Comments by fantactic1

Very interesting variant!  I'd love to play it on a real board, if I had the special pieces...  Question though: can a player's original queen "split" (fission) or is that piece permanently a regular queen?  Same question for a promoted pawn... if a pawn promotes to queen, is splitting an option on that queen? Can a pawn promote to a fused type such as marshal or is queen the only option? 

Thank you George.  You raise a good point about moving your opponent's pawn, and I was actually considering this stipulation: pawn swapping is illegal for Player A any time the enemy pawn is threatening Player A's piece(s)  This would prevent people from using the pawn swap to bypass a threat by pawn.  Still, a player still has the option to use the pawn swap to MAKE a threat, as I demonstrated in my last diagram shown.

Your suggestion is good too, but I wouldn't want the whole game to change too much from standard chess.  It's an interesting sub-variant idea though for sure.

The falcon is an interesting piece!  Arriving at the same square in different ways is a clever concept.  I would be curious to know how a top computer would rank them compared to a knight.

What a great classic variant I've only recently discovered!  This description mentions that you can use only one board.  I agree and think it's easier visually. After each piece is moved, you could just mark it with some sort of large poker chip underneath (or clip something onto the top) and vice versa - when a marked piece is moved it loses the marker. 

Then, the players could simply have an understanding that marked pieces and unmarked pieces are not in each others' way and cannot capture each other.  So a game could go like this:

1. d4  Nf6

(now the white pawn and black knight are both marked)

2. Qd6 now possible for White because White knows the unmarked Queen can go "through" his/her marked pawn.  Then the Queen becomes marked at d6, threatening the marked Black knight.  The Black knight then moves to e4 and loses its marker. 

Looks interesting!  It's almost as if each piece becomes a remorseful pacifist after capturing... a person should capture wisely then :)  I assume that you can give check by mutating a Ready Piece "aimed" at the King?  I would be curious to see how ready pieces can be used to prevent or force a stalemate in the endgame.

I just finished entering a variant of my own called Chessembly that is almost identical to this!  It hasn't been posted to this site yet, but probably because Jeff Miller apparently beat me to it by many years.  I was a bit upset to see it already in existence, but then I should have known this type of variant would be invented by now.  In fact, in my version I was thinking of adding certain restrictions that I also see here in Unachess 2 and Parachute.

http://www.chessvariants.com/invention/chessembly

The main difference between my version and this (which would greatly influence the opening of the game) is that a person cannot drop ANY piece past the first four ranks, not just the pawns.  This would make dropping an army on one side of the board the most likely opening for both players (then some movement would start to happen gradually as the overall assembly becomes apparent).  It basically means that each player has their own "drop" territory (on their own side of the board).

Wyatt Van Dyke's reference to video games is a good analogy, but it explains why new games are very fun (sometimes even more so) but perhaps not always catching on as an "official" sport.  It's difficult to compare players and have leagues, etc. with so many different games... sort of why arena football never really took off. 

Having said that, I do think they should have a "decathlon" tournament with rapid and blitz chess, then 8 of the most popular/worthwhile variants.  A round robin would be cool, but it'd take a while to cover all the variants.

I just wanted to mention that after submitting I found very similar variants, most notably Unachess and Parachute.  Still, I will leave this game listed as-is and maintain that these differences will make for an alternate approach to strategy:

- The king must be placed first.

- pawns can be placed on the first through fourth ranks, not just the 2nd through 4th.

- All pieces must be placed on one's own side only (ranks 1 through 4 for White, or 5 through 8 for Black).

- Checking your opponent or threatening his/her pieces during a drop is allowed.

Can I assume that knights are unaffected by the blocks, as a piece can stay on the block it captures?  Not that I have a problem with this, but it would make knights extremely useful in the opening as they already are, correct?

(no rating yet as I have not yet tried this variant)

Sounds interesting.  I suppose players could do this on a standard board if marked properly.  I think there are many sub variants that could stem from this.  I would wonder if the squares keep adding to make a bigger square or if there could be a long line of empty squares in one direction.

