We play that the pawn is "elevated" ie ennobled, and becomes the "courtier" or "man".

I like it. I wish there were more solitaire variants. I also like Queen's Quadrille, and already submitted some solitaire variant similar to it.

Regarding the comments below, I'm not seeing how being 'simply' an amalgam of some well-known chess variants makes this a 'less interesting' variant. Not every variant needs to have some completely radical twist, and for my money I find variants that aim to be 'natural extensions' to chess much more relevant to my personal interests.

I find myself quite partial to the particular concept of this variant myself, and I feel that the twelve different pieces complement each other fairly well. I would be interested in seeing another variant that utilizes the exact same pieces in a different setup for a possibly even tighter game.

This is one of very best variants, may be best variant.  But when I download and use Duniho ZRF for Zillions program, I discover that pawn cannot promote even if player has piece in prison.  Pawn moves to last rank and stay pawn and cannot move more.  If Duniho fix and upload new ZRF it should be great for players of this great variant.  Thank you.

Joe,

I find this Shatranj variant very interesting.

I created  preset which enforces the rules:

http://play.chessvariants.com/pbm/play.php?game%3DModern+Shatranj%26settings%3Dcarrillo

The only difference in my implementation of the rules is that Pawns can only promote to Generals (to keep more of a 'shatranj-ness' flavour).

In spite of the light-hearted appearance of Smess, the use of pointers on cells to determine directions that a piece can move was an interesting feature introduced to the chess variants world by this game.

After playing over a handful of games, I'd tentatively value a Ninny piece as 1 and a Numskull as 2, with a Brain having the fighting value of a Ninny (though the loss of a Brain means the loss of the game).

I've played a few games of this variant with friends. I found that certain standard opening moves in chess were less attractive to me, such as any involving an early fianchetto (P-N3 intending B-N2) or Open Sicilians (1.P-K4 P-QB4 2.N-KB3 intending 3.P-Q4) with White, in both cases if the opponent still has a Hawk and/or Elephant to drop when still developing. However, play may soon get richer after the Hawks & Elephants are dropped, regardless. Also, unlike some variants with R+N compound pieces, there may be less likelihood such pieces will be similarily developed to cells on the same file, & then exchanged, right away in the opening. I don't quite like that if all Hawks & Elephants are captured then the game becomes indistinguishable from chess from that point on, but that doesn't affect my opinion that Seirawan chess should get a high CVP Rating. The extra pieces may make for a slightly crowded board near the beginning of a game, though that's even slightly more the case in my own Sac Chess variant (with no pieces to be dropped in it at all).

My estimates for the piece values would be: P=1; N=3.5; B=3.5; R=5.5; H=8; E=10; Q=10 and the fighting value of K=4 (though naturally it cannot be traded). Since I tend to believe a B is microscopically better than a N on average on an 8x8 chessboard, perhaps adjust N=3.49 (also adjust the H and E compounds minutely since they have a N component), though I also usually try to avoid listing ugly fractions for values.

For my own comparison of this fine variant to the equally fine McCooey's Hexagonal Chess, see my review for the latter variant.

Decades ago I saw values given for the pieces in Glinski's (that would seem to apply to McCooey's too): P=1; B=3; N=4; R=5; Q=9. I'd add that I estimate the fighting value of K=4 approximately (though naturally it cannot be traded).

This looks like a great game. A 10x10 board perhaps is as about as big a board one can hope to fit on a coffee table (e.g. as a decorative board), and still use fairly standard size chess pieces with.

I like all the possible (and exotic) endgames that can arise in this game. My chess friends and I that play this variant now & then are still at the stage of learning to avoid gross threats.

A valuation system given by H.T.Lau: R=9; CA=4.5; N=4; CO=2; M=2; P(after crosses river)=2; P(before crosses river)=1. Bear in mind that this is just for the context of this game, as naturally a rook would be of lower value in a chess-like game played with a board of these dimensions.

Once each side has a little development completed, Shogi games are action-packed as a rule.

A simplified valuation scheme, as given by Grimbergen (see Shogi wiki entry) is: P=1; L&N=3; S&G=5; B=8; R=9; PB=12; PR=13.

This submission may have more clearly spelled out some of the rules for Bombalot than I recall a Chess Federation of Canada magazine article did in the late 1970s. In spite of what to me seemed to be certain ambiguities in the rules back then, my non-chess playing brother loved playing Bombalot with me. One thing that the magazine article made clear was that if an Immobilizer is directly or indirectly pushed along by a tank, the immobilized pieces around it are pushed in the same direction, possibly resulting in a chain reaction of pieces on the same line(s), in the direction of the push (something similar goes if an immobilized piece is directly or indirectly pushed along by a tank). Another thing I recall about the magazine article was that the board was checkered as for chess, i.e. with a1 (with the White Imitator on it in the setup position) being a dark square, as in the Sir Bombalot link.

Note that some ambiguitie(s) to the rules may still remain, and should really be resolved before playing a game. E.g., if an opponent's Imitator moved last, what properties does your own Imitator now have? My best guess in this case would be it has the properties of the last non-Imitator piece of your own that you moved, assuming you didn't move your own Imitator last, too - in that case, the properties of one's Imitator may or may not be that of the opponent's last moved non-Imitator piece, depending on how far back one has to remember to recall the last non-Imitator move by either side(!).

However, this all goes against the part of the description of an Imitator, in this submission's version of the rules, that says: "...if the last move of the opponent was with an immobiliser, the player can move the imitator and freeze pieces of the opponent, which are frozen until the imitator moves again.". So, if we accept this submission's version of the rules as per the quotation, it seems to me to follow that an Imitator always has the properties of the last enemy non-Imitator piece that moved, until the Imitator is moved like (& then takes on properties of) another enemy non-Imitator piece that has subsequently moved, as odd an interpretation as that may seem.

Whether this version of the rules & my subsequent interpretation are correct or not, my next question regardless would be, if White is to move his Imitator at move one, how can it move & what properties does it have? One suggestion I can make is that White should not be allowed to move his Imitator at move one (except if removing it, through the allowed suicide-of-a-piece move rule), and it as yet has no properties. Another suggestion would be that at move one the White Imitator can move like any piece in Black's army (note that any such move would presumably be not so harmful for Black), but this idea somehow seems less natural; for one thing, White may need to declare what type of piece the Imitator is acting like, if Black wishes to move his Imitator at move one also.

