[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later⇧ Latest⇩ Alice Chess. Classic Variant where pieces switch between two boards whenever they move. (8x8x2, Cells: 128) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]JCL wrote on 2002-03-29 UTCDaniel, do you realize that the site icon in the upper left-hand corner takes you to the index page? I have visited regularly for years, so I have the 'What's new?' page bookmarked. --JCL Daniel wrote on 2002-03-29 UTCGood ★★★★Make your pages have a 'printer option!' That way I could take your data home with me and actually use it!! Also, put a 'home' buttin at the bottom of each page, it would make site navigation easier... Thanks, Daniel Tomas Forsman wrote on 2002-05-30 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Another variant could be, and this probably exists under some name, to start with two boards and two sets of pieces each. Except that there would be no King on the second board. Just a thought. The game is very fun to play however. Tomas Masashi Yamazaki wrote on 2002-09-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★The starting setup of graphics version is wrong. Bishops in 1b/8b should be in 1c/8c respectively. Knignts in 1c/8c should be in 1b/8b respectively. The game is wonderful but too complex to play for me. Thanks. Masashi Yamazaki Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-09-10 UTCWhoops! Diagram fixed -- thanks for pointing it out. Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2003-09-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★An interesting aspect of this game is that game goals or strategies differ on each board. The checkmate goal is the same, of course, but each position has its own intermediary objectives. On one board, the objectives may be more like the opening, on the other they may be more middle game objectives. These objectives must remain flexible because the positions appear and dissapear like summer clouds or maybe dreams. What a great game! Fergus Duniho wrote on 2004-03-14 UTCWhen you're implementing the rules of a game, you have to pay closer attention to the consequences of the rules than you would have to just to learn the game. This page omits an important detail I had to discover on my own. En passant is possible only for a Pawn on the second board. When a Pawn makes a double move, it moves to the second board. If it had moved only one space, it would have still moved to the second board, and only a Pawn on that board would have been able to capture it. Since en passant is supposed to allow a Pawn to capture an enemy Pawn it would have been able to capture if it had moved only one space, it follows that en passant is for the Pawn waiting on the second board, not for any Pawn on the first board. Furthermore, I have deduced that a Pawn can be properly situated for making an en passant capture only if it has never made a double move. To be properly situated, a Pawn must be on a player's fifth rank. To get to the fifth rank, a Pawn may make three single space moves or a double space move and a single space move. With three single space moves, the Pawn will be on the second board. But if it makes a double move and a single move, its two moves will return it to the first board, and it will be unable to capture anything by en passant. carlos carlos wrote on 2004-04-06 UTCcould someone check out my game with Laila and advise on the situation - my interpretation is that a move made on the mirror board will send you back to the original board. laila thinks opposite, that once on the mirror board you stay there. i have already misunderstood this game once, so i am probably wrong again. Larry Smith wrote on 2004-04-06 UTCIn Alice Chess, pieces must translate from one board to the other with each move. No exceptions. carlos carlos wrote on 2004-04-06 UTCmany thanks. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2004-04-06 UTCLaila is wrong. If you were playing with the preset that enforces the rules, it would automatically be sending pieces back and forth between the boards, and this dispute over the rules wouldn't need to arise. Larry Smith wrote on 2004-05-04 UTCThere is a Shogi form called Curiosity-Alice-Shogi. I don't know who was the developer. It appears to play the same as Alice Chess. Drops are allowed to re-enter on either board. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2004-06-04 UTCIn the Kibbitizing section of an ongoing Alice Chess game, I entered a question about an ambiguity in the rules. If you have any expertise on Alice Chess, please look at my question, which concerns the specific position in that game, and help me resolve the ambiguity I'm concerned about. The game can be found here: http://play.chessvariants.com/pbm/play.php?game=Alice+Chess&log=quux-cvgameroom-2004-136-987 Larry Smith wrote on 2004-06-04 UTCMoving Rook b1-b4 will block the attack from that Bishop. Why not try King e1-d2? The standard rules state that a King cannot be left in check, the move is legal for the King. The only standard rule which states that a King cannot moved through an attacked position is while castling. In standard Chess a King may not move to an attacked cell, but d2 is not attacked by the Bishop since it will be empty. The King will not be present to be captured by the Bishop on the next move. Larry Smith wrote on 2004-06-04 UTCAnd I know that the rules in 'Curiouser and Curiouser' state: 'For example, the King may never move to a checked square on his board, even though the transfer to the other board immediately afterwards might actually move the King to a safe square...' I've always used these stated rules but never really understood the logic of them. But hey, it is V.R. Parton's Alice Chess and he had the right to establish its conditions. But I've always wondered why. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2004-06-04 UTCWithout the rule you quoted, it would be too easy to escape check. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2004-06-04 UTCFirst, let me mention that the ambiguity I wondered about is now resolved. Turning to Larry's puzzlement over the logic behind Parton's rules, I think the logic lies in what makes for best gameplay. There are two extremes that each seem more consistent than Parton's choice. One extreme is to count check only on the completion of a move, and the other is to never allow any move that leaves a King in check before the transfer of a piece to the other board. In contrast to these two internally-consistent options, Parton chose to count check only when a move puts a King in check before the transfer is made, and to not count check when the King is already in check and the pre-transfer move does not eliminate the check. I think Parton made the right choice, and here's why I agree with it. The first option I described, of counting check only when a move is completed, would make it too easy for a King to escape check. The second option, of always counting check before the transfer, would make it too difficult to escape check. In fact, it would remove all possibility of blocking a check. Any move that blocked a check before the transer was complete would fail to actually block the check, because it would be transferred to the other board, where it no longer blocked the check. To make it neither too hard nor too easy to escape check, the right choice is to not allow any move that puts one's own previously unchecked King into check, while allowing moves that merely postpone the elimination of a pre-existing check until the end of the full move. Larry Smith wrote on 2004-06-04 UTCI agree that Parton's restriction does make the checkmate much more easier. But without it, there really is not a reduction in the potential of checkmate. Dropping this restriction actually brings the Kings themselves into the end-game formulae. With the ability to pin the opposing King with a King on the other field. There is also an increase possibility of stalemate, if the player is not aware of this particular position against a lone opposing King. Now, I'm not advocating elimination of this restriction. But variant play might include the lifting of this restriction. Austin Lockwood wrote on 2004-07-14 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Turn based Alice Chess can now be played on <a href='http://www.schemingmind.com/'>SchemingMind.com Online Correspondence Chess Club</a>. Both the standard version described here (Alice1) and the variation where the black pieces start on board B (Alice2) are available. George Duke wrote on 2004-10-06 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Are Chess and Chess Variants separate like Alice's 'Through the Looking Glass'? Has 14th World Champion Vladimir Kramnik even heard of Alice Chess, re-recognized now at CVP? Would #6 Peter Leko play Ultima? Contrariwise, are CVP readers even aware a World Championship match takes place now in Switzerland between Kramnik and Leko? Would perennial #1 Kasparov hold Recognized Chess Variant Kriegspel in high regard? Or #7 Michael Adams think RCV Avalanche Chess worth anything? Well there are Fischer and Random Chess, and a photograph in Pritchard's ECV of #9 Judit Polgar (and sisters) playing Intense C, being a variant neither known nor recognized here. Probably the realms will remain separate and unequal between Chess and CVs, at large most of the games played being Chess. Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2004-10-06 UTCJudith Polgar is a very stron Omega Chess player, but all I know is that she plays it eventually. MoisÃ©s SolÃ© wrote on 2004-11-01 UTCYay Polgar! (Sorry I just had to...) My question is that I don't get all those B-colors, N-colors and P-colors and how this gives eight. Can someone explain this to me again? Thanks. Antoine Fourrière wrote on 2004-11-01 UTCAt both Chess and Alice Chess, the Bishops are restricted to one half of the squares. But at Alice Chess, this holds true also for the Knights, and for the Pawns once they've completed their first move. So you can paint the squares in eight different colors, each color meaning: This square will not accept: 1) the dark-square Bishops (OR the light-square Bishops) 2) the Knights which started on a dark square (OR the Knights which started on a light square) 3) the white Pawns whose first advance was of two squares and the black Pawns whose first advance was of one square (OR the white Pawns whose first advance was of one square and the black Pawns whose first advance was of two squares) This amounts to eight different square types. Something like: 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 Or you can have three ways of painting the squares: light and dark as usual, in two colors I'm referring to as B-colors, to separate the Bishops in two classes (1368 vs 2457) reversing the colors of one chessboard, in two N-colors, to separate the Knights in two classes (1467 vs 2358) even-numbered rows of one chessboard and odd-numbered rows of the other chessboard, and vice versa, in two P-colors, to separate the Pawns in two classes (1278 vs 3456) However, a Bishop can be captured only by a Bishop of the same B-color, while a Knight can be captured only by a Knight of the other N-color and a Pawn only by a Pawn of the other P-color. Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2004-11-01 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Excellent page!. In my opinion, new comments on strategy by Fourriere are of very high quality, I have learned a bit more about this nice game, but I doubt I can still play it as well as I would want, deep tactics are usually complex, and risks are much more important than in FIDE-Chess. Mastering this game needs certain amount of time, undoubtely. MoisÃ©s SolÃ© wrote on 2004-11-01 UTCThanks, Antoine. I see it now. 25 comments displayedEarlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later⇧ Latest⇩Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.