The Chess Variant Pages

[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments by Anthony Viens

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Wide Chess. Chess with 2 types of non-colourbound elephants added on a 12x8 board using fast castling rules.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2020-04-14 UTC

I quite like the simple approach you have to this variant.

However, both the working elephant and the lead elephant  are fairly similar pieces. They are both very good pieces, but I would think in a game with standard chess pieces +2, that the 2 additional pieces would be better off more divergent.

Just a thought....

Wizard's War. Game with piece-creating Wizards and a board divided into arena and enchanted sections. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2020-03-26 UTCGood ★★★★

Well hey, apparently I never commented on this!

I quite like it! The interplay between needing pieces on the arena/safer on the enchanted squares is quite unusual.

Creating your own army is fun, and ensures no game start will be quite the same.

This is a very cohesive & well thought out variant.

Salmon P. Chess. Huge three-dimensional game celebrating 10 years chess variant pages. (x10, Cells: 7500) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2020-03-15 UTC

Absurdly extravagant is the phrase that comes to mind!

Nothing else quite like this on the website; a true push-the-theoretical-envelope, but still playable, variant. It's amusingly written, too. Great job!

Elevator. Three-dimensional chess variant with moving elevators and walking, vaulting and flying pieces. (8x8x4, Cells: 192) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2020-03-11 UTCGood ★★★★

Very good, well-thought out game, with pieces which compliment the board--some require elevator movement, some use the empty shafts, and the ox can use them to capture. Nicely done.

I will say the rules allowing the flying pieces to go 'up, through an elevator trapdoor' feel very unintuitive; especially if playing with a physical set. It makes more sense to me to allow flying pieces to go either up or down through the empty shafts only; this would also make it impossible to threaten an identical piece without also being in danger.

Still, a very good variant!

Xhess. Decimal variant with Nightriders and Cannons. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2020-03-05 UTCAverage ★★★

This looks like a decent 10x10 variant; it has the basic Chess pieces--with more mobile Pawns-- and well-known Knightriders & XiangQi Cannons.

The King game-winning 'promotion' rule could liven up the endgames without totally changing the game.

However, I am confused as to the logic behind the apparently abitrary initial setup. The Rooks have an open rank (like Grand Chess) which is fine.  But the Horsemen (modified Pawns) are more mobile--but start very close to each other.  So close, in fact, they can't use their forward most moves initially without being captured.   Except the Horsemen on the far ends; they start one rank farther back for no discernable reason. 

The forward pawn lines leave a bunch of space to the rear; considering the vast area there aren't very many other pieces.

Also, the Knights are back a rank from the Horsemen, consequently they cannot move forward as the first move. They are protecting Horsemen, but it seems like there ought to be another way to do this.

Xhess is quite playable, but I'm left with the impression the starting setup could use an overhaul.

Deception Chess. Each piece has two identities, Cloak and concealed Base.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2020-03-03 UTCGood ★★★★

This is a really good idea, the only problem being it really needs a custom Chess set.

I'm guessing it would require similar bluffing strategy like Stratego. I can see myself thinking "hummm, that faux Pawn can't be anything valuable, it's too exposed.... unless that's what he wants me to think....or, he could be counting on me to think that's what he wants me to think...."


This actually has a decent chance of commercial success, in my opinion. It's got 'wow' factor, but close enough to normal Chess to feel familiar.

Great idea.

Euchess. Grand chess variant on 10 by 10 board. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2020-03-01 UTCPoor ★

In my opinion, this is not a very good Grand Chess variant.

Grand Chess is built upon two main ideas; getting rid of castling by freeing the Rooks in the back rank, and introducing the two 'missing' compounds to be additional high-value pieces--the Cardinal & Marshall.

Euchess moves the Rooks back and re-introduces castling, and then doubles the number of Cardinals & Marshalls--but, inconsistently, keeps one Queen.

Ignoring the lack of numerical consistency, this is really bad from a playable perspective--the sheer number of power pieces diminished the value of Knights & Bishops significantly.

