Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

This game is incredible. 
And I will like to point out a beauty of this game that a previous poster
does not see (and probably does not understand in chess either)
A rook and king cannot mate a king. So I can potentially in R and K vs R,
K and pawn sacrifice my rook for the pawn for a draw. 

The use of the W1-4 squares to force a draw is beautiful, like the
stalemate threat in regular chess. 

Yes, this game will have a lot of draws between EQUAL players but draws
are NOT A problem with chess . Only draw offers and the fact that openings
are making the game played out is the real problem with chess.

I'm afraid I'll have to take issue with several of the things that George
Duke has stated.  I'll also agree with him on one of the other claims that
he makes.

 'Omega Chess is absolutely one of the Poorest of the 600 Large Chesses
in CVPage.'

I've played several dozen face-to-face games of Omega Chess.  It's
fairly enjoyable and easy to teach to standard chessplayers.  Many of my
opponents have also enjoyed playing Omega Chess.  It's not even close to
the bottom of the list of large chess variants.  To my mind, it is one of
the better efforts.  

 'Its short-moving Wizard and Champion would worsen an 8x8 adaptation if
either were substituted for Bishops or for Knights.'

I'm in agreement with regards to the Wizard; I've tried the minor piece
substitution on an 8x8 board and it created problems.  The Champion
worked. 

 'To put both of them on 10x10 (plus four corner squares) makes for
long-playing Pawn-heavy-like game reminiscent of Shogi, whose variants
unappealing most Western-style players.'

I've played hundreds of games of Shogi, and I have to say that Omega
Chess bears no resemblance, not in flavour and not in pawn structure.  And
I daresay that there are plenty of chess players in Europe who find Shogi
quite appealing.  It seems to me, from the perspective of one who has
helped organise Shogi events in Canada, that it is an aversion to learning
a few oriental calligraphy characters that North Americans find
unappealing.  Those that actually get beyond that to actually play Shogi
often have good experiences with the game. 

 'All they are imaginatively, Wizard being Camel plus Ferz, Champion
being Wazir plus Dabbabah plus Alfil, are compound re-makes, each leg up
to a thousand years old, although they never explain it straightforwardly
that way in Omega Chess write-ups, as if making something from scratch.'

It is quite possible that Mr. Macdonald had never heard of a Camel or an
Alfil when he designed the game.  It seems that as a young man the creator
had a graveyard shift job babysitting corporate computers, and came up with
his chess variant to pass the time with a co-worker.  Apparently the
original board was sketched out on the back of a pizza box.  So it was a
bit of a craft project after all.  It was only after receiving quite a bit
of positive feedback that he decided to market Omega Chess. 

One great reason to pick up an Omega Chess set if you can find one, even
if like Mr. Duke you dislike the actual rules, is that the regular pieces
are standard plastic tournament Staunton, while the extra pieces are
attractive, and can be used for Chancellors and Cardinals and such.  

Now, if only someone came out with a nice vinyl 10x10 board...or maybe
someone has and I'm just unaware...

In summary, while it would be a bold claim indeed (and one I am not
making) to say that Omega Chess is the ultimate 10x10 variant, and it is
true that the new piece moves are composites of older historical pieces, I
personally would give it an A for effort, and the physical incarnations of
the new pieces an A+.

Cavebear

For people who like games like Chu Shogi, I can see the appeal of this variant.

- Sam

Brand new Omega Chess sets are now available, and come with a very nice 10x10 vinal board!  I just received two sets today.  (I actually think Omega Chess is a mediocre game, but I wanted the board and the pieces for use playing other variants.)

The sets sell for about $30, which is reasonable, until you find out that the shipping and handling charge more than doubles the cost!  The board is nice.  The pieces are pretty nice, although they are not nearly heavy enough to match the website claims that they 'have just the right balance and weight for smooth playing.'  Also, the pieces come in nylon carrying bags that are useless.  Each set comes with two bags - all four that I received had already torn at the seam and spilled pieces out in shipping.  And they bounced around and damaged the rule sheets slightly.  I don't really care all that much about that, but when I paid over $30 *EACH SET* for shipping + handling, I would expect slightly better.  But I will say that the sets arrived at my house very, very fast!  I think it only took two days, but it might have been three.

Anyway, since it is hard to find any nice chess-variant pieces, this set is probably worth buying for the pieces alone.  I wish they were a little heavier, but they are nice, durable, and estecially pleasing.

I notice most of George Duke's criticisms of Omega Chess are the theoretical kind: weak pieces, low piece density, piece components have been done before, mathematical analysis... But no one understands game design well enough to be able to substitute theory for experiment. It doesn't matter if a game SHOULDN'T be fun according to the Duke Theory, what matters is whether it IS fun. I'm curious about how many games of Omega Chess George Duke has played, and I'd be more convinced by his review if he would cite particulars from those games that led him to consider Omega Chess uninteresting.

The game is long and builds slowly, no doubt about that, but whether that's good or bad is a matter of taste. Some people like movies starring Bruce Willis, others prefer novels by Charles Dickens.

Thompson, George Duke has played a few games of Omega Chess, one of them was against me.

Personally, I think Omega Chess is a good game in its own right. However, the endgame does play out like a prolonged and boring Chess ending. The existence of all those leapers (and the huge space between the two armies) makes pawn pushes somehow unnecessary, and pawns are the soul of chess.

I wonder though, what George Duke considers to be the 'best' decimal variant, (my bet is that he will say Rococo, but I would call it an Ultima variant, not a Chess variant.)

Just going to normal 8x10, as game ended 20.Sept.04 Peter Leyva-Uwe Kreuzer, would make Omega okay. That is how fine-tuned design becomes. Shako (1997) and Omega are near-duplicates, with Cannon instead of Wizard and 'Elephant-Champion' having Ferz option too. Shako deals with awkward wide Pawn spacing when implementing Centennial-described 'holy grail' 100 squares by having Grand Chess empty file behind (except Cannon). 'Too much of a good thing' detracts Excellent 84-square Quintessential in 144-square Quinquereme. Likewise, in other typical cases, Lavieri's Achernar's 81, or Eight-Stone's 72, or Carrera's 80 for that matter suffice for sizing, with more unnecessary in best interest not having so many sliders or long-range leapers. Re-rating usual other factors than game rules, now that Omega material is back, game scores, popularity, theme, clear rules. Wizard/Champion complement in respect of going to mutually exclusive squares together with Knight, so it appears illogical to criticize colourbound Wizard alone of  cross-pair. Instead each overlaps unexpectedly in their own way with Bishop, Rook, and Knight. To change at all either W. or Ch. would be different CV in another direction, whereas board decrements might be permissible staying within the conception.

Correction: as the Rules of Omega Chess page states,
The board used for this game has 12 row(s), 12 column(s), 104 cells/squares.
This game is a 2 player game.

Mr. Duke, can you please tell me the link to the page about triples of Mr.
Betza? I wanted to see the other no knight triples.. I' trying to find
the page but failed.

Many thanks