Personally, I think that the part of the rules that states "The Imitator moves and takes in the same way as the last enemy piece that has moved." pretty much stands by itself (though note the 2nd paragraph of this Comment). I also think that the subsequent part of this submission's rules about the Imitator that I quoted earlier, re: the explanation of how the Imitator may act like an Immobilizer, seems wrong, in part. That is, the last 5 words at the very end of my earlier quote apparently ought to read '...until the Imitator is no longer adjacent or the opponent moves a piece other than his own Immobilizer (or possibly his own Imitator as well, depending on the situation).' instead, in my opinion.

For piece values I'd tentatively rate the Twekes = 1, Super-Twekes = 2, Detonators (aka Detonator Coordinators) = 1.5, Tank = 1, Immobilizer = 5, Bomb = 10 and Imitator = 5.

Crazyhouse (like Bughouse) is one of the most popular chess variants on the planet at the moment, and there has to be a reason. It's much like Shogi, but with chess pieces (and, unlike Bughouse, it's a 2 player game), making it especially popular with those who love bang-bang tactics (many or most chess players, I suppose).

{edit: below is an entry from a later post, for reference within this review:]

Fwiw, here are relative piece values for Crazyhouse that I once saw given on someone's blog:

P = 2; B = 3; N = 3.5; R = 4; Q = 6.

For comparison, and in case one might use it for Crazyhouse too, from the wiki entry on Bughouse: "A valuation system, first suggested by FICS-player Gnejs, often applied to bughouse is pawn=1, bishop=knight=rook=2 and queen=4."

The fact that one of the best chess players of all time (Alekhine) took the trouble to play at least one game of this variant may count for something.

In trying to tentatively estimate the value of the pieces in this variant, I'd guess that the long range pieces may be worth, say, one and a half times what I give them as in standard chess. Thus: P=1; N=3.49; B=5.25; R=8.25; Q=15 and the fighting value of K=4 (though naturally it cannot be traded).

Dice Chess is a light way to pass time with a chess variant when you don't feel like thinking too much.

Note that my estimates for the values of the chess pieces seems applicable here too: P=1; N=3.49; B=3.5; R=5.5; Q=10 and a fighting value of K=4.

As a variant that's close to chess, Fischer Random (aka Chess960) does the trick of avoiding all opening theory admirably.

One thing Chess960 lacks compared to chess is ironically usually seen as it's very strength and reason to exist, i.e. that one can't study Chess960 opening theory at home (if that's viewed as desirable/enjoyable), plus book sales thus will suffer, arguably to the detriment of popularizing the variant. This would be partly due to not otherwise having more literature around (i.e. about the opening phase of Chess960).

A way to solve that to some extent is to adopt Kasparov's idea of using the same starting position for a year & then switching to a new one. I'd go farther and suggest not switching the start position for 50 or even 100+ years (chess opening theory took a long time to develop, after all). One drawback of this idea is that the game would be studied to death by, say, 960x100 years from now, whereas never knowing the position one will begin with, as per the rules of Chess960, would avoid such study. However, the lifespan of any board game of skill (e.g. chess) is liable to be finite for one reason or another, IMO.

My estimates for the values of chess pieces applies here too, naturally: P=1; N=3.49; B=3.5; R=5.5; Q=10 and a fighting value of K=4 (though naturally it cannot be traded).

Like Bombalot, Arimaa is a variant that's very unlike chess, in that there are no matable kings, but it can make use of standard chess equipment. Arimaa might have spread over-the-board better were it not for the licensing requirements for e.g. literature or running tournaments. It's perhaps too bad world championship level human Arimaa players finally lost in a challenge series vs. a bot (engine) in 2015.

Bughouse is an excellent 4 player variant that can be played with a different number of players, or (as a Bughouse variant) even a greater number of boards & sets than just two, if desired. Fwiw, I've seen on internet chat sites talk that Bughouse is hard for engines, as there are two boards & sets + drops, multiplying the possibilites compared to standard chess. If ever one of the two boards has a player sitting (refusing to move), however, the computer may then have an advantage if playing against a human on the remaining board (provided that person doesn't already have a big advantage).

From the wiki entry on Bughouse: "A valuation system, first suggested by FICS-player Gnejs, often applied to bughouse is pawn=1, bishop=knight=rook=2 and queen=4."

I've seen on an internet chess chat site a Canadian Candidate Master claim that (in at least one of the three main variants of Progressive Chess, if not all), Black has a slight advantage, if playing 1...d6 + 2...Nf6 against most White first moves,

In trying to tentatively estimate the value of the pieces in Progressive Chess (in its main variants), I'd guess that the long range pieces may be generally worth, say, one and a half times what I give them as in standard chess. Thus: P=1; N=3.49; B=5.25; R=8.25; Q=15 and the fighting value of K=4 (though naturally it cannot be traded).

Perhaps this game is best suited for a speed chess time control, as a previous poster alluded to in a way.

In trying to tentatively estimate the value of the pieces in this variant, I'd guess that the long range pieces may be worth, say, double what I give them as in standard chess. Thus: P=1; N=3.49; B=7; R=11; Q=20 and the fighting value of K=4 (though naturally it cannot be traded).

Gridlock 2 (as 1, 3, 4 too) has last words 7 years ago so this revives the great satire.  Paul Leno and I disagreed then on using social media to develop a Chess project since I don't still even want to look at whatever social media is, but Gridlock deserves recognition as the funniest Chess article, along with circa 1950 "A Quiet Game of Chess,"  though Leno claims to have actual defined CVs here too.

This is serious recent attempt to reduce Draws in small board 64 OrthoChess. How about a subvariant as follows?   The Pawn swap involves moving opponent Pawn.  So whenever a player uses the Pawn swap in lieu of regular move, the other player immediately has two choices.  One, make a regular move,  Or two, move opponent's (the swapper's) any unit by legal move.  Then follows the swapper's next turn.  And perhaps it needs no double swapping consecutive turns.

Savard is mathematician and this is satire too a little overdone.  I mean Bat as root-65 leaper?

Can the Bat reach more than the 16 squares shown in the diagram of the 12x16 board? If so how many squares are ultimately reachable by Bat?

Besides the Bishops and the Bats, what other (several) piece-types are unable to reach all 192 squares and how many can they reach given the set-up array?

Archer Pawns are not rifle piece at all and do capture by displacement.  The board is unusually aligned for new type Archer.

More could be done in other CVs with the Transporter or Teleporter cells of 2002 Jacks & Witches.

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.

Italian mathematician Roberto Lavieri moved to South America and became Venezuelan.   Alpha Centauri lacks the clarity the later Altair brought to the Horizontal rank movement of both games.

