would force the use of more positive pieces, which is more in the spirit
>> of the game.
>
>I do not really understand what you exactly mean with "the use of more
>positive pieces".
>
>Polarity will always remain in practice a variant of Give-away Checkers.
>Whatever you chose as the initial set-up, getting rid of your own
>negative pieces will always be far more easier than to capture your
>opponent's positive pieces because it is far more difficult to
>defend against an attacking negative piece (which wants to commit
>suicide) than to defend one's own positive pieces which are attacked.
>This doesn't depend on the initial set-up. Basically Polarity is a race
>game: you try to get your negative pieces killed as fast as possible (there
>are only 6, so it's not good to fall behind in the race). The positive
>pieces are usually only used to get your negative pieces killed. I had only
>one game, where a player had one negative piece left and had to play
>cautiously, but he intentionally caused the situation himself because he
>sacrificed all his other positive pieces to gain the lead in the race, and
>he knew many moves ahead that he would win by losing all his negative pieces,
>while having just one positive piece left.
>
First off, let me say that Polarity was never intended as anything more then a
novelty. So lets not set too high of expectations from it.
Polarity is designed to be a game with two types of pieces, each with their own
purpose. The game has two different goals that are opposite from one another.
All this is meant to create tension. It is not intended to be merely Losing
Checkers with some safe pieces mixed in.
Granted the main focus is on getting rid of one's negative pieces, yet the
positive pieces should have a role too. To use an analogy, in a normal game of
Checkers the focus is ordinarily on capture. However a player can also lose by
being immobolized. In most games this usually more of a threat than a reality.
Still this doesn't mean a player should ignore the risk of blockade.
As you pointed out, in one set-up a player would be able to move out all his
negative pieces and leave his positive pieces untouched. The other set-up a
player would be forced to move some of his positive pieces to free up his
negative ones. This would mean the positive pieces would play a more active
role in the game and in turn be exposed more to the threat of capture. The
second set-up is more in the spirt of the game.
Another point to consider is you keep evaluating the game in terms of only
skilled players. A good game should appeal to all levels of players for
different reasons. A skilled player might appreciate the sense of novelty. An
average player might find the game conditions more of a stumbling block, for I
have seen games where a player was so intent on losing his negative pieces that
he left his positive pieces exposed and ended up losing because of it. Whereas
a casual player might not realize the importance of the negative pieces at all
and be challenged as he juggles back and forth between positive and negative.
That being said, I have heard from several people who have found the game (even
with the flaw you pointed out) to be intriguing and entertaining. And that's
all I've ever asked from it.
>
>However, just for theory, who wins when a player
>loses his last negative and positive piece in the same move (by multiple
>capture)? Is this a draw?
>
If a player loses his last negative and positve pieces in the same move and so
fulfills both the win and lose conditions simulataneously, the two cancel each
other out and the game is a draw.
Ralf Gering
Perhaps a solution would be to have just 4 positive pieces, but 8 negative
pieces per player. Then both goals might be equally feasible. Could you
imagine a set-up?
Ralf
Hartunga
>pieces per player. Then both goals might be equally feasible. Could you
>imagine a set-up?
There is probably a number of ways to change Polarity to offset the relation of
the positive and negative pieces. The problem is, in the end, you'd wind up
with a game that was quite different from what you started with. And that's
not what I want.
If you're looking for a comparable game, a few months ago I came across a
Checkers variant by V. R. Parton that is very similar in concept to Polarity.
It is called "Good-for-Nothings." The front two ranks are filled with regular
pieces (like positive pieces) and the back rank is filled with
Good-for-Nothings (like negative pieces). The player wins either by capturing
all of his opponents regular pieces, getting rid of all his own
Good-for-Nothings, or forcing an opponent's Good-for-Nothing to promote.