Euchess is much too top-heavy, power wise, and significantly dimishes the point of the open back row. (Marshalls, with their Knight move, don't need the room to be developed.)

I think there is room for some interesting variants of Grand Chess, but this isn't one of them.

Sirlin's Chess. Alternative presentation of "Chess 2 - The Sequel". (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-29 UTC

H. G. Muller, I share your dislike of the dueling mechanic and agree it does not feel 'chesslike'.
However, it is not chance.  It is very different skill, requiring reading the board, relative importance of keeping the piece vs stones, and your opponent.  You cannot duel randomly and be effective, because this 'prisoner's dilemma' has an run out of stones and your opponent has a huge advantage.

You may not be aware that Chess2 was played very extensively on Steam, which tracks all games.  Quite a few players racked up litarally thousands of hours playing.  Chess2 probably ranks very high on the list of Chess Variants that have actually been played--and not a single decent player approached the dueling as anything other than an important calculation to make.  You could duel randomly, of course, but experience shows that is not the best way.
(Chess2 on Steam is pretty much dead now, no one is ever on and the computer is quite weak.  But it had quite a few players for a while there.)

I do agree that it pushes this variant farther away from chess than usual--much further away than I like.  But dueling doesn't make it a game of chance.

Pocket Mutation Chess. Take one of your pieces off the board, maybe change it, keep it in reserve, and drop it on the board later. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-29 UTCExcellent ★★★★★

One of the very best variant on the site!

Truly beautiful concept, and it appears to work.  (I have not had an opportunity to try it myself, yet.)

Reading through the comments, much of the complaints seem to focus on the power of the knightrider's ability to reach the back row and promote.  I wonder if anyone has considered that the knightrider move and the promotion rules may not work together perfectly?  Changing them would result in a different game, but possibly a better one.  Just a thought.

Time Travel Chess. Pieces can travel into the Future. Kings can also return to the Past! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-29 UTCExcellent ★★★★★

Excellent time travel twist on chess!  Beautiful!

Chess 2. Different armies, a new winning condition, and duels. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-28 UTC

Thanks Ben Reiniger!

That should really help.  My comments add a few side notes that will hopefully be of interest to someone, but having a link in the main body should make it easier.  Thanks again!

Shatranj of Troy. A Shatranj variant with Shogi-like drops, a Trojan Horse (with 6 pieces inside),. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-28 UTCGood ★★★★

Another clean design by Gary Gifford.  Nothing here but the pawns, king, and fully-loaded trojan horse.  Set-up-your-pieces opening, essentially.  Interesting, but personally I prefer a bigger variety of pieces.

I can still admire the clean design!

Sirlin's Chess. Alternative presentation of "Chess 2 - The Sequel". (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-19 UTCAverage ★★★

This page contains the rules for this game:

Sirlin's Chess2-the Sequel

I agree that name reeks of hubris.  However, that page has all the discussion about the game on it.  I would be great if this page were linked to it in the main body of text.

Chess 2. Different armies, a new winning condition, and duels. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-19 UTC

Immediately after I posted the two previous long comments, I did a search for something else and discovered:

Sirlin's Chess

Someone already posted all the rules to Sirlin's Chess2!  Auuuugggghhhh.....I just wasted a couple hours trying to make sure the rules were saved on CV.  Sigh.

Could someone with edit powers please please PLEASE put the above link directly in this article?  People can click right over without looking at the comments or getting confused.

PS.  Like most people, I consider the name Sirlin chose for his chess variant--Chess2, the Sequel--to be full of hubris.  Probably part of the reason never caught on with chess fans.....

Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-19 UTC

The third thing Sirlin did was make 5 new armies in addition to the classic one, in the vein of Betza's Chess with Different Armies.

This is the part I thought was super cool, as there are some very different armies contained, completely unlike Betza's. I had thought I could just port the armies over against Betza's, but that doesn't completely work, as Sirlin balanced his with the midline invasion and dueling rules.  In addition, the tremendous amount of play they got on the steam game before it was largely abandoned proved a few other holes.  The Reaper army has difficulty winning against Nemisis or Two Kings, but can feel overpowering sometimes against other armies.  Sirlin commented Reaper was very difficult to balance, and it appears it still isn't quite right.