Move-power relaying

The Harpy relays Knight power to every friendly piece in its Q3 vision, and the Dervish relays limited Alfil / Dabbaba / Firzan power to any adjacent friend. It was a challenge to allow the diagram to do this, as how would one describe in Betza notation that, say, N moves are conditional, and what exactly that condition is? The solution I finally arrived at is to consider these relayed N moves as (multi-leg) moves of the Harpy, rather than simple moves of the piece that makes them. (To try that, drag a Dervish (the flag) to the promotion zone, and answer the promotion question above the board with 'Yes' to acquire a Harpy to move around. You can of course also try out the relaying power of the Dervish itself.)

So to make such a relayed move, one first clicks the Harpy (the 'activator' piece), and this highlights the simple moves of the Harpy (in green, as it is a non-capture-only piece), but it highlights all activated pieces in cyan, indicating that going there would just be the first leg of the move, and another leg may follow. Selecting a thus activated piece then shows the relayed N moves of that piece, and clicking one of those then moves the piece, rather than the Harpy.

That the first leg of a multi-leg move acts on friendly pieces to relay power, rather than on enemy pieces to capture them in passing, is indicated by an 'x' modifier for the first-leg modality in the Betza notation understood by the diagram. (This was one of the few characters not yet in use.) So the moves of the Knights in Knight-relay Chess would be written as mNxaN, where the xaN describes the relay of N moves to pieces an N jump away. For the Harpy it was a bit more complex, because the activation step (Q3) was different from the relayed move.

Locust capture

The diagram already did implement locust capture, also as a multi-leg move, where the possible locust victims are highlighted in cyan first. After selecting one, the final destination(s) get highlighted, so one can be picked to land on. In Scirocco the Zig and Zag pieces have Checker-like locust captures, where they have to land on an empty square. This move is indicated a cafmW or cafmF, the first leg (before the 'a') obligatory capturing, and the second leg in the same direction ('f') obligatory landing on an empty square.

Printable versions, a new general diagram feature

About the game

Based on studying the rules, the following characteristics struck me as imperfections, and are the reason that I did not rate it as 'excellent':

• There is an annoying asymmetry in the promotions of Alfil and Dabbaba. If Alfil promotes to Bishop then surely the Dabbaba should promote to Rook!? A Genie seems excessively strong: rifle capture is devastating. It would not be out of line as promoted Knight, however. The other 8-way leapers (Commoner and Camel) also promote to pieces much stronger than a Rook.
• Making the moves that could break severe color binding capture-only seems a bad idea, and makes the Stork a very awkward piece.
• That one can win by forcing repeats through perpetual checking is very unsatisfactory. Even Chu Shogi has always made an exception for that.
• The repetition rule prevents a losing side from halting progress of the future winner by checking, because sooner or later he would run out of new checks. But when the defender has a stong piece like Queen, this can basically take forever. Chu Shogi also suffers from that. A rule against roaming the board giving (ultimately) pointless checks is sorely needed.
• The Dervish seems to start in a wrong location for its move. To really help development I would like to position it in front of the Pawn rank, to give the Pawns behind it forward A and D steps. But due to its high-order color binding the Dervish can never get there. To enhance the Dervish, it would have been better to add some extra non-capture moves to it that would break the color binding (like mW), then to make it activate more moves in its neighbors (as was done in this revision).

Kings Court is very good but I rated Good here 12 years ago, so this is finetuning. David Paulowich once came up with a rule for a CV from looking at Chancellor here as tri-compound:

In Move_Length, Paulowich suggests self-contained movers Nightrider, Bishop, and Rook go unlimited distance, bi-compound go up to four steps, and tri-compound like this Chancellor up to two. Kings Court Chancellor is limited Queen plus Knight, or short Bishop + short Rook + Knight. The other new piece Jester is unique and not like mimicking Jesters of other games.

Half or more of Betza's 150 games in CVPage have, as Captain Spalding does, realistic opening moves or entire game scores annotated for examples. Here too are couple pieces in Betza Notation by Betza himself that Muller and Florea have been revisiting. Captain Spalding is character by Groucho Marx in 1930 'Animal Crackers'. The first talkie at all was 1927, and most European countries had first talking movie production in same 1930. Marx Brothers play Chess: Chess.

Harpo Marx watches Chess in Moscow: Chess_Match_in_1931

Here are Griffin and Aanca as Spider of recent talking points.

IO Chess is complicated like Betza's Captain Spalding but at least C.S. is on simple 8x8 whilst IO is the largest acceptable size of 16x16. Computer promotes to Quantum Computer. Around 2000 it was the style to include a sample game with every worthwhile write-up, and sure enough Hedden puts a plausible first 13 moves for IO Chess. Is this the first recorded move order for 256 squares?

Pawns have initial 5-step option. Rook promotes to Castle upon Castling, and then that piece Castle, already Queen value, further promotes to Fortress upon reaching the last rank, attaining value comparable to Amazon. Also appearing are two-square-occupancy Wall and Crooked Knight, named a little differently by Knappen in Nachtmahr article on the many Knight riders. There are several other piece as opposed to pawn promotions besides the Rook -> Castle -> Fortress told above.

Tamerspiel and Pocket Mutation and this IO Chess were three of those having double promotion for some pieces around and after year 2000. Check of dates of invention could show which ones were duplicating that general idea from the earliest one. This IO may be the first to use it.

Six or seven spellings of Gryphon can be counted. Here are Gryphon and Aanca of current topic.

Gifford's Falcon and Hunter are from the World War II era game matching abilities forward Rook and backward Bishop of Hunter, with reverse for Falcon. Other CVs using that Falcon and Hunter are rare, but Whale Shogi has Hunter: Grey_Whale.

Earlier than Mark Hedden's IO, that was looked at last week, Europan has 700-year-old Gryphon, though not paired with Aanca like in IO and later Gifford's Gryphon-Aanca and still later Florea's Apothecary.

As for some point value, Hedden pegs Gryphon at 7 points, but says "if you don't know how to use it well, it is still worth 5 or 6." Close enough estimate for many just trying out a novel CV.

Hedden maintains there is not a way to write his Archer as defined in Betzan Funny Notation. Paulowich at King's Court in last week comment found tri-compound in Chancellor, and Hedden's Super-Computer of both IO and Europan is also different tri-compound.

Currently of Florea's new CV Apothecary are the classic Gryphon of Grande Acedrex and complementary Aanca. Here are another pair of them from 2001 Bostick's Kung Fu Chess: Wing Chun moving like Aanca and Bruce Lee moving like Gryphon.

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.

Quintanilla's Ready Chess was just noted by Kubach, and it is a shame Quintanilla's Switching Chess has been disregarded for ten years.  It was very popular its first few years and it is about the best natural Mutator possible to save 64 squares interest.

