[ 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 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. Charles Gilman wrote on 2004-11-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★ Michael Farris wrote on 2004-11-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I am thankful for your comments on strategy, but I would add that the knights are N-colorbound in the short-term, but not long-term. Alice piece-teams must rather must think more long-term as in Shatranj; the 'knight's tour', for example, is possible, as is the 'wazir's tour'; it just takes twice as long. I agree that many shorter games are possible with the proper initiative, but with careful (or perhaps not so careful) play, more subtle games can be played. At www.schemingmind.com, we are also running tournaments to explore this great game of Alice Chess, and we have a journal where I posted some points of strategy in the games. I invite your analysis and those observations of Alice Chess fans everywhere. Thank you for your passion for the game, and your insight into gameplay. Nasmichael Farris wrote on 2004-11-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★How many Alice Chess games have been played at the ChessVariants Courier Play by e-mail system? Any favorites from the players here? I would like to correct myself in terms of the knight tour for Alice--the bishops can move forward and backward past the 'goal square' -- like parallel parking a car- -- and thereby hit any square on both boards. But the knights are a bit more trouble mentally, to hit a square on either board. It seems like the piece, on a tour, having hit every other square in the tour once, could shift the pathway and set about coming back to the target mirror squares. If a note from George Jelliss at the website http://www.borderschess.org/KTfeedback.htm is used in reference to an algorithm for normal 64 square chessboards-- --'It is in fact possible to devise rules that will produce an exact tour, without deviation from the rule at any point, and without backtracking. In Chessics #22 (1985) I gave four examples of such 'Synthetic Tours'. They use Warnsdorff's rule ('Play the knight to a square where it commands the fewest squares not yet used') in conjunction with either the Obtuse rule ('Play the knight at as obtuse an angle as possible to the previous move - straight if possible') or the Acute rule ('Play the knight at as acute an angle as possible to the previous move'). The second rule either takes over when Warnsdorff's rule breaks down (I write these rules WO and WA), or the second rule is applied to the choice of moves suggested by the first rule (I write these rules W/O and W/A). The four combination rules all work if the tour is started a1-b3'-- then perhaps the idea could be extrapolated to the Alice boards. I have not yet done so today, but I aim to try. That would mean that the square is a WHOLE TOUR at most from that mirror square, and so would be useless for most short games, but something to consider. (Most games are so far much shorter than a corresponding 'FIDE Standard' game counterpart.) Or again, now that I am sitting still thinking about it, perhaps you are right. Again, thanks to all for their contributions. Larry Smith wrote on 2005-01-13 UTCDuring a recent game at SchemingMind, the subject of the weakness of the Alice Knight brought forward an interesting possible variation to the rules. Allow the Knight to capture on both fields. In additions to the standard capture move, it would be allowed to capture the destination cell of the opposing field. It would still only perform a single capture during a move, and still be bound to one-half of each field. And it would still be restricted from moving to a friend-occupied cell. This increase in power would greatly improve its influence in the game. Unless this variant rule has been previously proposed, I suggest that it be called Alice Knights. Peter Aronson wrote on 2005-01-14 UTC<blockquote><i> During a recent game at SchemingMind, the subject of the weakness of the Alice Knight brought forward an interesting possible variation to the rules. </i></blockquote> <p> A different solution might be to use a different Knight that isn't color changing, such as the <a href='../piececlopedia.dir/fibnif.html'>Fibnif</a> or <a href='../piececlopedia.dir/waffle.html'>Waffle</a>. It's probably not as appealing to the Chess purist, but it requires less in the way of special rules. George Duke wrote on 2005-01-27 UTCGood ★★★★(Large CVs 'ABC' thread): David Pritchard says 'Alice Chess is confusing. Blunders are commonplace.' Antoine Fourriere's excellent script on strategy added within clarifies a lot. Still Alice Ch. is more of an 'idea game' than one of the highest playability. Alice is compatible with 'Positional 3D Chess' concept in article of that name. Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2005-01-27 UTCGood ★★★★It's true that Alice Chess can be confusing, but the rules are actually very simple. Any move must be legal on both boards and the pieces end their move on the other board. Its a bit of a mind bender, but not more so than 3-D or 3-D positional games, as George points out. This confusion, if you will, is actually thematic with the name. Alice keeps getting turned around. Nothing is what it seems. That's the fun of it. Playable? Yes, but the spirit of fun can't be forgotten. Blunders? Yes, but, hey, the Alice Knight kept falling off his horse, didn't he? Larry Smith wrote on 2005-01-28 UTCThis game definitely challenges the player's ability to extrapolate positions. Keeping track of the oscillation of every moved piece and maintaining some form of strategy, the player is fortunate to be able to plan more than several moves. This is also the joy of the game. A player who desires an easily comprehensive form might well be warned about the dangers surrounding this game. But they should not fear to attempt it. My favorite variant is the Mirrored Alice set-up, whereby opposing pieces begin on seperate fields. This offers a large variety of opening moves. Derek Nalls wrote on 2005-02-13 UTC[Comment voluntarily deleted.] Nasmichael Farris wrote on 2005-03-06 UTCFergus Duniho speaks about Alice Chess and en passant. 'Jellis mentions some details about en passant that I also thought of while working on my own Zillions Rules File for Alice Chess. First is the question of whether the capturing Pawn has to be on the first or second board. As I understand en passant, it allows a Pawn to capture a Pawn it could have captured if that Pawn had made a one-step move instead of a double move. Thus, the Pawn that can take another by en passant must be the one that could have taken the Pawn if it had moved only one space. This means a Pawn on the second board. When a Pawn makes a double move, it will switch boards, and if it lands beside an enemy Pawn on the other board, that Pawn will normally be able to take it by en passant. But Alice Chess does introduce one situation in which the rule of en passant becomes ambiguous. When a Pawn makes a double move, it may pass over a space whose corresponding space on the other board is occupied. Thus, the space the enemy Pawn would have to go to for an en passant capture will be occupied.' I was reading an article from Alessandro Nizzola on 'Passar Battaglia' (http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles222.pdf) wherein the double move was used to pass the battle by, and in the Italian rules, the opponent could not recapture. So perhaps Alice allows conditions where en passant and passar battaglia co-exist. Does the community feel there is a need for either one or the other, or, in the spirit of Alice, that both are interwoven? Fergus' analysis is sound, but there are loopholes, not because of his argument, but because of Alice's mirror world. Discernment is tough with the board shifts, and adhering to the few extra rules brings about so many new possibilities. Arguments in either direction are possible, and perhaps that is why Parton offered up the statement on en passant, 'it is usual to forgo it.' Fergus Duniho wrote on 2005-03-06 UTCIt was Jellis, not Parton, who said 'it is usual to forgo it.' This is a crucial point, because Parton, not Jellis, is the inventor of this game. If Parton had said it, we could safely assume that Alice Chess has no en passant, but Jellis does not speak of the game with anything like the authority of its inventor. I'll look at the page on Passar Battaglia later. I'm not up on the term and cannot comment on it at this time. Larry Smith wrote on 2005-03-06 UTCThe application of en passant in Alice Chess is really not that confusing. The opposing Pawn must have immediately performed a two-step move to the capturing Pawn's field, resulting in a position orthogonal adjacent. The cell which the capturing Pawn is moving to must be vacant, in both fields. This denotes that the single step was a viable option for opposing Pawn. If that cell on the capturing Pawn's field is occupied by either friend or foe, en passant is not viable since the single step of the opposing Pawn was not possible and thus capture of that Pawn on that cell was not an option. If it is occupied by an another enemy, a simple capture of this enemy piece is still possible but this would not result in the capture of the opposing two-stepping Pawn. Nasmichael Farris wrote on 2005-03-08 UTCThanks, Fergus. I appreciate the clarification. Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on 2006-09-13 UTCExcellent ★★★★★In the 'Play It!' section, the author mentions variants to Alice Chess : Alice Chess, Alice Mirror, Alice Zero (aka Ms. Alice Chess), Alice Grand, and Alice Extinction. I believe these variants need to be explained to users who don't have Zillions (like me). -- Also, the article doesn't mention the variant suggested be Patron that: 'Alician Chess can also be played on three boards of identical size. ' Patron doesn't clarify that if a square was occupied and the corresponding squares weren't that a piece may move to this square or not; he merely says that there is 'no choice' implying that two corresponding squares out of three can be occupied in the same time. This would be a nice addition. Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2006-09-22 UTCExcellent ★★★★★hmm this place is a bit frisky lately, anyway, i'm going to rate some unusual games, and what better place to start than here. This is an amazing game, no need to say anymore. Highly original, strikingly beautiful concept. charlesfort wrote on 2007-01-03 UTCGood ★★★★Alice Chess: this clever idea is applicable to virtually all chess versions and is widely played here too. // In view of extensive material why not solicit extra Comments for 2007 alphabetically, so readers get a chance systematically to familiarize with content all the years of this website? There are 26 English letters and 52 weeks, so each letter would get 2 wks. 01.01.07 to 08.01.07 for items from Aa to Al(including Alice Chess), next week Am to Az, then Jan. 15 to Jan. 31, 2007 is for letter-B works. And so on: April for G and H chess games; two letters per month being easier, and that allows discussion of W, X, Y, and Z-alphabetized topics from the Index during December 2007. Then more readers and contributors would be on the same page, the same choir sheet, and find common threads in what went before, duplicative work. You would not teach Abstract Algebra without assuming some ability for proofs, knowledge of sets, familiarity with notation, complex numbers, matrix arithmetic. Same general idea so everyone at least knows a Ferz from a Wazir. Levi Aho wrote on 2010-02-10 UTCEn Passant While reading through the various discussions on en passant in Alice Chess, I came up with an option not mentioned that seems to be quite consistant with the core rules: When making an en passant capture, it's irellevant if the destination square on the board of the capturing piece is occupied, as the pawn really ends up on the other board, which is open. This satisfies the three main rules: A move must be legal on the board where it is played: By standard Chess rules an en passant capture is allowed when a double pawn move places a pawn adjacent to an enemy pawn. A piece can only move or capture if the corresponding destination square on the other board is vacant: In order for the captured pawn to have made a double move, this must be true. After moving, the piece is transfered to the corresponding square on the other board: This applies as normal. This interpretation may seem strange, but it's entirely internally consistant. The standard chess en passant rules have no provisio for the destination square being occupied because it's impossible. I propose Alice Chess ought to have none, because it's irrellevant (unlike other variants where this issue is raised). The other interpretation (that the destination square must be empty) really only makes sense if paired with a rule that makes double pawn moves illegal is such cases. In which case, the supposed ambiguity is, once again, not possible. However, I don't really like this option. Firstly, it adds additional complications to the rules. With all other moves, legality is determined by the state of board the piece starts on. However, the legality of double pawn moves is dependant on both boards. Secondly, the basis of this rule is that a double pawn move basically two seperate moves. If that was the case, in Alice Chess the pawn would end back on the board it started on. (Which could be an interesting option. If you handle en passant as I suggest, it works.) Check While there seems to be no special mention of check and mate in the rules on this page, it seems to me that it ought to be handled as normal. In other words, the king is in check if it could be captured on the next move. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2010-03-21 UTCSince Alice in Wonderland is currently in the theaters, I thought it would be a good time to make a video about Alice Chess. Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-03-24 UTCWell here's another approach to En Passant. Given that this is a special move comprising two 'normal' Pawns moves, should it be treated as such, with the first step taking it from its starting board to the other board and the second bringing it back? Were this the case an enemy Pawn capturing En Passant would have to do so as if the Pawn being captured, now back on the starting board, were on the other board having made only the first step. A question that follows is what about Castling, whose bar on moving can also be seen as a form of En Passant - and again the King makes two of its 'normal' moves. On the issue of the film, is anyone else surprised that in this age of gratuitous sequels the film conflates two quite distinct stories, even going beyond previous films in this respect by conflating two queens? You would think that this would be a golden opportunity to make two films, one for each book. Through the Looking Glass in particular has its own distintive (chess-related) plot structure that gets lost when the two storylines are merged. Anonymous wrote on 2010-07-29 UTCI have a more interesting opinion on 'en passant'. Since the name of the move means 'capturing something that has just passed', I think if a pawn goes from e2(A) to e4(B), it passes e3(A), e4(A) and is transferred to e4(B), so the e3 on board A is the en passant square. But that implies e4(A) should be another en passant square! Furthermore, all pawns have to fear en passant, not only after the double move. However, preserving the rule that only pawns may capture en passant, I realized the game may even be more interesting. That increases the oppotunities of pawn capturing, and require more care of player developing his pawns. By the way, that also explains why kings cannnot walk into 'false checks' as they are real (anyone may capture a king en passant, as the castling rule implies). Johnny Luken