[ 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 Chess for Three. Three-player Chess with standard pieces and moves.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Donald Seagraves wrote on 2004-08-21 UTCA few warnings on this link: <p> 1. If you go to <a href='http://www.chess-for-three.com/'>http://www.chess-for-three.com</a> a new page will pop-up with the actual site -- if you use a browser or have software that squashes pop-ups this link won't work. If this happens, you can access the *actual* page at <a href='http://www.chess-for-three.com/intro.html'>http://www.chess-for-three.com/intro.html</a> <p> 2. If the page does pop-up, it may be too small and may not be resizable -- this happened to me using IE. If this happens, press Control-N and a new window will appear that you can resize, or you can just enter the <a href='http://www.chess-for-three.com/intro.html'>above address</a> in the address bar of your browser. <p> 3. The actual page uses <a href='http://www.macromedia.com/'>shockwave/flash</a> rather than plain ol' html, so you'll need to have that plug-in installed (most people already do, as it is a popular format) <p> Except for these few quibbles, it is a well-designed site and very informative. Cesco Reale wrote on 2008-05-06 UTCGood ★★★★Chess for Three – Problems and proposals In the internet site Chess Variant Pages it is possible to find some chess variants for 3 players, and the more classical variant on a single board is the Jerzy Luberda’s one : http://www.chess-for-three.com/ The idea of the chess board is brillant, but the rules of Jerzy Luberda have some problems. (Let’s say that A is much stronger than B, that is much stronger than C) Problem 1: nobody has interest to attack. A prepares a very good attack against B, for example A takes B’s queen loosing a knight; it is not worth it, because comparing with C that did nothing, A has a knight less. Problem 2: Kingmaker effect. Let’s say that A did a very good attack against C, using many pieces and a good strategy, and B is just trying to exploit the situation with one piece; if A is about to checkmate C, very often can happen that C must decide between be checkmated by A or by B. So, a player that has no more chances to win will decide the winner. This problem is present in the standard game where the first that captures a king wins (http://www.chess-for-three.com/), or in the variant where who captures a king takes over the eliminated player’s pieces, continuing with stronger forces (second option in the paper rules of the game). Problem 3: cooperation against the strongest. If A has an advantage comparing with the other two, B and C will probably cooperate, even if speaking is not allowed, until A will be not anymore the strongest. Now B has the best situation, so A and C will cooperate against B, and so on. So, the final victory is almost random, even if A plays very well, most probably he will not succeed to win. After several tests with various players, I can say that a good rulement to avoid or reduce the above problems is the following. Rule 1. You need to have 2 (or better 3) sets of pieces for each color. When a player captures a piece (unless a king), he changes it with another identical of his color and puts it by his side of the board. At his round, he will choose if he wants to do a normal move or if he wants to put wherever on the board one of his captured pieces, like in Shogi (japanese chess). If a promoted pawn is captured, it becomes again a pawn, like in Shogi. In this way the problem 1 is solved, because in the above example A will loose a knight, but will gain a queen. The problem 3 is still present, but is reduced, because for the strongest player it is easier to gain quickly forces. (To read an interesting way to try to solve the problem 3, see the rules proposed by Jonathan Rutherford: http://www.chessvariants.org/multiplayer.dir/3-handed_chess.html) Rule 2. The goal of the game is to be the last player in game and who captures the first king has no advantage. In this way the problem 2 is solved, because even if the first checkmater is random, then he will have to fight with the left player, and without having an advantage for having checkmated. When a player looses his king, his pieces remain on the board without moving anymore but they can still be captured by the other players. (This rule 2 is the first option proposed in the paper rulement of Jerzy Luberda. It should become mandatory, instead of optional). Rule 3. The kings must be captured (not checkmated) and you can always leave or put your king in check. This is a less important rule just to make the things easier, otherwise it is not obvious when a move is allowed. (For example A moves the king, then B moves a piece leaving A’s king menaced by a piece of C. Whose is the illegal move ?) Cesco Reale, email@example.com Progetto Abstrakta, http://www.pergioco.net/Abstrakta.htm NonSoloGo, http://ercolino.isti.cnr.it/NonSoloGo/ Go Club Neuchâtel, http://www.swissgo.org/ (Clubs) Cesco Reale wrote on 2011-11-27 UTCThe contacts in my post are old. I am the program manager of 'Tutto Ã¨ Numero', Festival of Mathematical Games http://www.tuttoenumero.it/, where I organize every year a combined tournament of many abstract games (old and new ones). You can see some pictures here: http://www.tuttoenumero.it/italiano/2011-2/?show=gallery&nggpage=7. I can be contacted via email through that site. Cesco Reale 3 comments displayedEarlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ LaterPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.