Robert Abbott was inventor of Ultima in the 1960s. Abbott commented 13 years ago on Rococo:

Abbott.

Rococo is my single preferred CV whether Orthodox style or Track Two Heterodox style like Rococo. It themes every piece moving like Queen but capturing differently. Contrary to Abbott, the border squares substantially make the game, because different pieces and Rococo Pawns react differently with those "half-squares" variously accessible according to the piece-types divergent Rules. "Divergent" is carefully picked to describe because all Rococo pieces are divergent in the CV sense that they move and capture differently. But then Abbott has a narrow specialty having invented several (not a lot) of great game rules and secondly made challenging mazes. He admits here and there he does not play games, CV or not, very much himself. He seems to have just chanced on 2 or 3 great Rules sets in card game Eleusis and CV Ultima. Or maybe Ultima gets attention because it was one of the first modern ones in between Parton and Boyer and just prior to Betza. There is not much follow-up insight on Abbott's part, where for instance most revisions of his suggestion worsen the great original. Abbott never really delved into CVs and does not consider Ultima even to be one like we do, but just using Chess equipment in his words.

However, over-all we have played Abbott's great Eleusis quite a bit more than Aronson and Howe's Rococo, no comparison really. Eleusis, so thanks aplenty to Robert for countless hours at Eleusis.

The Quintessence is the best species of KnightRider, along with regular Betzan NN the latter not in this CV -- double letter is always rider able to stop at any distance. Knappen removes corner squares from ten by ten to get 84 squares for an 84-square contest. The Quintessence makes successive right angle changes of direction.

Pawns are fast-moving with always having two-step option, and additonally have what is called bockspringen. Leeloo is Rook plus Quintessence. Centurion is tri-compound Alfil plus Dabbabah plus Knight. Dragon Horse is Wazir plus Bishop. It would be interesting to find point value of these pieces, accompanied as they are by only one "conventional" CV piece, the Janus, who is commonplace 400-year old Centaur as B+N. To get the piece values for Quintessence, Leeloo and Squirrel/Centurion, the three really novel p-ts, there would have to be discount for having to face off against the strong and unusual Pawns/Bauern.

ArchChess in the 17th century has what we call now Squirrel, D+A+N. Recently there was Hippogriff found in Tamerlane Chess of 14th century, where Hippogriff restricts 13th century Grande Acedrex Gryphon to its distant squares. Tamerlane or Timur's also has Dabbabah, so the Dabbabah had been around for ArchChess to pick up and make the probably first tri-compound it calls Centurion, settled on as Squirrel or Betzan AND today -- the order does not matter in Funny Notation compounds, so long as they are not sequential or double move pieces.

So Quintessential Chess is one new CV using 17th century Centurion/Squirrel, and there are 19th C. games with Squirrel for a continual line of succession.

Black has nearly 100 CVs that have been looked at sparingly. He, along with his brother, have some Mutators presented into standard f.i.d.e. that are pretty challenging and logical by second reading anyway. Symmetric Unirexal Chess should be clarified further that each half-piece move is actually by the same rules as ordinary Rook, Knight, Bishop, Pawn, Queen or King. This first comment here is for interpretation of unambiguous rules-set. There is no half move, just restrictions on when a piece is half-piece, where there is initially counterpart half-piece having the same full regular move. The new emergent half-pieces would have to be marked. It appears, if all become half pieces, all 64 squares could be theoretically covered, but that may be impossible to achieve without some tweaking p-t rules of movement. That's for a study or problem, and the actual goal by Black is just a regular CV won by checkmate.

Recent topic was Symmetry or symmetric moves in CV rules, like Frolov's "Reflection Teammate," and it led to this Black CV-Mutator for having the word in title. It reminds me of another CV, drawn up by orthodox defenders Chessbase in 2014 Tandem Pawn, since there Pawns split into two pieces.

You have done much excellent work on this game. However, you have evidently missed the point that a game about subjugation or elimination of some royal piece(s) needs said royal piece(s) to be tamed by some form of restricted mobility-whether by design to be range limited or by soft or hard prohibition from seeing its/their opposite(s) along an otherwise open “line” (in Dr. David Li's terminology telepotency)-and also by check if it is a singleton. In your case, telepotency is the only restriction which will allow you to keep with your idea of using only line pieces (I do not dismiss it as entirely uninteresting although I find flawed your reasoning to get to it and disagree with its premises).

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).

Because of the asymmetry of this variant it required some special attention to make sure the diagram would only allow each side to promote to its own pieces. What I did was define the promotion choice with an asterisk before each piece, meaning it can only come from the holdings. Then I stuffed the holdings initially with eight of each eligible piece type (enough to promote all Pawns to it).

Except for the Spartan King, which would only be a valid promotion choice if one of the Kings was captured. So I defined the holdings type such that it would accumulate captured pieces of the original owner. By starting without Kings in hand the Spartans then can only promote to King when one of their Kings is captured.

Castling

Only the Persians can castle, and this forced the Persian and Spartan Kings to be defined as different piece types. (If castling is specified with the aid of an O atom, the diagram assumes it is with a Rook or a corner piece of any type. And we do'nt want the Spartan Kings to castle with their Lieutenants!) This has the dubious effect of the Spartan Kings not being considered royal (as the diagram only considers one piece royal, by default the last one defined). So moves of Spartan Kings into check are not 'grayed out', like they are for the Persian King. But of course this is justifiable, as the Spartan King can actually expose itself to capture (if there still is a second one). So such moves can be legal. The diagram does not understand extinction royalty.

Mage of Maxima is another Gryphon -- before Aurelian Florea's Apothecary.

Here Lavieri claims Guard resists accurate valuation: Piece_Value.

Understand that before Muller we used to do these things in more of a ballpark way.

Hi Zied Haddad!

You pointed out, that you are searching for an alternative to the ordinary F.I.D.E. pawn. Are you still searching? I have an proposal for you. First of all, I think you should change the movement of the pawn. If not, there's not really a big difference between your variant and Seiravan chess.

At first, let's look at some alternatives from other chess variants. The most basic pawn of fairy chess is the Berolina Pawn. While the F.I.D.E. Pawn takes diagonal and moves orthogonal, for the Berolina pawn it's exactly the other way around: It moves diagonal and takes orthogonal.

There is also the Eurasian Pawn. It combines the abilities of the "Western" Pawn and the Chinese Pawn.

M. Winther invented the Scorpion Pawn. This pawn moves like the ordinary pawn with the addition that it also can move like a wide knight forward. So a Scorpion Pawn on d4 can move to d5 or take on c5 and e5 and additionally can go to b5 and f5. By the way my proposal resembles a bit this type of pawn.