Kevin, you raise a good point about book sales, etc., but as for the "one year per setup" idea, I think Fischer's original plan was to avoid the opening theory discussion altogether.  If everyone studied one particular random setup for a year, I'll bet White's advantage would be exploited even moreso than it is in the standard setup.

With a random setup, determined just before the game starts, you can just look at a random position between two players and enjoy the actual battle of minds in that moment.  The match would be 100% performance-based, instead of being so preparation-based.

On a standard 8x8 board, the knight and bishop are already very close in material value, so I'm not sure that this new rule would be welcomed by many players.  Perhaps the uncertainty of its value would make the game interesting to some.  Somewhere on the level of a rook or close to it?

I will add, however, that a "squire knight" would probably work very well on some of the large board variants to give knights more power and purpose.

To Hey_Bryce@yahoo.com, that really just depends on what type of tournament or play it is.  Each chess organization has its own rules about announcing things and how honest mistakes are dealt with.  Generally speaking in blitz games (less than 5 minutes per side), there are some unwritten rules about how illegal moves result in a loss for that player (or it's up to the opponent whether to "forgive" the mistake). 

To comment further on the casual under-5 minute games (aside from the castling question), anyone who moves without noticing he or she is in check can actually have his/her king captured/game over.  The reason is because the opponent shouldn't have to be wasting his or her clock time saying "oh no you can't do that, sorry."

Well done Greg!  It's interesting to play through different scenarios and even watch computer vs. computer for each variant.  I imagine people with their own large board variants are thrilled to see their variants here, since unusual board sizes aren't easy to find in physical form.

ChessV was around a long time ago, but I am new to it.  I haven't found many similar/reliable programs out there.  I've seen a couple variant mobile apps, but they all crash very easily, and the interface on them is difficult to use.  ChessV 2.0 has an easy and straightforward interface.  If I had to make one suggestion, it would be the ability to move forward and backward through the moves within the program itself (unless I'm missing the method of using other GUIs to do this).  Nevertheless, it is a lot of fun. Apologies to the CV administrators for rating this here, if I wasn't supposed to rate programs...

People have personal pride in their variants (as we all should), but I have a basic idea that I'd like to approach in a more democratic way.  Let's see if we can test out different approaches and come to some consensus on a new variant.  This discussion would probably work best with 4 to 6 people.  If this paraticular variant's premise exists, please chime in.  I'd probably need to lead the discussion and ask the questions you can vote on, just to keep things orderly.

Here's the general idea, and let's just go from there: Share Squares.  I was thinking about having "share squares" with opponents being allowed to place both their pieces on the same square without any capture involved (or two of their own pieces).

So here are some things I'd like thoughts on...

1. is the center 4 squares okay?

2. should the 4 squares be more like 5 or more?  Less?

3. should the share squares change during the game?

4. should it be 2 pieces only per share square?

5. can two pieces of the same color exist on the share squares?

6. Are they always "safe squares" and if so, is the King excluded from the safety of those squares?

7. If they are NOT safe squares, would a capture be involved when, say, a third piece is moved onto that square?  (as in, maybe they should be maximum two-piece squares, and the third piece to move onto it gets to "capture" one of the oppenent's pieces)

8. If yes to the question above, can a pawn only threaten an enemy piece in the share square if it's "full" (two pieces already in it) but cannot move diagonally to take if only one piece (the enemy's) in that square?

9. Can pieces move "through" a share square if, for example a share square had just one piece inside it?

I'm not seeing some variant pages anymore on the site.  Is that part of the error that's been discussed?

I've heard of non-edge variants of chess, but I hadn't read this specific page until just recently.  The game seems interesting and might eliminate the usual "going for the center in the opening" strategy.  Still, I can't help but wonder if the king might be tough to mate if there are no right and left edges.  Can a knight, bishop and king mate the lone opponent king?

Maybe they should make a restriction on the king - he is restricted to the usual board edges perhaps?

Hi Fergus, is it better now? 