wrote on 2012-10-14 UTCExcellent ★★★★★A pretty playable subvariant would be with both boards full, and ordinary moves, starting and ending on the same board, by necessity, legal. You could even adapt the mechanic for higher dimensional games, with layers of boards, with the rule that for a piece to move legally from one board to another, the move would have to be legal on all intermediate boards aswell... H. G. Muller wrote on 2013-02-16 UTCI made a dedicated derivative of Fairy-Max to play Alice Chess. It uses the method of a single board with 'pedestals', i.e. it uses the same coordinate notation on both boards. This to make it playable in a GUI as if it were normal Chess, when you switch legality testing off. (The GUI will see moves jumping other pieces, that in reality are on the other board, and would not think these were legal...) The engine can be downloaded from http://hgm.nubati.net/Alice.zip , and can work under WinBoard. I might some day equip WinBoard with special support for Alice Chess, so that the user can actually see which piece is on which board. The Alice version of Fairy-Max does not have e.p. capture. It has castling, but I am not sure what it considers 'passing through check', and for Q-side castling also b1 has to be empty. Normally this should not be a problem. The rules of Alice Chess suggest each move is to be considered a multi-step move, the transfer between the boards being the final step. Otherwise there is no logic in the requirement that you must not move the King to a square that is attacked on the board it came from, but can stay as long as you want on a square that is attacked on the other board. So if there were e.p. capture, I think that it should be possible to capture a Pawn that just moved on the board it came from, even if it did not do a double-push. (And of course you can always capture it on the board it ended up on.) It does not seem that the game was intended to be played that way, however, so it would be logical to forbid any form of e.p. capture. Kevin Pacey wrote on 2016-02-20 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Alice Chess is a 3D chess variant that works very well, with only minor trickery required (i.e. that no piece is allowed to occupy the corresponding square on the opposite board). Not only that, but interesting exchanges of differing piece types can still be made, with there still being a variety of 'major' and 'minor' pieces. Beautiful. JT K wrote on 2016-10-12 UTCExcellent ★★★★★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. H. G. Muller wrote on 2019-11-26 UTCThis is a trial for using the Interactive Diagram for Alice Chess. Custom-supplied functions BadZone and WeirdPromotion take care of refusal of moves to squares of which the mirror square is occupied, and take care of shuttling the moved piece to the other board, respectively. The boards are separated by strip of 'hole' squares, which has to be two files wide to prevent Knights from crossing it. files=18 promoChoice=NBRQ graphicsDir=../membergraphics/MSelven-chess/ whitePrefix=w blackPrefix=b graphicsType=png squareSize=33 symmetry=none royal=6 pawn::::a2,b2,c2,d2,e2,f2,g2,h2,,a7,b7,c7,d7,e7,f7,g7,h7 knight:N:::b1,g1,,b8,g8 bishop::::c1,f1,,c8,f8 rook::::a1,h1,,a8,h8 queen::::d1,,d8 king::KisO2::e1,,e8 hole::::i1,i2,i3,i4,i5,i6,i7,i8,j1,j2,j3,j4,j5,j6,j7,j8 I implemented e.p. capture as a move by the Pawn on the board where the doubly pushed Pawn started. This seemed the least illogical way to do it, as the e.p. square on that board will always be empty (or the double push would not have been allowed). And it is the square the double push really passed over, and thus where it could have been blocked. The move could still be illegal because the corresponding square on the other board is occupied, but that is normal for any move to an empty square in Alice Chess that would be legal on its own board. There has to be no extra rule to prevent double capture this way. This method of e.p. capture corresponds to one where the doubly pushed Pawn must first make a single retrograde step before being captured, rather than replacing its double step by a single step. That this is not the same is the fault of an Alice double push not really being two consecutive single pushes. I still have a comment to make about the legality of moves (an aspect that the diagram doesn't address). The ambiguity here seems to be caused by not making proper distinction between legal and pseudo-legal moves, but heaping them all under the term 'legal'. A more precise description would have said that a move in Alice Chess is pseudo-legal if (before transfer) it would have been pseudo-legal in orthodox Chess on the board where it is made, and the target square on the other board is empty. And then an Alice move is legal (as usual) when it does not expose the King to pseudo-legal Alice capture. This prevents solving distant checks by interposing a piece that was on the board where the checked King resides (but then disappearing to the other board, so that the King can be captured) from being considered legal. Despite the fact that they would have been perfectly legal orthodox Chess moves on the board with the King. 50 comments displayedEarlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ LaterPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.