When you want to develop a pawn for your chess variant, you at first have to make sure, that it fits to your chessvariant. Every chessvariant has its idea. The idea of Gothic Chess is that there is not only a combination out of Bishop an Rook (the Queen), the combination out of Rook and Knight (the Chancelor) and the combination out of Bishop and Knight (the Arcbishop) are introduced, too. The idea of Wildbeest Chess is, that there is not only a colorbound Rook (the Bishop), but also a colorbound Knight (the Camel). Ecumenical Chess is just a combination out of both ideas.

What is the idea of musketeer chess? I think it should be a variant, where the opening plays like in F.I.D.E. chess, but the midgame and the endgame should differ from that. The result should be, that the game becomes less drawish. I propose to use a pawn, that can move like an ordinary F.I.D.E. Pawn with the addition that it can take like a wide knight backward. Note that at the first move,it can only move like the ordinary F.I.D.E. Pawn.

What is the impact on strategy? Note that, when black has an half open c-file and white has a pawn on c2, it isn't really a backward pawn, when white has still a pawn on e3. An isolated pawn on d4 is not really isolated, when white is able to put a pawn on f5. We have to clarify, if such a pawn can take on the first row. If it is possible a passed pawn on e7 is not really a thread, if black has still a pawn on c7. After e7-e8Q black can simply play c7xe8. If the a file is open and white plays Ra1xRa8 black can play c7xa8. Should a pawn on the first row still have the option of the double step when it moves to the second row? It also could be possible that this pawn has a triple step from the first row.

When the pawn takes like a white knight backward, is it allowed to take en passant? If so, after black has moved a7-a5 a white pawn on c7 can just move c7xa6 e.p.

I think this is a pawn, that fits your variant. But it's just a proposal, you are the inventor, you make the rules. =)

Chris

Basic Chess is another placement CV:

Basic.

Another one is Multiple_Formations.

Traditional for Halloween October.

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.

Here is a CV with two Kings like Muller's example for negative-value piece.  In Anti-King win is by checkmate of regular King or removing check from other's Anti-King.  Two other CVs with two Kings are Two Kings Chess and Double Chess.

Both Aronson's Berolina Pawn version and Anti-King Chess II have strategy to keep the side's Anti-King in check. In AKC-I with Berolina note that Anti-King is initially attacked by four pieces checking, and it will take a while to get them "safely" out of the way. Anti-King Chess II may benefit from changing Anti-King move to Knight move only as subvariant.

How do these relate to negative values? That pieces may want to be removed, if possible, in end game in order to have no forces nearby to attack opponent Anti-King, but their over-all average value would be positive just taking on negative value at end. Player may just settle for checkmating regular King.

Fergus Duniho's insightful strategy for actual game played 13 years ago: Strategy, where few pieces were captured.

Centennial Chess

This is another chess variant that is quite popular on this site. In contains the innovative feature of an asymmetric piece (the Rotating Spearman) that can change its orientation at the end of its turn, deciding how it will be able to move the next time. It also contains several other unorthodox pieces, and thus makes a grateful subject for presentation as interactive diagram:

Spearman orientation

The main challenge here of course was to implement the re-orietation of the Spearmen. This required some extra scripting, through one of the standard 'hooks' of the basic diagram script, providing the (optional) function 'WeirdPromotion'. Because the re-orietation of the Spearmen is treated as promotion of one piece type to another, where Middle,Left and Right Spearman are defined as three different piece types.

To make this work satisfactorily, the basic JavaScript powering the diagram had to be enhanced a bit, because it was necessary to make WeirdPromotion invoke the promotion procedure normally used in wester Chess variants, where you can select the promotion piece from the table by clicking there. Before this WeirdPromotion wasonly used in Shogi variants, where there is no choice other than to promote or not. The was solved by making the choice of the (normally non-existent) piece number 1022 indicated by WeirdPromotion be interpreted as a wildcard, allowing the user to select the actual piece from the table. Since WeirdPromotion (when supplied) is called after every move, it just has to test whether the moved piece is one of the Spearmen orientations, and if it is, wait for the user to select the new orientation.

To make this selection of new Spearman orientation easier, the table of pieces is printed next to the board permanently, rather than in the default way as an initially collapsed table under the board. Placement of the table anywhere in the page can be achieved by defining a HTML element <table id="pieceTable"></table> in the desired location.

Castling

Castling was also a bit problematic in this variant, because the King moves a different number of squares on the King side and Queen side. While the setup is such that what is left for white is right for black. So using Betza l and r modifiers would need a different description for white and black King. A new feature was added to the basic diagram script to handle this situation in a more convenient way: a new parameter 'castleFlip', when set to '1' in the diagram definition, will cause the meaning of left and right to be reversed when interpreting the XBetza description of castling for a black piece.

This variant has some funny rules that required special attention. One was promotion: not only Pawns promote, but a Prince reaching last rank can optionally promote to Queen too. And a Ship can promote to Griffon in the last-rank corners. This was handled by defining Prince as first piece, and specifying only one promoting piece, with as only choices Prince and Queen. This invokes the normal promotion procedure for Princes, letting the user select from the legend table.

Pawn and Ship make use of the user-supplied JavaScript function WeirdPromotion. This automatically promotes these pieces when they reach their respective zones, as in this cases there is no promotion choice.

Another unusual feature of this variant is that, when checkmated, Kings can swapped with Princes,wherever these are located. To make the diagram indicate this possibility, the King was equipped with a universal-leaper move U. The modality 'x', which was already introduced on non-final legs of multi-leg moves to indicate relaying of powers, is now used for indicating such a piece swap with a friendly piece on final (or only) legs.

Adding a plain xU to the King moves would allow it to be swapped with any friendly piece, however. To single out the Princes, we declared the board to be zonal by providing a JavaScript function BadZone. This function tests the the target location for containing a piece of the same color as the mover, and declares the to-square invalid if a non-Prince if found.

Hi Joerg,

inventing chessvariants is silver (computer-aided) playtesting is gold ;) If I don‘t err the Essential Knight Rider is your creation and the problem, that occurs for this army is as old as the piece itself => already in the starting position, it has impact on the enemy‘s camp. When I discovered the chessvariants-site in 2002 your article Nachmahr was my favorite entry for a long time. I never played that game, but I examined it, because it offers a nice overview of several Knight Riders. In those days I saw already the problem that the Essential Knight Rider on g1 can take the Narrow Diagonal Crooked Knight on c8, the pawns on the third rank don‘t prevent that.

