H. G. Muller wrote on Mon, Sep 12, 2016 04:12 PM UTC:
The way that Grand Chess tries to ensure survival of super-pieces into the end-game is by starting with three of them rather than just one (as in orthodox Chess). This makes an anti-trading rule less compelling. But I agree with you on the importance of minor pieces. You need material that you can sacrifice without being immediately lost if it doesn't lead to checkmate.
But by adding a lot of minor-class pieces to Grand Chess you would again run the risk that you run out of super-pieces to combat them at a too early stage to keep the game interesting. An alternative solution would be make these pieces promotable. So that when the board population thins and the forces have dwindled to the point where they no longer can prevent penetration of minors, super-pieces would return in the game by promotion.
I don't think anti-trading rules are a bad thing. I think it would be very interesting to play orthodox Chess with an anti-trading rule on the Queen (i.e. after Q x Q the capturing Q is absolutely royal for one move (i.e. pseudo-legal capture of it wins the game), and after other x Q the opposing Q is iron for one move (i.e. cannot be captured)).
The way that Grand Chess tries to ensure survival of super-pieces into the end-game is by starting with three of them rather than just one (as in orthodox Chess). This makes an anti-trading rule less compelling. But I agree with you on the importance of minor pieces. You need material that you can sacrifice without being immediately lost if it doesn't lead to checkmate.
But by adding a lot of minor-class pieces to Grand Chess you would again run the risk that you run out of super-pieces to combat them at a too early stage to keep the game interesting. An alternative solution would be make these pieces promotable. So that when the board population thins and the forces have dwindled to the point where they no longer can prevent penetration of minors, super-pieces would return in the game by promotion.
I don't think anti-trading rules are a bad thing. I think it would be very interesting to play orthodox Chess with an anti-trading rule on the Queen (i.e. after Q x Q the capturing Q is absolutely royal for one move (i.e. pseudo-legal capture of it wins the game), and after other x Q the opposing Q is iron for one move (i.e. cannot be captured)).