Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 269 posts

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#91

Post by WJW »

junon wrote: post #75
lemmsjid wrote: post #5

It would be interesting to do an experiment on people playing one another (online) with these pieces vs regular pieces (e.g. one player with a regular set and one player with this set). Because I do feel like I can visualize the state of the board more easily with this approach--but would that translate across people into better play, or is there some point where a more expert player (I don't play very often, though…

> has already internalized the mapping from piece shape to movement Magnus Carlson, considered one of - if not the - best chess players of all time has a famous video of him playing three chess matches simultaneously, blindfolded, and winning all three. Once you get to a certain point not only the movements but also entire gameplay strategies become internalized.

Not to mention the video where the board is presented in the "wrong" direction, so he enumerates to himself which squares the pieces are on, then closes his eyes so he can see the board clearer.

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#92

Post by javier123454321 »

notfed wrote: post #27

This would be awesome for teaching beginners. I'd probably go with circle for the king, and maybe an L or a sideways H for the knight, even though they break the original design rule. Otherwise K/Q/N just look too similar.

Learning the movement is by far the easiest part of teaching beginners. It's fine as a design exercise, but its effect in making it easier to learn is close to null.

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#93

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

freyfogle wrote: post #11

I suspect Josef Hartwig would like a word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Hartwig#Chess_sets https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus-Schachspiel

I have the 1924 Bauhaus chess set and it's the most beautiful thing I own.

Always loved how the shape and size of the pieces indicate their moves while still being simple and recognisable.

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#94

Post by zelphirkalt »

dheera wrote: post #79
infogulch wrote: post #63

For me the most surprising observation from this thread is this tweet [1] showing that the knight's moves are exactly the squares that the queen can't get to within a 2 square manhattan distance. I.e. the knight is an anti-queen. [1]: https://twitter.com/skidbladnirr_/status/1750285122769957129

In Chinese chess, the horse behaves like the knight in western chess except that (a) it cannot jump over pieces, and (b) the definition of jumping over is that it first move horizontally/vertically 1 step and then diagonally 1 step. It cannot first move diagonally. This also leads to situations where two knights can be positioned amongst other pieces such that one knight is able to capture the other but not vice vers…

Most people think of the knight move as one straight and then one diagonal. However, this is still ambiguous. Imagine one up, then one down left for example, resulting in the square left to the original square. A better description is moving 2 squares straight, not diagonal, into one direction, then moving 1 square into a 90° turned direction.

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#95

Post by andoando »

infogulch wrote: post #63

For me the most surprising observation from this thread is this tweet [1] showing that the knight's moves are exactly the squares that the queen can't get to within a 2 square manhattan distance. I.e. the knight is an anti-queen. [1]: https://twitter.com/skidbladnirr_/status/1750285122769957129

To add to that, this also makes a knight and queen a very strong attacking combo, because they can uniquely cover the most squares.

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#97

Post by emporas »

infogulch wrote: post #64
notfed wrote: post #27

This would be awesome for teaching beginners. I'd probably go with circle for the king, and maybe an L or a sideways H for the knight, even though they break the original design rule. Otherwise K/Q/N just look too similar.

The L is an orthogonalist conspiracy theory. There's no right angles in the knight's movement, wake up sheeple! https://twitter.com/graycrawford/status/1750248031784763639

Knight's movement is a "Γ" "Gamma" not an L. Some day a brilliant game may pop up, which has several letters and try to match em together, like an L, a Γ, an I and so on.

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#98

Post by joshka »

catapart wrote: post #8

That is very clever! But I hate the way the pawns face. Makes sense! But it still reads, to me, like one of those "color, but the text is in a different color" things. Feels like the pawns should be facing the opposite direction. =/

I think change out \/ for:

    ■ ■
     P
And the knight for:

     ■ ■
    ■   ■
      N  
    ■   ■
     ■ ■
And you might have something a little nicer

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#99

Post by tasuki »

andoando wrote: post #95
infogulch wrote: post #63

For me the most surprising observation from this thread is this tweet [1] showing that the knight's moves are exactly the squares that the queen can't get to within a 2 square manhattan distance. I.e. the knight is an anti-queen. [1]: https://twitter.com/skidbladnirr_/status/1750285122769957129

To add to that, this also makes a knight and queen a very strong attacking combo, because they can uniquely cover the most squares.

Given... they stay... in the same... square?

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#100

Post by tmtvl »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #94
dheera wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Chinese chess, the horse behaves like the knight in western chess except that (a) it cannot jump over pieces, and (b) the definition of jumping over is that it first move horizontally/vertically 1 step and then diagonally 1 step. It cannot first move diagonally. This also leads to situations where two knights can be positioned amongst other pieces such that one knight is able to capture the other but not vice vers…

Most people think of the knight move as one straight and then one diagonal. However, this is still ambiguous. Imagine one up, then one down left for example, resulting in the square left to the original square. A better description is moving 2 squares straight, not diagonal, into one direction, then moving 1 square into a 90° turned direction.

Forward two steps and the knight falls off his horse.
Post reply on HN