It‘s funny that this kind of crooked Knight Rider was invented last, it actually is the most logic Knight Rider. It is a strong piece, but not too strong, so you can combine it with pieces like the Rook or – like in this game – with the bishop. I‘m currently working on a chessvariant with crooked pieces and I plan to use combination of Boyscout an Essential Knight Rider as promoting piece. The funny thing is that the second Essential Knight Rider move and the third Boyscout move „overlap“.

There is another chessvariant that has to deal with a powerful Knight Rider, it‘s Ubi Ubi Chess. The solution Bodlaender found, was to shift the opponents f-pawn and the d-pawn one square ahead. You can probably introduce that special rule to save your brilliant idea.

The idea is really beautiful, the theme of this army is in my point of view, that the minor pieces are weakened. I like the introduction of the Knave, which was a topical piece in those days. The choice of the rook could be a bit more creative. You actually can weaken the rook and put an amazon on d1.

You pointed out, that the player has to make the decision, if he should develop the Knave or the Diamond on the natural knight development squares. One possibility to solve that problem could be, to place the Diamonds on one Wing and the Knaves on the other. I prefer the Knaves on the kings wing, because they can attack the opponents pawns in an e4-game. Otherwise the Knaves will almost always placed on c3 and f3 and the Diamonds have to evade to d2 and e2. On those squares they can‘t attack the opponents pawn, but they can at least protect the own pawns.

Greetings Chris ;D

Hi Zied!

Any update on when we might see alternate pawn pieces? Any chance they'll be available in the the first quarter of 2017?

In Ralph Betza's Pied Color Chess, all the pieces except Pawns are changed in their movement by the piing, unless they happen to have normal dark and light (eight)-square surrounding. In the Example the Rook on b1 starting to c2 can stop there or continue -b3-c4-d5-e6-f7-g8. In the coloration exampled there are no, zero, "normal" squares so far as adjacencies let alone two away and beyond. Watch what's beneath you!

I'd tentatively estimate the relative piece values in Modern Shatranj (current version) as: Pawn=1, Knight=3.5, Rook=5.5, King's fighting value (noting it cannot be traded)=4, General=4 (noting it can be traded or put what be 'in check', unlike a K, but I've judged their value in action to be similar enough), with the Elephant=3.125.

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.

Since the 1820s backranks have been altered to thwart opening theory. Fischer was just as ignorant of chess history as Seirawan in the latter's re-introducing compounds of RN and BN to whatever he calls them in Seirawan Chess. Fischer's re-invention in the recent nineties of up to 960 set-ups led to also variants Slide-Shuffle and Deployment and Free Placement. Randomization of array is Mutator applicable to any CV. Instead at the same time of FRC, Ralph Betza proposed changing connectivity of the once-sancrosanct little 64-board. Besides Betza's two-ranks displacement, here are some other board possibilities: http://www.chessvariants.com/d.betza/chessvar/quake/quake.html.

There are also things like Transcendental, T_Chess where the two sides' initial positions do not have to match, and Chaos Chess in which pieces start dropped to other than only the nearest rank.

Altair is CV where "piece values are not a good indicator of one side's advantage in chess" to use V's current words, because most of the pieces for a move can also be dropped to empty square in rank nearby of the same color. Also they most of them can slide along their rank unimpeded. So if coming up with guide-values for stronger Mage and Lion and Diamond around 7, 5 and 4 respectively, good use of the board itself makes all the pieces closer to heuristic 3.8-4.2 each with only Pawns in some 2.x range.

Muller wrote up problem theme 3Q v. 7N in "Charge of Light Brigade." If you keep 8 Pawns, the 3 Queens versus 7 Knights may go to 3Q by already 8x10 any array, certainly by 10x10. Board used and Rules interact piece values, and cannot really be safely generalized even as to '<' or '>' for all cases; with special rules (or board) we can think of CV where even N>Q one on one!

For ex., make narrow stair step where Q can only occasionally go 3 or 2, but N leaps cross empty space and get values maybe N4 Q3 as convenient.

This game looks very interesting and well thought. The idea of developping positional and strategy game by limiting the men scope to local action is a nice one. I'll surely try the ZOG file.

It would be good to add a typical game example that would show the interest.

Stephane Burkhart

Hello, vickalan,

I'm glad you brought this topic (infinite boards) on this website again. Infinity is something I fancy and there is reason to include it one way or the other in my own games. Anyway this is a difficult  concept to work with. I haven't properly understood the game but it seems to me that 2 experienced players will still do a a lot of draws. Also, why do the hawks start so much behind? Is there some justification related to the bishop move?  The game doesn't propose any innovative ideas besides of the infinite board, as the fairy pieces here are fairly well-known. There is an exception to that I do like a lot - the idea of the huygens. This piece is interesting lifting my first rating I post on this website to good.

Good luck, vickalan

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.

White is going north and Black south as usual in the CV Upside Down Chess.

For OrthoChess problem by Lord Dunsany, solve this:

White is to play and mate in four moves. The position is one that could occur in actual play of F.I.D.E. Chess.

There is a fairy piece called the "Dragon", combining the movements of  the Knight and the Pawn. However the Pawn movements are in a forward direction only. If it has not moved yet, the Dragon gets a two-step forward movement possibility (with an associated vulnerability to an en passant capture).

Swap Chess allows serial swapping as a move along subsequent lines of attack.  Swap Chess has never been put up in Game Courier like Switching Chess.

Here is the only 3-handed circular chess so far.

The first move has to be illegal, so Black Pawn cannot on the first move take a White Pawn that has moved 1 P-a2.  Since it is legal move for Black, he cannot do so on move 1.

Another advanced pawn starting formation.

Squares increase in power.  Each time a piece leaves it, it leaves a trace, so a square can eventually confer Amazon power even to lowly Pawn when he arrives.

Pawns do not promote. The Pawns reaching promotion zone cause other pieces to promote and the Pawn leaves the board. The four-square occupation of King requires all four attacked for mate.

 A square that a main Middle board piece sits on has corresponding square in Above and Below boards. These locations (departure square) 'influence' whether a move can be considered or not. To make the move, it also must be legal within the Middle board. Sometimes the Above or Below two piece-types move their one- or two-square way, and other times they duplicate a Middle board movement. Rules may very well be interpretable (including moving opponent's piece) in all cases.

Player must keep a Ring of 3x3 made from the stones, and to win is to destroy opponent last Ring.  Stones move in 3x3s. This appeared first in Spektrum der Wissenschaft.

First, I wanted to say that my opponent handily outclassed me in our game.  I felt like every move of mine was a blunder. 

Aside from that heavy loss, I found the game very enjoyable.  I was definitely out of my element in this type of game, but the types of pieces really complimented each other and I see why this game gets a lot of correspondence and OTB traction.

