I think a Wizard is worth about the same as a Bishop - if you prefer taking 50 points off the Wizard and the Champion, that is fine with me. Just started my first game of TENCUBED CHESS last month, so the values are still untested theory.

George Duke wrote:

One senses that the designer is sensitive so I for one rarely rate a Duniho. Gross Chess is new combination of pre-existing elements with no particular novelty. That is this designer's style and it usually works for solid performance. Duniho's total body of work does not rise to Betza's or Gifford's or Gilman's but does reach the very next ledge, maybe even nicking into the top 10 among prolificists. Eurasian is new combination too, it works very well, and so is nominee NextChess. Congratulations Fergus on reasonable regarded Eurasian, one of the 21 thus far at NextChesses. Gross here however falls only within unnecessary proliferation that I can tell serving to complexify the broth. It's about as worthwhile as the author's Grotesque, being just another Carrera-Capablanca. One can make these things, but why share them publicly?

I didn't create this game to show off my creativity or to win your praise, George. I made it because this combination of pieces interests me, and I want to play a game that includes all of them. Also, I wanted a solid entry-level 12x12 variant. Most 12x12 variants are too forbidding, because they introduce several new pieces while also increasing the board size beyond what I usually play on. This game is very easy to learn, because it doesn't introduce any pieces that would be new to someone familiar with the most popular Chess variants. So, it may fill the entry-level 12x12 niche better than any preceding 12x12 Chess variant. When creating a game, my main goals are to make it playable and enjoyable. This game is both. I have played it against Zillions a few times and found it to work well. My main goal in sharing it publicly is to find opponents for playing it. I think that's a much better reason than showing off how creative I can be.

This game should be judged by its design criteria: Given a set of pieces (in hardware), create a solid and playable chess variant for them. It think it fits this purpose well, allthough I think keeping the original movements of the Omega chess pieces makes this a rather slow game, because the pieces are short-range on a 12x12 board.

On the Omega wizard: A pair of wizards and a king cannot mate a lone king (on any conventional rightangular board). The reason is that they must switch between odd and even ranks and files all the time. On the big board the wizard is clearly weaker than the bishop; on 8x8 it may be equal or slightly stronger because of its higher mobility and forking power.

'21. Two Ferz's, even on different colors, cannot checkmate a lone King.'

'23. Two Camels, even on different colors, cannot checkmate a lone King.'

quotes from: Endgame statistics with fantasy pieces.

Regarding Knappen's [2010-02-04] Comment, I have not investigated mating with a pair of Wizards. I suppose that a pair of Spotted Gryphons will also be unable to force checkmate (in general).

There is a minor error about the WL (Wazir+Camel) compound: This piece cannot checkmate, because it does not control two orthogonally adjacent squares. Therefore it is not a major piece under the definition used by Fergus Duniho.

On the other hand, a Wazir and a Camel and a King (three pieces!) can mate a lone King.

I love the idea of using recognizable pieces.

But.... Isn't  there always a but .... I'd use the Omega board leaving
the Wizard in extra corner and limit the expansion to a single archbishop
and marshall.

The other thing I wonder about variants is why pawn pool is rarely changed.
A couple of Sargeants or something would help.

I think a name change for a better game is worth it *smile

I just think the big board is fine for some pieces, but the jumpers take a
long time to get to the opposite side. A knight is 5 moves to other side.

The champion too is a slow mover on the 12X12

Also the power creep here is rather steep. I admit I was looking for this
very game really, one using the most familiar variant pieces, but there is
a lot of power her, so limited Marshall and Archbishop to only one piece
pairs that back, and actually mirrors most variants that use those compound
pieces.

And, for the most part this is an amalgamation game, picking bits of game
'a' - 'b' - 'c' and putting on a single board.

So why not borrow the Omega board too

That said, if you adjust game I would put an element to change the pawns
(something most variants don't). The options are generally easy to teach
and still use pieces you have.

Have you contemplated berolina pawns?

If you do revamp to smaller.

The Horseman from Xchess (
http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/xhess.html ) rather than pawns might
add a rather interesting touch

'This piece was inspired by the Cavalier from Fergus Duniho's Cavalier
Chess. It moves like a combination of a orthodox chess pawn plus a
non-capturing Horse (from Xiangqi), but can only move forward and cannot
leap other pieces. No en-passant or initial two-move. Normal chess-type
promotion.'

I understand that

But I do find variants reluctant to change pawn array yet it's half the
pieces.

In this case would lift game beyond a simple amalgam of other games which
are generally already accepted as great variants Grand/Omega etc


Just M2C

I suppose in my view since you are using pieces from a couple of sets, you
easily have two pawn styles to facilitate altering a pawn array

and in the case of horseman the move is basically a sliding knight move so
the learning curve is low.

it is also rather likely only somewhat seasoned players are going to try a
game such as this, you are after all assuming they have played Xianqui,
Omega, Grand (of a similar variant) and know about the Vao piece, or if not
have to assimilate 6 pieces, that while more or less extensions of the base
western game, are still different.

That already assumes a rather large set of variables associated with the
game.

