Game: Smess: The Ninny's Chess

Image

unixrevolution — 2008-11-13T16:16:27+00:00

Board Setup

Image

unixrevolution — 2008-11-13T15:58:20+00:00

All the King's Men edition: board, pawns, box cover.

Thread: Re: A Fun Filler Found At A Flea Market On A Friday

lengthtoavoid — 2008-10-30T19:38:41+00:00

I own "All the King's Men" -- for what it is..its fun

Thread: A Fun Filler Found At A Flea Market On A Friday

Wyll — 2008-10-30T18:07:51+00:00

Apart from being a thrift shop junkie, I am also a flea market and yard sale junkie as well. When I see those tables of stuff people are trying to get rid of, my mouth begins to water and my mind immediately begins to rattle off the top ten things to be on the look out for.

I spent a fair number of my weekends as a teenager at flea markets. We didn’t have E-bay back then, so this was the best way to find second hand games and toys. As I poured over the piles of used comics and broken toys, I would occasionally find a game I never heard of before. It was during one of these times that I found a copy of Smess: The Ninny's Chess. The title sounded interesting and for fifty cents, I really couldn’t go wrong.

Is Smess: The Ninny's Chess a mess? Let’s find out.

Initial Thoughts

Smess: The Ninny's Chess feels like Chess with a twist. The game looks fairly simple upon first glance, but there is a fair bit of strategy packed away in this game.

Object Of The Game

Capture your opponent’s Brain.

Components

Inside the box, you get a gameboard, 2 sets of 14 pieces for each player (1 Brain, 6 Numskulls and 7 Ninnies).

The art for the game is very simple. The gameboard is done in 3 colors and could have benefitted from a bit more “pop” or flavor. The pieces are simple sculptures with minimum detail. I would be willing to be that low production cost was one of the goals Milton Bradley had for this game.

Gameplay

Each player chooses a color and sets up their pieces on the proper spaces. A random method is used to determine which player moves first.

On a player’s turn, they may move one piece according to its movement rules. Each space has a series of arrows indicating which directions a piece may choose to move.

If a player moves his piece into a space occupied by his opponent’s piece, the moving player may capture that piece.

Once a Brain is captured, the game is over. The winner is the player who captured the Brain.

Strategy v.s. Luck Factor

Knowing the “flow” of the board is a good strategy. If you know which paths will lead to a quick kill for your Brain, you can try keep you’re your Brain out of your opponent’s reach.

Leaving a few pieces near your Brain can also help in keeping it from being capture. In a pinch, your pieces can be used to block capture attempts against your Brain.

Herding is another strategy that comes to mind. I do remember that my friend would set up one of his Ninnies on a long path and then attempt to “herd” my Brain onto a space on that path. It worked some times, but I quickly recognized the strategy and made sure to break up his long path as soon as I could.

Closing Thoughts

I am going to give this one a thumbs-up. I wouldn’t pay full price for this game on the collector’s market, but I would pick it up at a thrift shop for second hand for a few bucks.

The theme and look of Smess: The Ninny's Chess may not be appealing to many, but the mechanics are fun and there is a good game buried under the goofy theme. Thankfully, I see in the gallery that this game has been remade with more sensible themes.

Smess: The Ninny's Chess is a fun filler that can be pulled out and played to kill some time. I was surprised to discover that there is some strategy and depth to this game. It won’t appeal to everyone, but for those who enjoy a quick and silly game will find some enjoyment.

Recommendation Summary

Wyll's Recommendation:

Fun Factor (5 Point Scale):

Rule Clarity (5 Point Scale):

Bang For Buck Factor (5 Point Scale):

One Line Summary:

An “Un-Chess” game for two players who are ages 8 and up.

Thread: Re: Can this game be fixed? I think I've identified the problem.

LordBobbio — 2008-10-23T23:57:13+00:00

whac3 wrote:
When I was in college or shortly thereafter, at one point I was visiting my parents and inherited this game. My father, a chess fanatic and chess-set collector had bought many years previous the version called All the King's Men due to its purported similarity to chess. I remembered playing it one or two times with him years before and not being so fond of it, but when my mother said she was going to throw it away unless I wanted it, I naturally promptly took the game. The box had vanished over the years but the board is in excellent shape and all the pieces are there. I got myself a copy of the rules the first chance I could.