I requested a game of this because I was very intrigued by the mix of pieces, though I think the game was shorted by it's need for rule clarifications.

A few things that I found only through research:
- The movement of the Nahbi.  The diagonal movements of the Nahbi do not change direction.  Thus, a Nahbi moves two spaces diagonally in the same direction, then one square in any orthogonal direction, in that order.
- Castling.  The correlation to FIDE chess is that it moves 2 squares left or right, not that the king ends in the same board position as in FIDE.  This was verified by downloading an external program (Zillions of Games) and loading the rules the inventor programmed.  

Once I found out how the Nahbi moved, I quite enjoyed the piece.  The non capturing move increases the mobility, while limiting it to being a sliding piece (instead of jumping) ensured that it wasn't too powerful.  I'd love to see it in other variants.

The Archer is a very good defensive unit and I feel is quite enough of a force to protect the king.  The Alfil, however, was useless.  In a 36 move game, neither players moved their Alfils and only one played a role in piece protection.  Limiting them to one side of the equator gives it 7 squares to protect, making them MUCH weaker than a pawn that has already crossed the equator.  Had the game continued, I would have been happy to exchange both of mine for a crossed pawn each.  If the piece is necessary to the game, I'd recommend removing the limit of remaining on one side of the equator only.

I did like the limit on the queen crossing the equator.  Seemed very fitting to make it a "short range" piece.

Yes Charles, I think it would be fine to drop this (he asks advice on this in red). "sidewaysmost, 'Halfcamel', 'skewed Dabbabah', 'Colourbound analogue' and 'river-straddling zigzag' are turgid and off-putting without any of Ralph's deadend tongue in cheek. However other CVs that get deleted also lose the scathing review.

I really like the mix of pieces added to the game.  The setup positioning of the Lions brings them right into the game early and the Unicorn is a very instrumental piece to the game.  It is very challenging to use and to guard against.

Neither my opponent nor myself made any moves with the Queen nor the Chancellor, which seem like very important pieces to use.  I am not sure if that is a regular occurance or not.  

The board is large, but not too large - big enough to encourage use of the Unicorn.

Wow, this game is quite a gem.  The piece combinations are perfect - some long range, some short range, but nothing too over powered.  It tends to be a slower paced game (our game was 70+ moves), but it adds a lot of depth.  

Two different types of pawns and 3 promotion potentials, with a possibility of getting a second king.  The kings, are also valuable pieces in the fight.  Possibly the strongest piece in the game if you can keep them out of check.  Recruiting is a very unique style of play, providing strategy that I haven't seen before.  In my opinion, by far better than the pocketing method of Shogi.

Another aspect that I found great was due to the smaller number of pawns, your "line" was maintained by your minor pieces.  Every move and every capture was meaningful in this way.  It felt like an actual battle instead of a game.  Very much so one of the best games I've ever played.

I definitely favorited this one.

Are you talking about victory by "allowing" perpetual flight of the opponent's final Queen? That is not the same as eliminating or subjugating a royal piece, which is the real object of a Chess variant. If it was necessary for that to be ruled a victory condition due to the mix of piece types in play, then the game is not really perfect.

Besides this, when any piece may ultimately ascend to royalty, the paradox is then whether the piece type named as "royal" is "really royal". The problem with naming a game which throws up this paradox as a "Chess variant" is that it then has no real royal piece, and Chess is defined as having a set of piece types which are royal and another set which, and any promotion to royalty must be a privileged promotion open only to certain piece types. Once again, if you were so strict about what the rules were to be like that you made yourself need to do this, then the game is not really perfect.

In summary, the game, although interesting, is not really perfect nor really a Chess variant.

Merging Chinese chess with Western chess was a very ambitious thing to do (altering two orthodox traditions) but I think you've succeeded! I like how you took the plain round disks and replaced them with chess pieces that are easier to discrimate. Good work on this interesting variant!
 

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?

Two minor points:

A) The "Dababbaphant" is more commonly known as an "Alibaba.

B) The picket comes from Tamerlane Chess, not Courier Chess.

I'm facing a problem: I want to open a game in which it is my move. Immediately I get an error saying I can't drop a pawn on a file where I already have a pawn.

Yes, I do already know that I can't drop a pawn on a file where I already have a pawn. Especially when I haven't even made any move.

That makes sense, very interesting.  It would require some pretty deep thinking, even for just the next move or two, if all three of those pieces are interacting.  I'll have to try this sometime.

This looks like an interesting game, and I like many aspects of it - including its large size, good blend of traditional and new pieces, and clean crisp graphics. They work together well to create an interesting and appealing game.

I was wondering what it would take to play this engine-vs-engine.

The first thing I noticed is that CVPs page on ChessV brings up an error. Is this related to the recent server move?

I've also read that ChessV has a scripting option, which might allow custom variants to be entered and played. Is this game (Chess and a half) within the possibility to enter as a script? I've never tried anything like that, but I'm always willing to try new things.

Lastly, I know that custom variants can be entered to Fairy-Max. Does anyone know off-hand if this variant is within the size limit of Fairy-Max?

With a little bit of work, I MIGHT be able to get an engine-vs-engine game going of this variant. That would be really awesome. Why play myself, if I can let an engine do the work???

Chess 2 is a fantastic variant that really goes off the deep end in how it changes chess yet still retains that familiar chess feel. It's a great shame that it virtually has no playerbase. It pushes chess to a more gamer and esports oriented audience, in my opinion. Some have complained about the midline rule and duelling mechanics ruining classic chess endgames and adding an unwanted element of chance respectively - I say that on the other hand, midline makes endgames more exciting as moving your king to the midline is the endgame, and makes the king's activity in the game much more apparent; likewise, duelling is what keeps the balance of Chess 2 intact. The armies are supposed to be strong and weak against other armies, that way a metagame eventually forms.

Sirlin's site has since moved domains, and as a result the print-and-play version of the game has been obfuscated. However, I'd like to leave a link to a new version of the print and play that is still being updated:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9qCB9zFQM1neHVMY3pUanh5eXc

And for one without backgrounds: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9qCB9zFQM1nOUcxLXVydWI4d3c

The text has been for the most part lifted from the old print and play, but there's a number of new things that I've added, such as:

• Updated diagrams - makes memorising the movements of the pieces a little less confusing;
• Rules for OTB play - just basic stuff for tournament play;
• CHESS 2 NOTATION. No form of algebraic notation has been configured for Chess 2, until now. I've devised (what I believe to be) the simplest and most effective way to record Chess 2 games while still respecting the integrity of regular chess notation.
• Multiple conversations that I had between various frequent players and beta testers.