Quoting the rules:

The Six Armies

I) Classic (balanced)
It's regular old Chess. This is the only army that can castle.

II) Nemesis (favors pawns)
The queen is replaced with a new piece: the nemesis. The nemesis piece moves as a queen, but cannot capture or be captured except by the enemy king. (It can check and checkmate a king, and a king can capture it.)

Your pawns can move as normal pawns, or alternatively they can make a nemesis move, which is a move one space toward the enemy king. (Imagine a box drawn around your pawn and the enemy king; moving inside that box is a nemesis move. That move can be toward your back row if the enemy king is behind your pawn). Nemesis pawns can only capture pieces (or threaten a king) the same way normal pawns can: diagonally forward. Your pawns cannot move two spaces at the start of the game.

Despite what the rules say, Nemisis is not really about the pawns.  This army is focused on the Nemisis.  You can run the Nemisis right into the thick of things, unworried about loosing it.  It's quite a good army.  The ability to move your pawns out of the way of your rooks to develop them early also changes things in interesting ways.

Betza calls the whole class of pieces that cannot capture except the king nemisis pieces, from the first piece of that type he came across. 

I'm not sure how easy this is to integrate with Betza's Chess with Different Armies. It might be close.

III) Empowered (favors knights/bishops/rooks)
While a knight, bishop, or rook is adjacent (diagonals do not count) to another knight, bishop, or rook on your team, each piece gains the movement powers of its neighbor in addition to its regular movement powers. (King, queen, and pawns cannot gain movement properties.) To compensate for this power, the queen can only move as a king. Example: if knight, bishop, rook are in a line, adjacent to one another, then knight can move as knight+bishop. Bishop can move as knight+bishop+rook. Rook can move as rook +bishop. The knight does NOT gain rook movement in this example, nor does the rook gain knight movement.

Sirlin doesn't acknowledge any influences for Chess2, but this is almost exactly like one of Betza's ideas.  I can't find the page right now, but Betza had the powers relayed when pieces were within the movement range.  (A rook that was a knight's move away from a friendly knight would also be able to move as a knight.)  This becomes especially apparent when you read the forums on the Sirlin games website--David Sirlin posts there he had to reduce their empowerment range to only orthogonally adjacent pieces; playtest proved that anything more was too powerful.

In my opinion, this army could be made a standard part of Betza's Chess with Different Armies.  It is not too much affected by the midline invasion or the dueling rules, and it has gone through a considrable amount of playtesting and balancing. 

IV) Reaper (favors queen)

The queen is called a reaper. It can teleport and capture anywhere on the board except the enemy's back row. The reaper cannot capture a king.

Also, the rooks are ghosts that can teleport to any open square on the board. The ghosts cannot capture or be captured.

The Reaper army is really awesome—it plays very very different than anything else. Unfortunately, it is balanced with midline invasion and dueling. Dueling keeps the Reaper from running amok....the player needs to worry about what he takes. And the Reaper army really needs midline invasion to win-- they only have bishops and knights to create checkmate.

Betza talks about teleporting pieces lower down in the same article about the nemisis right here.

If midline invasion was allowed for only this team, it might be transportable to Betza's Chess with Different Armies without too much modification.

V) Two Kings (favors kings)

You have no queen, but instead have two kings called warrior kings. If either one is checkmated, you lose. To win by the Midline Invasion method, BOTH warrior kings must cross the midline of the board into enemy territory.

A warrior king can move and capture the same way as a regular king, though it also has the option of doing a Whirlwind attack. For this, the warrior king stays in place and destroys all adjacent pieces—friendly and enemy—including diagonally adjacent pieces. You cannot Whirlwind if your other warrior king is adjacent.

After each of your turns, you may (optionally) take a special king-turn where you only move a warrior king. On your normal turn, there are no special restrictions. You can move either warrior king, or some other piece, whatever you want. During your king-turn, you may ONLY move a warrior king or perform Whirlwind with a warrior king. It doesn’t matter if you moved that warrior king or not during your normal turn.

