This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofChess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess
I learned a variant of Baroque chess under the name of "Hyperchess". There are a few quite significant differences, though:
Pawns (called straddlers) can only capture by pinching an enemy piece against another pawn, rather than any friendly piece (so the two pawns "straddle" the piece). However, they also can capture passively--any enemy piece that moves to a square straddled by two pawns dies instantly, unless its move would capture one of the pawns.
The withdrawer (called the retractor) can only move one square to capture. It can still move more than one square away from an enemy piece, but only captures it if it moves just one square.
The leapers are a single leapers, and are called "springers".
The coordinator is the upside-down rook, and can capture passively (like the straddlers). This passive capture means that when the King moves, the coordinator can capture. Both the coordinator and the king always start on the right-hand side of the board for both players (from that player's perspective).
These changes make captures more difficult, and make pawns less useful for capturing but more useful for blocking. Also, in Hyperchess, the coordinator and immobilizer are by far the most powerful pieces, the coordinator in particular being far more powerful than it appears to be in Baroque chess.
Hi folks. I apologise for introducing tweaks to the rule description in December 2005 before realising that the version of ultima I learnt in 1974 issignificantly different from the one on wikipedia and chessvariants.org. Rather than fighting over the rules on wikipedia, I thought it much better to write a webpage -Pure rules of ultima- detailing what I call the pure rules.If someone can think of a better name (eg the Cambridge rules) I'd be happy to change the name (email me, please). In my view the pure rules are more logical, so I think they should be folded into the wikipedia article somewhere. However if the current set of rules is truly the more widely-played, and no-one else knows the variant I describe, then we can leave it at just the link that I have added to the page to start with.
Another comment: I reckon that the current page's mix of strategy discussion and rules is undesirable. I think all the sections on topics like 'don't worry about losing a pawn' should be cut. It'd be more interesting to include a summary of why Abbott thought ultima is flawed (ie that it favours the defender over the attacker).
I just took a look at your variation of Baroque, and like the way it has regularized some points of play (that are predictable enough, but which, if disputed, must be endorsed as "house rule" variations), but I haven't yet had the pleasure of meeting anyone who's played it that way, and I've been playing it since 1968 or so, whenever I get the chance. Players should definitely agree on a common set of rules before they start a game. To improve Wikipedia, maybe you could create an extra article that you could callCambridge Baroque?
There's a bug in the last diagram. This situation cannot occur; white long-leaper at c8 threatens black king at d7, so it's check. And it's white's move.
Long-leaper could simply capture the king.
Sharp eye. I'll fix it when I get a chance. --Fritzlein 04:14, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Image replaced. --Fritzlein 23:58, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Suggestions:
Redo the diagrams with a-h/1-8 coordinates for those unfamiliar with them
Move the bit about what the page used to say to the talk page and rewrite the beginning (which I don't see a good way to do right now, or I'dbe bold)
There's no reason to point out that this page was previously incorrect. However, I don't know enough about this game to make a smooth introduction in its place. Anyone?--cprompt 02:42, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I have never read the Fairy Chessmen, because I can't find a copy. C. L. Moore is actually my favorite Science Fiction author. However, I seriously doubt that the author of this page is correct in attributing the creation of Ultima to Kuttner and Moore instead of Robert Abbott. First of all, Robert Abbott claims on his own website to be the inventor of Ultima. Second, if Kuttner and Moore had created Ultima, I would expect this fact to be as well known as Edgar Rice Burrough's creation of Jetan, the chess game described in his novel Chessmen of Mars. I suspect that the author has made two mistakes. The first is to equate Ultima with Fairy Chess. The second mistake is to attribute the invention of Fairy Chess to the Lewis Padgett novel. The truth about Fairy Chess is that it is a commonly used label for the vast spectrum of unorthodox Chess rules, boards, and pieces. The term has most commonly been employed for unorthodox Chess problems, and in this context, it was used in the name of the magazine Fairy Chess Review, which was first published about a decade before the Padgett novel. Kuttner and Moore did not invent Fairy Chess, and Ultima is only one example of a Fairy Chess game, what is more commonly known as a Chess variant. You can find many more examples of Chess variants at the websitehttp://www.chessvariants.com--Fergus
I have restored the original introductory paragraph with some corrections in spelling and grammar. Robert Abbott has told me by email that he did invent Ultima and that he has never heard of Padgett's Fairy Chessmen.Fergus 23:48, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
A bit on the difference between the original, more popular rules and Abbott's later revisions would be nice. —Gwalla |Talk 03:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The revision that I learned was to encourage attacking play by making pieces less powerful if closer to home. The movement of the king didn't change. All other pieces could move only as many squares as the number of the rank they occupied at the start of the move. For example a pawn on the third rank would still move like a rook, but be limited to three squares of movement. I tried to play that way and I can see why it didn't catch on, because it's a complication that adds nothing to a complicated game. I'd put this variant in the article, but I have no reference to verify it. --Fritzlein 06:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are certain series of moves that are not obvious to beginners, like that of theJacob's Ladder in the endgame inChess, and it doesn't hurt to post a solution or two to a puzzle. The same thing ought to apply to a puzzle in Baroque. As you rightly point out, however, offhand tips on strategy are not appropriate here.