For anyone who blows on by this page, I hope you'll take a look at it (if you're interested). If you're wanting to give feedback, you can always find me on chess.com or on lichess.

Hi.

I always enjoy new chess variants (especially as, as a composer, I've been occasionally making compositions with some feeric conditions, mostly for SPGs), so as soon as I read something about switch side chain chess on chessbase site, I DLed the android app to test it :). Here are my thoughts so far :

It's definitely original and one can clearly see the interest for AI given, even though chain detection is very easy to code, evaluating the positions is probably much more difficult to code with that possibility to switch sides (although it's obvious that when one side has the possibility to create a chain, it's a tremendous advantage - and white definitely seems to have a big edge with the current rules).

About the feeling and enjoyment of playing this :it reminds a lot of loser's chess (giveaway chess). Despite the fact that loser's chess is at the contrary veryyy AI friendly (don't know if some coders bothered solving it, but it's probably possible). You can lose extremely fast in the opening, but it is somewhat interesting to see how to play around these fast losses.

About the usefulness for chess composition : can be interesting for SPGs (shortest proof games) and retro analysis for sure. Not so much for mates/helped mates/inversed mates etc since chains require the presence of too much material.

About the software : wondered who you asked to code this.. It's passably aesthetic and the UI is ok, but the AI is inexistent.. I ve never seen it ever do a switch, and obviously not work around them either. And even when playing normal chess he is atrocious. That's the main reason for my average evaluation.

About possible changes to prevent very quick games, and give it a feel closer to chess rather than loser's chess : limiting the number of successive switches depending on the move you're at seems unnecessarily complicated. You could for instance consider a chain that involves a pawn still on its starting square as non valid. That would be a big change for sure, but keep it simple and interesting.

 

To finish, my fastest game so far against that weak program, as black :

1.e3 b6

2.Qf3 Bb7

3.Qxb7?! c6

4.Qxa8?? Qc8 (SB)

5.Qxb8 Kd8 (SW) (SB)

6.Ba6 d6 (SW) (SB)

7.Qxc8#

 

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.

One of the few examples of variants that are actually better than the original. 

Some people take a normal chess game, add a piece that combines the abilities of a knight and a Bishop, and already call it a new variant. This game, however, is a complete reinvention of its ancient predecessor. Many additional rules have made this game much more enjoyable, and have given it a completely new feeling. It actually feels really realistic; you can almost see the formations of hoplites rolling onto each other, pushing each other back, and finally forcing the losing party to retreat. But be careful not to advance too far, otherwise it might happen that a few swift skirmishers come charging from the other side of the board and fall into the flanks of your formations. And isolated soldiers have to take great care that they don't get simply overwhelmed and crushed in between their enemies. 

This is not just some of those minor variations. This game is just as elaborate, just as complex, and just as much fun as original  chess itself. Try it at least twice and see. 

I want to play with someone! :) 

I rate Berolina Chess as below Excellent since I somewhat dislike that pawns open files so easily, and that they can more easily become passed (plus Berolina pawns continually force the mind of an orthodox chess player to adjust at every stage of his calculations). The pawn structures that often result, in spite of not being clearly weak, also look ugly to the orthodox mind. On the bright side, such features (the merits of which can be debated) do attract a lot of variant players due to their novelty, in fundamentally shifting away from the foundation of standard pawns that is retained in so many variants.

As for chess, my estimates for the piece values would be: P=1; N=3.49; B=3.5; R=5.5; Q=10 and a fighting value of K=4 (though naturally it cannot be traded).

Here's an experiment 10x8 CV that uses Berolina Pawns also:

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/gamma2-chess

I like the concept of multi-player chess variants (or ones in which two players each control more than one army, which is how this game is currently played on Game Courier), and perhaps there ought to be more of these. The problem of how to handle the surviving pieces of an army whose king has been captured (if not mated) may be a bit tricky to do in a reasonable way (i.e. in order to make it worthwhile for good players continuing to play out such a game further, at least at times). I think this particular variant seems to solve that problem well enough - if nothing else the variant is well tested and continues to be played, I gather!

My tentative estimates for the piece values in this variant would be: P=1; N=2.5; B=3.25; R=5.75; Q=10 and the fighting value of a K=1.6 (if the first of one team's kings is captured, ostensibly winning an exchange value of 1.6, add to this exchange value a periodically recalculated bonus of [sum of the value of the pieces and pawns in the remainder of that king's army, for as long as any of it remains on the board]x0.8 for virtually immobilizing the remainder of that army, with full value awarded for any virtually immobilized pieces that are subsequently captured); note that naturally the second of a team's kings cannot be allowed to be captured without the loss of the game.

In spite of what I see as the drawbacks of this variant (unprotected pawn for each side in setup, rectangular board [though allowing smothered and back rank mates still], bishops clearly stronger than knights, the fact the chancellors might be developed symmetrically and traded in short order sometimes), this was a good try historically to cut down on draws and opening theory.

On this particular variant's board dimensions of 10x8, as compared to 8x8, IMHO the archbishops would seem to come closer in value to chancellors (though not queens), though I personally have lingering doubts about archbishops being quite as good by comparison on 8x8 or 10x10 boards, any computer studies aside. IMHO, the bishop component of an archbishop would seem to have a number of extra potential good squares near the centre (or in range of the enemy camp) on a 10x8 board, without the rook component of a chancellor benefitting as much as often in return (unlike would be the case on a 10x10 board). On a 10x8 board the knight component of an archbishop would seem to have a number of extra potential good squares near the centre (or the enemy camp) for local scope, balancing the benefit received by the rook component of a queen on such an empty larger board than 8x8.

My tentative estimates for the piece values in this variant would be: P=1; N=3.5 approx.; B=3.75; R=5.5; A=8.25; C=10; Q=10.25 and the fighting value of the K=3.2 (though it naturally cannot be traded).

edit: Here's a 10x8 CV that uses 2 powerful and unusual pieces, besides the chess army and Berolina pawns:

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/gamma2-chess

Also, here's a 10x8 variant that uses Frogs besides the chess army:

https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/frog-chess

A link to a published preset for a circular Capablanca Chess style variant:

Circular Capa Chess

A popular variant on Game Courier currently, Cetran 2 has an interesting combination of pieces in whatever starting position is selected (by man and/or machine), many of them powerful, with the superb Sissa piece undoubtedly being the star of the show.

My tentative values for the pieces in this variant would be: P=1; N=3.5; R=5.5; DH=6; A=8; C=10; Q=10; S=10.33 approximately and the fighting value of K=4 (though naturally it cannot be traded), as given by a number of world class chess players historically, re: chess itself.