You can’t move into check on your normal-turn or your king-turn.

Helpful hint: whenever you choose to skip this extra king-turn, it would be helpful if you tap one of your warrior kings as a signal to your opponent that he can take his turn.

Two Kings is also very different. The whirlwind attack is very powerful, but it requires you moving your king/s out in front. The delicate balance between attacking with and keeping your kings alive is a very different and fun experience!

I don't recall hearing anything like this in any of Betza's articles.

I'm not sure how much Two Kings relies on the midline invasion rule to be balanced. I don't think it matters much and can be directly ported over to Betza's Chess with Different Armies. But I might be very wrong on that!

VI) Animals (wild card)

Knight -> Wild Horse. Moves as a knight, but can capture its own pieces.

Bishop -> Tiger. Can only move up to 2 squares diagonally, but does not move when it captures (immediately jumps back to the square it attacked from).

Rook -> Elephant. Can only move up to 3 squares orthogonally. It can capture both friendly and enemy pieces, even multiple pieces in one move. If it captures a piece, the elephant rampages and must move its maximum distance, capturing everything in its path. Also, the elephant cannot be captured by a piece more than 2 squares away. (Draw a 5x5 box with Elephant in the center. It can't be captured by pieces outside the box.)

Queen -> Jungle Queen. Can move as a rook or as a knight.

This is a really delightful army, it takes a little bit to develop but is powerful. I really like both the Elephant and the Tiger—they push the envelope differently than Betza's pieces.

In my opinion, this can be moved over to Betza's Chess with Different Armies as-is. The pieces are about as strong as their FIDE counterparts one-on-one, so it should slide seamlessly in.

And I have a few more quotes from the official rulebook on miscellaneous stuff:

Choosing Your Army
Players choose their armies in a simultaneous, double-blind fashion at the start of each match. It’s permitted for both players to choose the same army. Though players will likely specialize in playing only one army, in a multiple-game match, the loser of a game may switch to any army for the next game. The winner of the previous game may not switch.

Promoting Pawns
When one of your pawns reaches the last row, you must promote it (not optional). You can promote to any piece that’s part of your army other than a pawn or a king (or a Warrior King). For example, a pawn on the Animals team could promote to a Tiger piece, but an Empowered pawn can’t promote to a Tiger because Tiger is not part of its army. When you promote a pawn, your opponent does not get a stone.

Dueling Ranks
For purposes determining if you have to pay 1 stone to initiate a duel against a higher ranked piece, the only possible ranks are 1) pawn, 2) knight/bishop, 3) rook, and 4) queen. In other words, all special queens count as queens, even though the Empowered queen is rather weak. Elephants count as rooks. The wild horse and the tiger count as a knight/bishop. Nemesis pawns count as pawns.

There are no stalemates in Chess 2. The other types of draws from Chess 1 still apply here, though they are much more unlikely because of the Midline Invasion rule. The types of draws are: threefold repetition (when the same position occurs three times), the fifty-move rule (when the last fifty successive moves made by both players contain no capture or pawn move), and impossible checkmate (when neither player has sufficient material to checkmate, and Midline Invasion is not possible).

Other Notes

All pawns on all teams have the ability to en passant.

Pieces cannot pass through the Reaper army’s ghost rooks or occupy the same square as a ghost rook.

A warrior king’s Whirlwind cannot destroy a ghost rook.

Even the reaper cannot take an elephant if its more than 2 squares away

Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-19 UTCAverage ★★★

I've played a fair bit of Sirlin's Chess2, so I'm going to make a bunch of posts to move the rules onto CV website, in case the game is ever abandoned by Sirlin games.  I will also comment on the game in general.
Sirlin's Chess2 is quite balanced, and has clearly gone through a lot of playtesting.  Being developed by a modern boardgame company owner clearly shows here!

First, Sirlin's Chess2 adds 3 things:

1)win by centerline invasion
2)dueling stones; possible loss of an attacking piece
3)different armies.

