New Pieces for Large Chess Variants

Even if the issue of pawns can be dealt with, the next question revolves around what type of pieces one should include in a new variant. I partially address this issue on the first page of this document, where I mention GM John Nunn's observation that one of the great dramas in chess revolves around the use of the minor pieces, bishops and knights. Often the player who has their minor pieces in better positions will end up winning the game. Moreover, chess players frequently find themselves asking the classic question of whether they should trade off one piece for another. This is one of the joys of chess.

Taking that observation one step further, it seems logical that any new chess variant should include pieces that are roughly as strong as one or more of the pieces that are currently included in the game. This would further increase the dilemmas that players face when playing the game. For example, in Magi Cardinals and Wizards are roughly equal in power to Rooks, but all three pieces move in entirely different ways and possess different strengths. In a similar vein, with a larger board bishops gain in strength over the poor knight. One has to make a choice as to whether to strengthen the knight somehow or to leave it alone. In this case I decided to leave knights as they are. Instead, I tried to devise a new piece that would be roughly as strong as a bishop, but would somehow move in a different way. In creating the Duke, I think I have a solution to this problem, but the Zillions of Games program consistently rates the Duke roughly a pawn stronger than a bishop. However, I have played plenty of games where bishops have proven to be more effective than Dukes, so I think I've solved the problem to my satisfaction. Again, its all a matter of where the pieces are positioned.

Moreover, this adds to the complexity of the game when it comes to trading off multiple pieces. Is a Cardinal really worth a Bishop and a Knight? Is a Queen worth a Pawn, Rook, and a Wizard? Is a Wizard worth two Knights? Is a Rook worth a Duke and a Pawn? The questions are endless!

As I wrote on page 1, many variant creators seem hell bent on devising extremely powerful pieces, often combining the movement powers of knights and bishops or knights and rooks. In this, they mimic the way that a Queen combines the movement powers of bishops and rooks. One of the issues that this creates is that you would now have 3 extremely powerful pieces moving around the board. In a sense, the board would become "top heavy" with power. I don't think that this is the right way to go. I think that players would enjoy the idea of subtlety in chess if they thought about it more. Even so, it's quite possible to make sudden strikes in Magi, even without all powerful pieces.

When devising new pieces, it occured to me that Chess is primarily a game of lines and squares. This is another reason why new pieces should not be able to cover entire blocks of squares on the board, because such pieces violate the principles of lines and squares. This is particularly true of pieces that combine the movement powers of bishops and knights, since such pieces can control 4 entire 4 square blocks around the piece. Yes, it is true that my Wizard piece nearly mimics this power, but it does not control the entire block of squares. Wizards can be pushed around and important pieces can elude the grasp of the Wizard. Moreover the Wizard has limited reach. A piece that is a combined bishop and knight can potentially reach the opposite side of the board in one move, whereas a Wizard takes at least two (or more) moves to accomplish the same task. Opposing players can still potentially organize some way to counter a Wizard's play. 

Continuing with the idea that Chess is a game of lines and squares led to the devising of the Cardinal and the Duke. The Cardinal is nothing more than a glorified bishop, while the Duke is nothing more than a Rook whose reach has been shortened. Both pieces obey the idea that lines and squares are paramount in Chess. I had also decided that the three new piece types should be related in some way to the pieces now on the board. Ergo, a Wizard is a greatly strengthened knight.

Another idea I had was to try to recreate the same strength ratios in Magi that exist in Classic Chess. I think I have more or less succeeded in this task. The relative values of the Dukes and Rooks are about 60 percent greater than the strength of the Bishops and Cardinal. The Knights and Wizard are collectively probably 5 - 20 percent weaker than the Bishops and Cardinal, but they are still strong enough to make the game very interesting.

Finally, since the board is now 100 squares, I decided that since a 10 x 10 square board has 56 percent more squares than an 8 x 8 board, it made sense that each player's army should be roughly 56 percent larger. Since we have expanded boards, we should have expanded armies. Thus, I expanded each player's army by 50 percent (16 to 24 pieces). 

Piece Placements

The next issue involves where to place new pieces. Since my stated goal was to have armies on the back ranks, the question as to where to place new pieces reared its ugly head. I wanted players to be able to continue to finachetto pieces and be able to pursue similar strategies to regular chess, so I placed the Wizard and Cardinal next to the King and Queen.

I had other ideas in mind when it came to placing the Dukes on the edges of the third rank. First, it is possible that Dukes might come under attack by Bishops within a few moves after the game starts, creating an immediate situation where a decision has to be made as to whether to move the Duke or take an exchange.

More importantly, placing Dukes on the edges of the board redistributes piece power more towards the sides of the board and away from the middle. Indeed, this arrangement makes it possible to launch kingside pawn storms at the start of the game! When was the last time you pulled off something like that in a normal game of chess? Of course, one should not get too carried away with this. The middle is always important in games like chess.

Well, that's it. Those are the ideas that I felt worth expounding on and being attended to. I hope that you would give Magi a try.  You may get hooked!

Regards.