I suggest to rename this article to "Ultima (chess)". The game is much better known under the name "Ultima" then as "Baroque chess". Any objections?Andreas Kaufmann21:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to renaming it Ultima. I learned the game in the 1960s, and it was called "Baroque" back then. In the 1980s, a popular computer game was called "Ultima" (and it even had sequels), but everybody I knew, knew the chesslike boardgame as Baroque. It wasn't until 1990 that I discovered people in New York knew it as the game that Abbott's publishers rechristened it as.
One of the problems with renaming it "Ultima (chess)" is confusion with the computer game from the 1980s, which it has nothing to do with. Another problem is the likelihood someone will write a new article called Baroque chess to replace the one that disappeared.
I learned it in 1978 in Southern California as Ultimal (yes, with an ell at the end, but pronounced "Ultima") from a machine gun designer who said he had picked it up in his Ivy League college days in the early '60s. This cat had a Xerox copy of the instructions and it contained the unusual spelling. I don't have an opinion about the title of the article; redirects will suffice.Binksternet (talk)02:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article briefly mentions a variant called Optima without details. I can't find anything on google or chessvariants.com. Can anyone verify?Indium (talk)19:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One question about the pawns. What if you move a non-pawn so it completes a pinch? Like: Pp.W -> PpW. Is the black pawn captured? This is not obvious from the article.75.15.224.220 (talk)05:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After that can White King move to c5 as Coordinator cannot make move which makes this field captured again? Or is it captured until Black Coordinator or Black King moves?
In other words - does "check" in this game is forever (like any piece in Chess where there is simply defined set of captured fields) or is it only per current round?
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
Can it be like this:
a4-a6: check
c6-c7: King escapes
g3-g4: some unimportant move
c7-c6: King comes back, as no one bother him in this round
I assume some basic version without passive capturing (or is it most popular version?)
Your diagrams would make more sense if you resisted the urge to depict the Coordinator as a Queen. Back in 1967 (when I learned the rules to this game), we used a Rook to be a Coordinator. It would be better if you used a Windmill symbol (with four vanes) instead of a "Castle" symbol. If you are actually setting these pieces up on a real board, I will leave that to you. I would suggest a paper cone with "fans" mounted on a toothpick that's been stuck into the side of the cone.Dexter Nextnumber (talk)06:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the capturing must be active, not passive, i.e. it's only check if the coordinator moved to give it. So 1...Ca6+ 2.Kc7 g4 3.Kc6 would be legal, I think. (Otherwise, the pawn on d2 in the diagram illustrating the coordinator in the article would have been captured passively.)Double sharp (talk)15:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the capture is only active. Two spaces are targeted the moment the moving Coordinator comes to a stop, but they are not continually targeted thereafter.Binksternet (talk)16:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do to a lack of things to do in jail, ultima and other veriants have taken some root in some jail/prison systems. Largly we played with some revisions Albert set forth as the games creator was found to be a more credible source as to how the game should be played than a gaming community that found that the game was just too complicated. It was found that the pincher pawn was the most powerful piece when otherwise without any distance limitations. We played pinchers to skip over only 2 squares and land on the third in what would be its maximum distance move.
That's crazy. (Did you read what I wrote? I wrote your rename to Baroque Chess was amistake. You've essentially made up a game name yourself, and implemented it. Bad!) --IHTS (talk)04:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I read what your wrote, but I can't prove it to you. Where did you ask me to move the article back toBaroque chess? Keep in mind that "crazy" sounds both personalizing and insulting.Hyacinth (talk)21:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you're saying or why re "Dog", & your rationale for the rename made no sense to me. You're pushing my limit on patience, I'm telling you three times now your rename was amistake, thus, *obviously*, you should reverse your change (I'm not going to "ask [you]" to do it beyond explaining why the change was a mistake), rather than bicker with me over various forms of nonsense. --IHTS (talk)00:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's annoying when people on Wikipedia act like the articles should be improved by using the correct titles, correct spellings, and correct capitalization.Hyacinth (talk)19:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking words in my mouth I never said, meant, implied, or suggested, is another way you're being annoying. What was annoying was when you fought me baselessly after I wrote simply that the rename was a mistake, and why. --IHTS (talk)18:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
