Check out Glinski's Hexagonal Chess, our featured variant for May, 2024.


[ 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

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order Later
Doublewide Chess. A discussion of the variant where two complete chess sets (including two Kings per side) are set up on a doublewide board. (16x8, Cells: 128) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jared McComb wrote on Thu, Jun 19, 2003 04:39 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
Wow!  I've been called clever by the immortal variantist himself! 
*blush*

But in this game, you win if you know the correct game, of course!  Just
like those stupid radio trivia thingies -- it's based on the honor
system, but you get brownie points for being the first to call in.

Also, in an attempt to be on-topic, how would you have doublewide games
that don't have a 'home-row' type setup?  Like Halma or Danadazo, for
instance.

--Jared

gnohmon wrote on Fri, Jun 20, 2003 05:01 AM UTC:
Doublewide non-chess-variants? I'm not too familiar with halma or the
other one you mentioned.

I gave up those games long ago when i realized that the tactical element
predominated too much over the strategical. Before then, I was legendary
in 'Lines of Action', a game whose rules I no longer even remember.

I suspect that doublewide ncv is generally uninteresting. In fact, my
opinion is that doublewide chess would be uninteresting without
doubleking, for highly elevated values of 'interesting'.

By that, I mean to say that Ddoublewide with just one King is
automatically and by definition no playtest needed a difficult game and
interesting to play. But so what? There's nothing special there, just
more of the same.

My personal opinion may not be shared by the majority, of course.

Jared McComb wrote on Sat, Jun 21, 2003 05:19 PM UTC:
Danadazo is too a chess variant!  I should know, too, because it's mine! 
Look under the 'boards with an unusual shape' section.

What would doublewide hexagonal chess (a la Glinski or McCooey) look like?
 Or doublewide multiplayer variants?

(Am I asking too many questions?  Relative to you, I'm a CV 'n00b'.)

--Jared

gnohmon wrote on Mon, Jun 23, 2003 03:16 AM UTC:
'What would doublewide hexagonal chess (a la Glinski or McCooey) look
like?
 Or doublewide multiplayer variants?'

I love easy questions. 

1. Doublewide Rectahex. 'Nuff said.

2. Doublewide 'Chess for any number of players'. 

[rim shot] [applause] Thank you very much. Now for my next number, here's
a little ditty I wrote based on David Brin's novel 'the Practise
Effect', called 'How do you get to Carbegie Hall?' [cue music]

Charles Gilman wrote on Fri, Feb 3, 2006 08:50 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
Another obvious extension is to have a second join at the other Rook files to give a wraparound variant. This would give an extra symmetry in that any two pieces of the same traditional location (e.g. both Queen Knights, both King Rook Pawns) would be affected in exactly the same way. Has anyone ever done such a variant?

George Duke wrote on Fri, Jan 25, 2008 05:57 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
On 8x16 there are 19 bounces possible at most, overlaying the Billiards Mutator for Bishop and Queen. Place Bishop at c2 for convenience and assume no obstruction. c2-b1-Bounce to a2-Bounce to b3-c4-d5-e6-f7-g8-Bounce to h7-i6-j5-k4-l3-m2-n1-Bounce to o2-p3-Bounce to o4-n5-m6-l7-k8-Bounce to j7-i6-h5-g4-f3-e2-d1-Bounce to c2-b3-a4-Bounce to b5-c6-d7-e8-Bounce to f7-g6-h5-i4-j3-k2-l1-Bounce to m2-n3-o4-p5-Bounce to o6-n7-m8-Bounce to l7-k6-j5-i4-h2-g2-f1-Bounce to e2-d3-c4-b5-a6-Bounce to b7-c8-Bounce to d7-e6-f5-g4-h3-i2-j1-Bounce to k2-l3-m4-n5-o6-p7-Bounce to o8-Bounce to n7-m6-l5-k4-j3-i2-h1-Bounce to g2-f3-e4-d5-c6-b7-a8. It means a Bishop on c2 can reach a8 in one move, but not very directly. Billiards 'Bishop c2-Bishop-a8' requires the above 19 bounces. Whereas, Elbow Bishop 'c2-a8' is accomplished c2-d3-e4-(90 degrees)d5-c6-b7-a8 in the one change of direction, a pretty direct route. In sum, 6x8 has 7 bounces, 8x8 4 bounces, 8x10 7 bounces, 8x12 13 bounces, 8x14 15 bounces, 8x16 19 bounces. What is the formulaic pattern? '8x14' requires starting at g2 for best result (Hey, Geometria). There the bounces occur successively after g2 starting square at f1, a6, c8, j1, n5, k8, d1, a4, e8, l1, n3, i8, b1, a2, g8, and not possible anymore at arrival square n1. If the Bishop starts on m8 in 8x14, the number of squares actually traversed in that full route, extended back to m8 for maximization, is 77. Shorthand for this size 8x14 might be 'Bishop m8-n1(77 times one-stepping)'.

Anonymous wrote on Mon, Apr 19, 2010 05:34 PM UTC:
How about game with dame setup, but with 4 players, each controls one 'normal' armie?

Anonymous wrote on Wed, Apr 21, 2010 06:23 AM UTC:
Maybe, make variant, wich uses sets of diffirent games? For example, 9x23
board, pieces from European, Chinese and Japanese chess: European pawns
have duble step, Chinese pawns gets sideways moves on 5th rank, Chinese
elephants may go to 5th rank, but not further.
Maybe using games with different number of ranks is not good, better to use
games of same number of ranks, for example, European, Thai and Mongolian
chess or Chines and Korean chess or Japanese and Cambodian.

Rodrigo Zanotelli wrote on Sat, Mar 30, 2013 02:02 PM UTC:
Why not make a game with 2 separated boards.
One player is white on one board and the other is white on the other board. With that no player will have first-move advantage.

Of course one rule to see who will win need to be decided. If the first one that mate the enemy (on any of the boards) win, being fast at mating would be more important than just mating, this is a not wanted thing.

Maybe do like that. If one guy win on both boards, he win the game. He both players win on one board, they play again.

9 comments displayed

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.