The problem isthat I don't really care for the game, judging by the few times I've played it. The comments here on BGG make me think many are so inclined. To me, it seems the fault of the game is that associating the type of movement with the space and not the piece breaks the logic of the game if one thinks like a chess-player. Probably most people who have tried the game also coem from a similar background and so dislike it for the same reason. The remedy seems to me that if I could wrap my head about the logic of this game in and of itself without reference to chess or at least totally disassociated from that game, then I could enjoy this game too.

Yet what exactly would BE the natural logic of this game in and of itself? Just killing anything that moves and winning by eliminating all the other pieces is not logic; it's brute force.

Update
Since this article, which I'm re-titling, as encountered only a resounding silence, I took out the game and solo-ed it a few times trying to determine more precisely what is the problem with it. My conclusions were as follows:

Initially this is a good game. The pieces fall into one of three categories: 1. Knights that move any number of spaces in the allowed direction and pieces which move only one space in any allowed direction, either 2. Archers or 3. the King.

The problem with the game sets in after the first few exchanges. The best way to think about the knight is that they can become queens, rooks, bishops, shogi-lances or something not quite any of these depending on where they land. Archers are more comparable in strength to shogi generals.

What happens is that the restrictions of movement undermine end-game play when only a few pieces on each side remain. So, merely off-the-cuff, I would propose perhaps, that captured pieces can be dropped shogi-fashion. Upright pieces on a color belong then to the person playing that color but pieces placed on the side, laying down instead of standing up on the board, belong to the opposite player. This way the board never gets empty. One might also revise archer movement to neber be backwards, only side to side or forward, whether straight or diagonally. This makes the king more than just one "special" archer.

Thoughts? Comment? suggestions?

UPDATE

No one else responded and so I put some thought into this myself. I believe I have a workable solution which preserves the core elements of the game while fixing the end-game problem.

Namely one introduces the following rule:

At any point after the first exchange, i.e., when both players have lost at least one piece, either player may at the start of his turn-- before making a move according to the manufacturer's original rules-- call for a change. This change goes into effect on the turn immediately following, i.e., when the OPPONENT next plays, and has the effect that thereafter the arrows on the board are ignored so that an archer or the king may move one space in any direction from any square and a knight my move any number of spaces in the straight line from any square.

This rule makes the first exchange strategically important and is balanced by the fact that the other player makes the first move where pieces move in any direction. One thus needs be careful when invoking this rule. Yet it will always come into play or the game is virtually unwinnable with similarly competent players.

You really seem to have identified the problem. I, too, am not qualified to tell you if I agree with the solution... but I am more than willing to try it if I can get anyone to touch the game with me! (I have the All the Kings Men version. Most who I game with know it through the Smess/Ninny's Chess version, and the broken game in their minds corresponds to the bad game play, so it's hard to convince anyone to play with me.)

Image

tomwsmf — 2008-10-11T05:31:33+00:00

Threat Mate

Thread: Re: Can this game be fixed? I think I've identified the problem.

Unitoch — 2008-03-30T00:48:05+00:00

I wish I had better expertise to address your comments more thoroughly, as this seems like a pretty good analysis of a problem that I've noticed myself: the game seems drawish. With the rules as written, there's no way to mate with an archer and king, which means the best position in the world won't help you if your opponent creates enough attrition.

I can't comment on your Shogi variation, as I've never played shogi.

I'm not sure that there's a fix to make this game deep enough for sustained play, and if there is, I'm not sure that it's worth the time to find it. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure I'm the best sounding board for your suggestions, as I'm not a huge abstract player in the first place. Best of luck with your search, though.

Thread: Can this game be fixed? I think I've identified the problem.

whac3 — 2008-03-02T07:25:58+00:00

When I was in college or shortly thereafter, at one point I was visiting my parents and inherited this game. My father, a chess fanatic and chess-set collector had bought many years previous the version called All the King's Men due to its purported similarity to chess. I remembered playing it one or two times with him years before and not being so fond of it, but when my mother said she was going to throw it away unless I wanted it, I naturally promptly took the game. The box had vanished over the years but the board is in excellent shape and all the pieces are there. I got myself a copy of the rules the first chance I could.

The problem isthat I don't really care for the game, judging by the few times I've played it. The comments here on BGG make me think many are so inclined. To me, it seems the fault of the game is that associating the type of movement with the space and not the piece breaks the logic of the game if one thinks like a chess-player. Probably most people who have tried the game also coem from a similar background and so dislike it for the same reason. The remedy seems to me that if I could wrap my head about the logic of this game in and of itself without reference to chess or at least totally disassociated from that game, then I could enjoy this game too.