Five of the additional pieces in Gross Chess come from some of the most widely popular of Chess variants, and a few of them have been widely used in many variants. So they are very well known enough that including them doesn't add much to the learning curve. The remaining piece is just the diagonal version of one of the first five, and Eurasian Chess, which I also use the piece in, is still more popular than Xhess. Also, the games Gross Chess is based on are each natural extensions of Chess, and by combining them, Gross Chess is just an even larger-scale natural extension of Chess. But Xhess is not a natural extension of Chess. It is a step in another direction. To replace some Pawns with Horsemen just does not fit with the theme of this game. It also tampers with an important element of the game and could potentially ruin it.

If you want to make a Chess variant that uses Horsemen, you are free to do so. But I will not be making a version of Gross Chess that includes them.

Since inventing this game 7 years ago, I haven't been very active in creating new games. While part of this is due to having distractions and other interests, it's also because I have been very satisfied with this game. Instead of being an exploration into new territory, which can be an iffy prospect, this game takes what I like about Chess and increases it to a larger scale. Using the guidelines I set out in an article called On Designing Good Chess Variants, it stands up very well.

Playability (Simplicity + Clarity) & Interest (Depth & Challenge)

Because it uses familiar pieces, it is easy to learn, and because of its size and its number and variety of pieces, it offers great depth and challenge. Despite its size, the pieces move in fairly straightforward ways, which makes it easy enough to understand and evaluate a position. One of the reasons I like Chess much more than Checkers is its variety of pieces. Having different pieces makes exchanges more interesting. With this game's several more types of pieces, it has a greater variety of possible exchanges than Chess has. This increases the odds of uneven exchanges happening, where players exchange different pieces. This allows for a greater variety of unequal armies that might face each other during the course of the game.

Enjoyment (Excitement, Decisiveness, Duration, Satisfaction)

As inequalities develop between sides, the game can become more decisive, yet because of the greater variety of pieces, it may be harder to call the game during the mid-game, which can make the game more exciting. Although the large size of the game could delay attacks, the Cannons and Vaos enable attacking even before pieces have made it across Pawn lines. This allows the mid-game to start even sooner in this game than it might in other variants of this size. This makes the game quicker and more exciting from an earlier stage of the game. The triple Pawn moves and the three-rank promotion zone also help speed up the game, which is important for a game this size. Because the game is like Chess in demanding skill, and its larger size and greater number of uncertain exhanges increases the opportunities for players to make mistakes, a player who wins should feel satisfied at winning, and even a player who loses in the end may feel satisfaction in how he played the game.

Fairness (Balance + Control)

While moving first can give White an advantage, I think this advantage diminishes as a game grows larger, and it is also lessened between opponents who have not yet mastered the intricacies of the game. Also, this game offers no particular weakness for either player to exploit early in the game. All pawns start out protected, and most pieces can move someplace else even from the opening position. Because no piece is stronger than a Queen, there are no end-game surprises from a powerful piece like an Amazon getting loose. The game remains a team effort between different pieces rather than one where a star piece takes over. As with Chess, both sides start out equal, and the outcome is determined by the skill and choices of the players.

Regarding the comments below, I'm not seeing how being 'simply' an amalgam of some well-known chess variants makes this a 'less interesting' variant. Not every variant needs to have some completely radical twist, and for my money I find variants that aim to be 'natural extensions' to chess much more relevant to my personal interests.

I find myself quite partial to the particular concept of this variant myself, and I feel that the twelve different pieces complement each other fairly well. I would be interested in seeing another variant that utilizes the exact same pieces in a different setup for a possibly even tighter game.

The moves of most pieces are not very special, and have very basic descriptions in Betza notation, all supported by the Interactive Diagram script. The main challenge was in the promotion rules. The diagram allows you to specify a list of legal promotion choices, and even allow you to specify that these pieces come from holdings that accumulate captured pieces, as well as some pieces that start there. But has no standard mechanism for making this choice rank-dependent. For this a small extra script routine had to be added, which corrects any invalid choice to a non-promotion.

The flexible castling is achieved in the diagram by specifying all possible different castlings as separate moves on the King: isO2, isO3 and isO4. This is needed because unlike with other Betza atoms, a range specifier on the O atom in the XBetza extension used in the diagram indicates an exact range, rather than a maximum. That the castling partner is not at the board edge poses no special problem, because the diagram always allows castling with a virgin piece that moves as a Rook. (Which actually is in violation of the XBetza specs, which would need an extra j modifier to specify the castling partner is one square away from the board edge. But which is almost always what you want.)

I was aware of this variant and was also recommended this variation by Fergus Duniho himself when posting about my own apothecary games.

I'm glad that someone has thought about the weird promotion before me so it means I'm not that crazy. Even if aware of the variant, I utterly  forgot where I have took the weird promotion rule from, was it from my own mind or was it another variant. Anyway it is great that we can play a game that has a similar promotion rule to my apothecary games. Although in apothecary there is no concept of holdings.

I'm not sure about the knight+vao checkmating tehnique in this game, may someone guide me?

I suspect that the table only lists what is 'insufficient mating material' in the sense of FIDE rules, namely that no mate position exists at all, not even a help-mate, and that this immediately terminates the game as a draw. I cannot imagine that you could force mate with Knight + Vao. (But my EGT generator doesn't do hoppers, so I cannot say that with mathematical certainty.) It is already very hard to drive a bare King in a corner with Bishop + Knight, while the Bishop can attack lots of squares without a screen. Once trapped in the corner of the Vao shade by King and Knight, it would be possible to checkmate the bare King in a corner (say a1) with the Knight on c3, and the Vao on the main diagonal.