Game Reviews by Tomas Forsman

I like this idea. I have to try this out with some friends sometime soon.

-=T=-

I've downloaded and played this game a couple of times and while I think
that it is a good chessvariant I also think that the author coul duse a
dose of modesty ;)
This is a good chessgame so don't think that I don't appreciate it but
it's not the best I've ever played and it's not the 'new chess'.
Perhaps I'm wrong and perhaps this is the new chess and if it is I will
humbly admit that I was wrong.

It has its points though and the one I like the most is the Jester.
Zillions seem to have trouble of planing the use of the Jester and put it
in at the first move pawn. I'm not a chessprogrammer so I don't know if
this is something that most chessprograms would do or if its just a Z
problem.

Good work Karl.

Tomas

I like this game =) It's a fun game to play.
Is there some way to force some forwardness into the game to avoid
situations where the only option is to give up or draw by 3 time
repetition?

-=T=-

This would ofcourse mean that you won't promote into a queen if you take
your pawn to the 8th rank. That would gain you nothing and your opponent
get another Queen possibillity.
The strategies behind this game is rather fun to think about.
You don't want to take all your opponents pieces 'cause you'll loose
easier.
I think I'll like it when I get around to play test it.

Regards

Tomas

Another variant could be, and this probably exists under some name, to
start with two boards and two sets of pieces each. Except that there would
be no King on the second board.

Just a thought.

The game is very fun to play however.

Tomas

This indeed is a great game. I have played it for a few times now and my
favourite way of mating is leaving the Anti-King unchecked with the same
move as I check the ordinary King. Sort of a double check wich, as I
interpret the rules leads to a mate.

Good game

Tomas

I've gone through the rules of this game and I only found a few things I
wasn't comfortable with.
First I don't agree with the different types of Rooks. Letting them go in
both directions would add a lot of strategy to the game but I guess the
reason for it is to make it as straight forward as possible.
The second thing I don't like is to forbid the players to make a move that
means they can not end up on the right square.
What if they don't see it?
Another 'fix' for this problem is that a player loose if the other catches
him making such a move or if in the end your pieces are unable to end up in
the right position.
This would however create a situation for draw. If both players have made
such a move and discovers it at the same time.

These are only thoughts and I haven't tried them out in a game yet.

Regards

Tomas Forsman

I find this idea intriguing. Wouldn't this result in very fast games?
With an 'illegal move', do you mean that you take a piece and move it
anywhere on the board?

Tomas

Just as I loved the smaller version I fell in love with the bigger one.
I have just watched the white side crush the black side again. I'm using a
slightly slower computer then you (450 Mhz) wich might indicate that the
black has some advantage but has to think things through more.
Anyways, I love this game very much and I am very greatful that you
invented it.
I enjoy variants that doesn't change to much on the original rules. Just
enough to make it interesting.
Simple changes are often more enginous, this one certenly were.

With regards

Tomas Forsman

I must say that I have fell in love with this game. You say in your
description that you don't like the setup of the pieces but I enjoy them
very much.
The consept of the one ring is wonderful and really adds to the game. I am
just about to download the bigger version as well and find out why you like
that even more then the smaller one.

Congrats on a wonderful variant.

Tomas Forsman