Yet what exactly would BE the natural logic of this game in and of itself? Just killing anything that moves and winning by eliminating all the other pieces is not logic; it's brute force.

Update
Since this article, which I'm re-titling, as encountered only a resounding silence, I took out the game and solo-ed it a few times trying to determine more precisely what is the problem with it. My conclusions were as follows:

Initially this is a good game. The pieces fall into one of three categories: 1. Knights that move any number of spaces in the allowed direction and pieces which move only one space in any allowed direction, either 2. Archers or 3. the King.

The problem with the game sets in after the first few exchanges. The best way to think about the knight is that they can become queens, rooks, bishops, shogi-lances or something not quite any of these depending on where they land. Archers are more comparable in strength to shogi generals.

What happens is that the restrictions of movement undermine end-game play when only a few pieces on each side remain. So, merely off-the-cuff, I would propose perhaps, that captured pieces can be dropped shogi-fashion. Upright pieces on a color belong then to the person playing that color but pieces placed on the side, laying down instead of standing up on the board, belong to the opposite player. This way the board never gets empty. One might also revise archer movement to neber be backwards, only side to side or forward, whether straight or diagonally. This makes the king more than just one "special" archer.

Thoughts? Comment? suggestions?

UPDATE

No one else responded and so I put some thought into this myself. I believe I have a workable solution which preserves the core elements of the game while fixing the end-game problem.

Namely one introduces the following rule:

At any point after the first exchange, i.e., when both players have lost at least one piece, either player may at the start of his turn-- before making a move according to the manufacturer's original rules-- call for a change. This change goes into effect on the turn immediately following, i.e., when the OPPONENT next plays, and has the effect that thereafter the arrows on the board are ignored so that an archer or the king may move one space in any direction from any square and a knight my move any number of spaces in the straight line from any square.

This rule makes the first exchange strategically important and is balanced by the fact that the other player makes the first move where pieces move in any direction. One thus needs be careful when invoking this rule. Yet it will always come into play or the game is virtually unwinnable with similarly competent players.

Image

rseater — 2007-11-19T19:05:40+00:00

Image

Kerbster76 — 2007-05-27T07:35:46+00:00

The playing pieces

Image

JediDragon — 2007-01-18T00:22:01+00:00

Box & Board

Image

The Maverick — 2007-01-06T04:08:10+00:00

Smess, game in progress

Image

The Maverick — 2007-01-06T04:07:54+00:00

One of the Brains from Smess

Image

The Maverick — 2007-01-06T04:07:44+00:00

Ninnies from Smess

Image

The Maverick — 2007-01-06T04:07:38+00:00

Smess box inserts, with rules, and original packaging for pieces

Thread: Session Report

wookie1 — 2005-03-05T12:24:36+00:00

I picked up this game on e-bay last week and tonight I thought I would give it a try.

My girlfriend, who is not a gamer but who is so sweet that she will play still play games with me , was my opponent.

I don't care for chess because I always feel like the other person takes the game as a head to head I.Q. test. All the Kings Men however, definitely has that Chess feel but it plays much faster and lighter.

Anyway, I was clearly ahead for the entire game but as I was setting up my moves to corner her King she put me into what I thought was a "check" position but when I heard her say "check-mate" I was like "WHAT!?! She totally surprised me...arrgh! Defiantly a good ending to a good game. I definitely be playing this again when I'm in the mood for some light chess fare.

Thread: User Review

ivinia — 2005-01-17T14:20:18+00:00

All the King's Men is a chess-like game using three different type of pieces on each side - Archers, Knights, and a King.

Players take turns moving any one of their pieces based on the directional arrows in the square they start the turn in. The Archers and King can only move 1 square per turn, while the Knight can move any number of squares in a turn.

No pieces may jump over any other pieces and opponent pieces are eliminated by occupying their square. You win the game by capturing your opponent's King.

This is one of those games that you can teach anyone to play in a few minutes or less, yet it is fairly complex.

Games are often well thought out affairs as players position themselves both defensively and offensively. I've found that games with evenly matched players tend to be quite exhilarating as each side has positioned themselves to be able to take any piece that takes one of theirs. At this point, whoever blinks first tends to set off a chain reaction of captured peices on both sides.

Extremely fun to play with very little luck involved. Simple and elegant, I gladly play whenever the opportunity arises.