I haven't had a chance to play this yet, but the new pieces seem very creative and cleverly placed on the board.  Just to confirm, do Mimics both change after each capture, and if a Mimic captures a piece, does it presumably become like that piece right afterward?  Do all four Mimics (2 from each side) change simultaneously when any piece is captured or only its own side's pieces?

Kevin, you raise some interesting points about how few people play variants on most servers.  Nevertheless, I think in the near future it will be much easier for the average person to create their own variant software, as well as testing them out on very strong engines (to ensure it's fair and has a limited draw rate).  This will eventually result in some great tried and true variants.

I believe that some draw possibilities were added in the original development of chess in order to give some chances for the slightly weaker player who is behind in a game (in other words, the winner has to really earn it by avoiding stalemate or insufficient material, 50 move rule, etc.)  Orthodox Chess has a strong advantage of tradition.  Many people (probably not those on this site) actually like discussing known openings and they like to see how players try to do something new on move 11.  I'm with you though - I'm not a fan of that as a spectator.

Still - as you mentioned, it would be nice if draws were limited (and that the decisive games have clarity in what the winner did differently).  I know that grandmasters can still appreciate a hard fought draw, but I agree it's sometimes just ridiculous.  Not long ago I was looking at the results of Karpov vs. Kasparov matches in the 80's, and they have so many early draws by mutual agreement (over ten games in a row sometimes)  Even when GMs comment on something like their drawn Berlin defense game, they seem bored and ready for the next game.

Like I implied at the beginning of this message, better apps and software will make the future ripe for variants - and the most clever will win out.  Challengers could take turns playing each others' inventions and favorites, analogous to the classic basketball game H.O.R.S.E.

I think if you put a subtle color on the unicorn, I like the top one better, because it's a fairy piece, so you have the classic independent shogi on the left plus a more modern idea on the right side.

I tried e-mailing a couple people at this site but might have had the wrong e-mail addresses (got kick back from the mail server).  It was basically just a question about a new game entry I submitted recently.  Just wanted to make sure I was using the correct contacts for my question.

Greg, the Lancer must move before rotating; it cannot rotate as a move by itself.  The reason is to prevent the lancer from being too powerful, so choosing the direction after a move is obviously very important (one must be sure there are safe squares it could move to if attacked - or if it needs to turn around).  I also wanted to prevent someone from turning the lancer as a way out of zugzwang positions (or to avoid stalemate in a lame way).

Aurelian, I hadn't heard of Rotary before but that looks interesting too.  That one appears to have mostly sliding pieces.  For this variant, I mostly wanted to create an alternate "jumping" piece other than the knights we're used to.  It would create some different approaches to all phases of the game.  The lancers probably lose a little value in open positions just like the knight, but I'm sure they can be used for some great tactics even late in the game (such as putting a lancer behind passed pawns- maybe even more useful than a rook in that regard)

I believe a single lancer and king cannot force checkmate, but two lancers could.

Edwin, I haven't had a chance to play this yet and can't give a rating right now, but after reading the rules from the external website, I think it would be worth a try.  The idea of only checkmating the player to the left makes a lot of sense, so that's a good idea.  The restriction on pawn captures in the first round is practical too.

I was a bit curious about some of the other rules like this: "Kings may enter their own coloured corner square and become immune from check or checkmate, provided that both of their Bishops are not captured. When a King enters his corner square, both of his Bishops become Queens instantly."

Were those rules added to bring some more unique flavor to the game (hence the game title), or is it something you feel is necessary to avoid problems that would occur from more orthodox rules in a 4-person chess game? 

Hi Fergus, is that your site or an external site that you wanted to share here?  If the former, I had a few questions about it.

I'm not sure if it exists already as a modest proposal, but I like the creativity of the promotion rule (and simplicity of the general idea).  Trying to "aim" pawns toward the central files for a queen sounds interesting.  My only concern would be if an obvious advantage for either side occurs due to some open files very early on in the game.