Quote from offical rules:

New Win Condition: Midline Invasion
You can still win by checkmate, but you also win if your king crosses the midline of the board. Each move has added significance, because you must weigh how much it helps or hurts each player’s chances of winning by king crossing the midline in addition to the usual considerations of furthering a checkmate.
Just like in Chess 1, it’s illegal to move into check, so to win by Midline Invasion, your King must land on the 5th rank without being in check. Unlike Chess 1 though, there are no stalemates. If you have no legal moves, you lose the game.  While stalemates are common in Chess 1, they aren’t needed in Chess 2 because the Midline Invasion rule provides an even stronger option that a player can aim for when he’s down on material.

In practice, against reasonablely competent players, the majority of games will end by midline invasion.  For one thing, whoever is winning can typically move his king up before he checkmate's his opponent.  The big change, however, is when a player starts to loose, he will usually make a quick attempt at midline invasion win.  This makes the transition between the mid- and end-game very chaotic.
Most non-chess boardgame players will find this a very exciting change; instead of a long slow grind as one player increases his advantage, the the game ends in an explosion of desperate dashes-for-the-midline.  While the player who is in a better position will still usually win, there is more hope for the loosing player.  Having more on the line, it is more exciting for both players, despite the fact that the game still usually ends as expected.
This also esentially eliminates the chess endgame--which most casual players consider the most boring.  Once a player has a significant advantage, chess tends to grind toward an inevitable conclusion.  This is why experienced chess players will conceed when the game gets past a certain point--going through the motions is just a waste of time.
As a side affect, Sirlin's Chess2 games tend to be shorter.  Modern boardgames (not chess variants) tend toward shorter is better, so non-chess enthusasts would generally consider this a good thing.

This is where Sirlin's modern boardgaming design experience is showing....he has designed a change that appeals to the masses (more exciting desperate chance of a win) and eliminated the masses least favorite part of chess (the grinding endgame) and shortened the game in one simple rule.

There is just one problem.
I don't like it either!!!
Effectively getting rid of checkmate just feels WRONG.

Sum it up=theoretically a good change that appeals to casual players, but chess enthusists won't like it at all.


Quote from offical rulebook:


Dueling allows you to spend a new resource called stones to threaten to destroy a piece that takes one of your pieces. Try to trick the opponent into wasting his stones because if he runs out first, you automatically win any further duels.

You start with 3 stones and gain 1 stone each time you capture an enemy pawn, up to a maximum of 6 stones.

Whenever you would capture any piece, the defender can initiate a duel. If your piece is higher rank than his (ranks: pawn -> knight/bishop -> rook -> queen), he must pay 1 stone to initiate a duel. To duel, you each put 0, 1, or 2 stones in your closed fists, then simultaneously reveal them. All stones revealed are destroyed. The winner of the duel is the one who showed more stones--ties go to the attacker.

If the attacker wins a duel, he takes the piece in question as in normal Chess. If the defender wins, he still loses his piece, but the attacker ALSO loses the piece he attacked with.

Initiating a duel and bidding 0 is a bluff to make the opponent waste stones. The attacker calls your bluff by bidding 0 himself. He wins because attacker always wins on a tie and in addition, the attacker can choose to gain 1 stone or cause the defender to lose 1 stone. (A player can't have more than 6 stones.)

Kings cannot be involved in duels because they have "Diplomatic Immunity." (They can't initiate a duel or be dueled.)

Players with 0 stones cannot initiate duels, but they can be dueled against. When you duel against a player with 0 stones, you must bid 1 and you automatically win the duel. If you lose a pawn in a duel, your opponent does gain a stone.


Dueling is another change designed to switch the game up.  Normal chess has a very mathmatical quality to it--good players can predict moves very far in advance.  The farther forward you can think, the bigger your advantage.

