Check out Janggi (Korean Chess), our featured variant for December, 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

Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later
Not a Dodgson System Chess. Four player variant, using Alice chess movement. Win by taking most of the eliminated players pieces. (2x(7x6), Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on Wed, Jun 5, 2002 04:48 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
This looks amusing.  It does seem that the scoring system encourages the
other players to turn on the first player significantly damaged like 
starving wolves, lest they be left without any pieces of the eliminated
player when it comes time to score.  Not a game to play with someone who
takes attacks personally!

An omnidirectional Pawn is actually mWcF -- mFcW is an omnidirectional
Berolina Pawn.

This page might benefit from an ASCII diagram to backup the Javascript --
I first looked at it with Javascript turned off and was puzzled.

gnohmon wrote on Thu, Jun 6, 2002 04:06 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Or maybe just good because it needs a King.

If you look at my 'chess for any number of players', you will see that
there is specific attention played to the problem of multiplayer stalling
-- that is, keeping all your pieces safe until the other players have been
weakened by fighting among themselves.

However, the scoring system of this game implicitly rewards the fighter and
penalizes the use of Fabian tactics; that is extremely new and clever, I
think.

But it needs Kings.

Even without Kings, I can foresee that there will be some highly
interesting situations where, for example, two different players are on the
verge of being eliminated. Let's say that player A is all set to win if B
is eliminated first and player C can win by eliminating player D first.
Suddenly it becomes possible for player D to attack player A with impunity!
A dares not capture a piece belonging to D, because it would bring C that
much nearer to victory. This can get pretty exciting, don't you think?

I still think it needs Kings, and checkmate.

Charles Gilman wrote on Sun, Apr 4, 2004 08:57 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Another variant might be to make the Rook and Queen worth 3 and 4 points respectively, to reflect their strength more closely.

3 comments displayed

Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.