Fergus, there's a guy on YouTube who talks about boards and pieces for variant games, and not just shogi etc. but an example being Shuuro.  His YT account name is AncientChess.  Maybe he is still in operation?

I've altered the original setup slightly.  Lancers should begin the game facing diagonally inward to provide more squares for development.  Otherwise, having them face straight forward makes fianchetto-style openings a rote necessity, and it could detract from the usual option to castle early for those who prefer it.

This would mean that the English and Sicilian openings would not make much sense any more, as enemy lancers can immediately capture those pawns.  Nevetheless, I believe other openings become a possibility where they otherwise don't work.  Traditionally unsound openings like King's Gambit might be more appealing with a lancer.  Even an opening like the infamous 1. f3 could work nicely.

A question for experienced chess software programmers: how do you go about assigning value for a new or unexplored piece?  Is there a way to have the engine play itself, assuming different values, to see which values lead to fair games, or do you have to enter your own best guess for non-standard pieces?

Another question: how do you determine the value of the standard chess pieces if the variant has different rules?

Nicolino, good question, and sorry if the rules were unclear - the lancer can only jump as far as the first enemy piece that it's facing.  Assuming you were talking about the very first move for white, after Le4TNW, the lancer is only attacking the b7 pawn.  Then, Black could respond with d5 and win the lancer. 

Giving some credit to H.G. Muller, perhaps we could notate that first move you mentioned Le4=nw

I haven't had a chance to play this yet, so I refrain from a rating at this time.  It looks really cool though, as I love both chess and poker.  I personally tried to come up with a combination game like this, but didn't come up with anything this good.  It's quite interesting for sure.

My only concern, as Ben sort of hinted at, is the way that the game ends.  I would personally prefer if the betting was on entirely what happens in the chess game (the checkmate), not on the comparison of cards.  Each "hand" would be really just a quick game of chess, and you'd bet (or fold) based on what's happening on the board, which becomes more and more clear as you go on. 

As it exists now though, the end result of cards doesn't seem to be something that builds predictably over time, where you can predict what their opponent might hold.  It seems so random, like: "I've been collecting four 8's in my hand, and my opponent collected four 5's, so I win."  I wouldn't even care what happens in the chess game.  I would just hold off until I have a decent poker hand, letting my opponent checkmate me.  You see what I mean?

So anyway, the general gameplay of betting and drawing, and setting up a very complex position would be a lot of fun.  I might even expand the board size if it was about checkmate alone.  But it's your game, not mine :)

Hi Greg, I just wanted to see how development was going on your latest iteration of ChessV, which I'm guessing would be called Version 3.0?

If it's still in the works (or not officially planned) I just wanted to throw out some questions/comments about it.  If anyone already has a response for me, feel free to chime in if I missed something that already exists in V2.0

- Any ability to move foward and backward through the moves within the built-in GUI?  This would make playout of a game easier to analyze (or record for demo videos, etc.)  Animation preferred, but I could understand how that might be a hassle.

- Would a more univeral web-based version of ChessV be possible, or is that too much time/effort with javascript etc.?  I ask because the Jocly site has a lot of good web-based games, but their engines still seem very weak.

Anyway, this is coming from non-programmer - just some thoughts on possible improvements.  So far I think ChessV is proving to have the best engine for variants - especially those with altered rules.

This is an excellent concept.  The gameplay seems to be very "sharp" with lots of big swings, with regard to who's winning, but I haven't had a chance to play it.  I would imagine the biggest challenge is in the clarity, a concept referenced by Fergus Duniho in this site's articles.  That is to say, not even the strongest players would be able to look very far ahead - but maybe that's what you wanted?  It's probably just a preference - some people like the wild swings, so I shouldn't knock it for that aspect until I try it.  This would be a really fun game to do "mate in 3" type puzzles.

Mark, how did you determine the best position of colored squares and where the colored pieces would be?

I was trying to unlock the full version and purchase an unlock key online.  However, after the first screen and I click Next, it reads "URL not found" regardless of which browser I try.  Anyone know about this?  Is Zillions still around and working?