Dueling changes this.  Now, sometimes you won't keep a victorious piece.  Consequently, there is only so far out it is practical to predict moves, leveling the playing field a little bit.
Dueling accomplishes this WITHOUT resorting to chance.  The number of stones each player has is public knowledge, and he who correctly reads the importance of the current board position and his opponent will win the duel.  (And the attacker has the advantage, so ties in skill will result in the same board state as if no duel occured.)  However, this requires a very different set of skills than chess.

Consequently, it is possible for someone who is really really good at typical chess to be beaten by a player who is better at reading his opponent and bidding accordingly.  Someone who is bad at bidding may be winning--until they run out of stones.  This gives the othe player a big advantage.

By broadening the useful/necessary skills to win AND lowering the ability to look ahead, a larger variety of player types can be effective players.  Plus each duel is a mini-game, which gives flashes of excitement in the middle of the game.

Again, Sirlin's skill at designing modern boardgames shows.  This is a rule that should appeal to the masses and create some excitement, while lowering the necessity of mapping out future moves.

There is just one problem.
I don't like it either!!!
Effectively making it uncertain if you are keeping a piece just feels WRONG.

Sum it up=theoretically a good change that appeals to casual players, but chess enthusists won't like it at all.

CHECK 11 ~ Original Vision ~. 11 different original factions, chosen secretly, each with extra powers when few pieces remain.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-18 UTCAverage ★★★

I strongly encourage continuing work on this....I love the idea of 'choosing different armies'!

Sirlin's Chess2

Betza's Chess with Different Armies

Fantasy Grand Chess

And your idea of a one-time enhancement Trance (spell) appears to be an excellent idea of something different while not being too powerful.

However, I think the rules need some clarification.
In particular, the army 'Hologram' appears underpowered rules-as-written.  You gain the ability to suicide your queen to teleport your king.  Useful, but only so much.  You can't use it offensively (teleporting your king to the front lines is not smart) and if you use it to get the king out of check you're already in a bad way, and probably only delaying the inevitable.
Meanwhile, you loose the ability for the queen to capture--but it can still be captured, apparently.  So the queen is essentally useless.  (The rules specify only that the queen cannot capture.  All other rules being the same as chess, that means the queen can be captured.  A queen that cannot capture or be captured is useful as a blocking piece--is that what you meant?) 
The Trance is not that powerful, only allowing the queen the ability to capture kingwise.  (If the queen is uncapturable, this is very powerful.)
I'm left with the conclusion that you must have meant the queen cannot capture or be captured.

Crazy 38's: The Knight. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-18 UTC

Ben Reininger, thanks for linking that image.  I should have done that initially.
Your comment also made me realize something I missed....if you count the knight move as 2 sq ortho/1 sq ortho to the side OR 1 sq ortho/2 sq ortho to the side.....then the knight can reach b5, c6, and d7.  So yeah, it looks like he just used a standard definition (1 ortho, 1 dag outward) and then counted the squares differently for the example.

H.G. Muller, interestingly enough, I don't see a confusion with 'outward'.  I just see it as 'away from starting square'.  But you are correct, everything has to be defined very clearly on this crazy board.


Which now leaves us with a do knights move?  Apparently we cannot use the offical way (1 ortho/1 dig outward) without contradicting the offical example.

My opinion; use both the definition and the example as offical, as the inventor probably had to spend more time and effort constructing the example than writing the definition, so it probably reflects his desires.

So, I say:

The knight can move on notated spaces, either 1 othogonally then 1 diagonally outward (outward is away from the starting square) OR 2 orthogonally then 1 orthogonally to the side, OR 1 orthogonally then 2 orthogonally to the side.

Note this does not use the inaccessable (non-notated) spaces, but I believe it can reach all squares that could be reached by using the inacessable spaces.

Four Towers. Irregular board with special tower squares upon which pieces can combine with each other or detach from each other. (Cells: 85) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-14 UTCBelowAverage ★★

I've got to comment on this....a crazy lot of ideas in this game.

I think they need to be refined, but I am attracted to the unusual.
This is definitly unusual!

Zillions of GamesA computer program
. Game package for Windows that allows you to play nearly any abstract board game or puzzle in the world.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-14 UTC

I tried a few weeks ago and could not.  :-(

I was really looking forward to playing a few against the computer, too.
That said, I've been having a great time with game courier!

Crazy 38's: The Knight. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-14 UTC

H.G. Miller, I'm sorry, I missed your response.

Here is my problem: the move is specifically defined as 'one square orthogonally, then one square diagonally outward.'

My assumption (possibly/apparently incorrect) is that spaces without notation are not squares, do not exist, and therefore cannot be used as part of any piece's movement.

The white knight is in a8.  The only spaces that appear to be orthogonally adjacent are a6 and c8.  Diagonally outward from those spaces yields only b5 and d7.

I don't see a path to c6......without counting the quarter-circle empty space within a8 as orthogonally adjacent to a8.  Diagonally outward from that empty space yields c6 as the destination.  But I wouldn't think the empty space would be used as part of the path, at least without directly mentioning it; such as 'the knight can leap over non-existent squares.'

(If the Knight's movement was defined as one space diagonally, then one space orthogonally outward, it makes sense.  The white knight starts in a8, diagonally moves to b6 or d7, and then moves orthogonally outward to one of b5, c6, or d7.  The white knight would actually have two routes to c6.  But the movement path of the knight is specifically defined as 1 orthogonally, then 1 diagonally outward.)

Basically, Ben Good went through the trouble of specifically defining the leaping knight's move (something I consider necessary to avoid questions on this crazy cool board) and then his example does not seem to match the defined move!

If there is a path I am missing, please show me.  But the only one I see is using the non-existant quarter circle within a8.

Viking Chess Set. Game board and pieces in search of rules. (Cells: 37) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-11 UTC

It's been over a decade, I doubt anyone else even cares....
But I find this story strangely compelling. 

Michael (OP)-- just in case you see this--
do you remember ANYTHING else?  Like:

A fuzzy memory of what even one piece's movement was like?

Are you reasonably sure the piece set is complete?

Do you remember anything about it being played, not like the rules precisely, but like you remember the big piece's capture was the goal?  (Seems likely, just based on the fact that your parent's called it viking chess, but any info would be great.)

Do you remember pieces moving across the center?  Just remebering they could would tell us a lot.  There are only so many simple ways to use the center.

A vague memory of the pieces being played on the intercections of the lines/or in the squares?

It sure looks to me like it was played on the line intersections, not the spaces.
Just knowing THAT (intersections or spaces) would be a huge step forward.
With just a little more information we could probably reconstruct rules that were very close to the original.  There are only so many logically simple rules for chess on a round board.

You probably will never see this.....I hope you figured something out.  I have many happy memories of playing boardgames with my dad (especially Stratego) and a game from your parents being lost seems really sad.

Knights of the Round Table. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-11 UTCBelowAverage ★★

The idea of Knights promoting into a set list accessable by both sides is an interesting one.  It should encourage aggression.

However, the high probablity of uneven play drops the game's rating.  Maybe if the pieces were closer in value....

Not knowing which side will get thid king is also interesting.
There are some unusual ideas here.

Diplomat Chess. Round-board variant with a Diplomat to suborn opponents. (Cells: 43) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-11 UTCGood ★★★★

So, a couple months ago, I wondered about a circular board that uses the center.

I figured someone must have invented it, and looked through CV.
Apparently my google skills are weak, because I didn't find this or any other.   :-(
So I began working on it.
It took some thinking, but I more or less hammered out the rules on paper.

Today I stumble across this!  It has identical movement rules to what I have come up with!  Brilliant!
Also, this looks to be a nice little variant.

If only I had found Diplomat Chess before I spent that time reinventing the round rules......

CHESSAGON. CHESSAGON® is like traditional Chess, but with Triangles, with one new additional piece named the Duke.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-10-24 UTCGood ★★★★

I am interested in seing some of the more 'out there' piece ideas you have.  In my personal opinion, once you've gone through all the trouble to develop a triangular board, you need to push the envelope on the pieces.

Other than just being chess on a triangular board, this looks perfectly playable!  Very nice!

25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.