The Chess Variant Pages




[ 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 ]

Earliest Ratings and Comments

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
Test Page. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on 2002-03-30 UTCGood ★★★★
New commenting system created!

David Howe wrote on 2002-03-31 UTCGood ★★★★
Just testing with another comment. The new commenting system allows comments with or without <b>HTML</b> tags.<hr>--DH

Archoniclastic Chess. Pieces are augmented on squares of their color. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
New comment system indeed.

Regulator Chess. Game on a 35 square board with a 7 square track on which a piece moves that determines how Knights and Bishops can move. (6x7, Cells: 42) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on 2002-04-01 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
excellent!

Test Page. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
In what way is the new comment system an improvement over the old comment
system?  Will we have two comment systems to refer to, one current and the
other ageing?  I wouldn't know an HTML tag if it was marked down at
WalMart.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
Rating: Undecided.

Do you test with the browser called lynx? www.lynx.browser.org

The old comment system streamed all text, so I had to enter comments with
html tags so at least they would look good when I viewed them with lynx.

If this comment is one paragraph, I still will need to, with a few extra
step which isn't all that bad.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
Rating: okay so far.

Okay, I can do without html tags. For emphasis, there's time-honored
*usenet* format.

I don't like that the comment stuff is only at the end. Top & bottom was
better. You want to *encourage* comments/feebback.

I am considered fairly clever. However, it was only a lucky guess that led
me to the idea that one must first preview and then submit.

Either you should include a submit (for the confident) or change the button
to read

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
Well, hey, if I can format my comments without HTML tags (whatever those
are), then I may be happy.

Let's see.

I am NOT considered fairly clever, except at my very narrow professional
specialization, which 99.44% of the readers here will never have heard of,
even though I approach 30 years as a computer professional.

-JCL

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
I'm with gnohmon on the desirability of providing feedback buttons at top
and bottom.  I like that the most current feedback is shown; you know if
there is an interesting conversation going on without having to open
another page.

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
Ok, so far I see two suggestions: 1. Provide a feedback link also at the top of each page. 2. Provide a submit button on the feedback form which skips the preview page. <p>I will work on making it more obvious that one must submit from the preview page. I really think it's a good idea for people to preview their comments before posting them. <p>I will restore the feedback link at the top of each page. I agree that we want to encourage feedback whenever possible. <p>Thanks for the feedback on the feedback system!

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
One more idea (isn't there always?) -- it would be nice to have some places to hang both general comments and comments on the comment system off of. So, I'd like there to be a page for the comment system <i>itself</i>, on which comments could be made, and a sort of general comment root page or site page or something for making comments not specifically associated with any particular page, like the discussion currently going on in the comment track for <u>Archoniclastic Chess</u>.

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
For now, please avoid using double quotes. I will be working on fixing the
problem 'real soon now'.

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
I've jury-rigged it so that double quotes are replaced with single quotes.
Who's idea was it anyway to revamp the commenting system!?! :)

This is a double quote believe it or not! --> '

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
Ok, it's here. The general comments page. Have at it!!

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Thanks for the space, David (my mind, <em>tidy</em>? -- now there's a strange concept!). <p>[I'd have said you had a beautiful mind, but that phrase was already taken. --DH]

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
Once more, with feeling! <p> John Lawson wrote: <blockquote> 'And on the other topic, once youopen the door to Gilbert and Sullivan chess, logic dictates all sorts of generalizations (Aristophanes chess, Tolstoi chess, Rowling chess, ad...ad...I dunno)' </blockquote> And all of them potentially good articles that would warm the cockles an an editor's heart (assuming they have any -- and just what the heck <em>are</em> cockles anyway?). When do you think you can start? <g> <p>Editor's note: <a href="http://www.word-detective.com/012199.html#cockles">cockles</a> --DH.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-01 UTC
Previous comment has an invisble smiley.

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-02 UTC
Regarding 'cockles', below.  Note that the link actually provides no
solution to the meaning of 'cockles' in this sense.  Neither does the
Oxford English Dictionary, which has much the same info as the editor's
link.  The upshot is, we don't know what 'cockles' are.
I once read a hypothesis that suggested that expressions that were used
formulaicly, but made no sense (like 'dead as a doornail') were actually
the punchlines of forgotten jokes.  Sounds dopey, but think of how many
punchlines you use as metaphors in colloquial conversation, and how often
you really tell the jokes they go with.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
What about ratings abysmal, mediocre, and superb?

Keeping the discussion alive alive O, I always thot that cockles were a
type of dialectic seafood, suitable for the musselbound.

However, if in doubt, the question can be submitted to alt.usage.english, a
font of linguistic wisdom.

Submit without review is not necessary as long as it is made obvious that
submit can be found within review: we are accustomed to pesky and insecure
programs asking us 'are you sure, are you really reaaly sure, should I do
what you said or are you a jerk?

99 and 44/100ths, not 99.4; Ivory Soap (tm). It's your turn in the barrel,
as Safire recently apologized for saying -- the phrase is the punchline of
a *dirty* joke, you see.

Many adages and colloquialisms come from jokes or from Ad Age; and they are
ephemeral, for example who today would know what ad agency I one worked for
if I specify that it sounds like a suitcase falling down a flight of
stairs, as Marcel Duchamp once said. Oh, sorry, it was Fred Allen who said
it.

As comedians in the Borscht Belt once asked, 'Where's the beet?'

Back to topic, how can there be a Comdey Chess, in which every move is a
joke??

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Perhaps html mode does not work. I see no link about cockles. <P> It should be noted that those who use an invisible smiley must make arrangements to pay a null royalty to me. It was I who invented it, for use in afu. <P> I will type in a <A HREF=http://www.lynx.browser.org/>link</a> to test html-mode comments.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCPoor ★
if a comment is submitted in html mode, its left margin is indented.
<P>
Non-html comments start at page left.
<P>
The above is true when viewing with lynx. Your mileage may vary if you
use
any of the inferior alternatives.
<P>

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCPoor ★
if a comment is submitted in non-html mode, things that appear to be html
tags are not printed. Are they interpreted? here's an hr:<HR>
<P>
The previous line appears blank but contained left-angle-bracket. P,
right-angle-bracket.
<P>
This is inconsistent behavior.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCPoor ★
if a comment is submitted in non-html mode, things that appear to be html
tags are not printed. But the preview prints them!!!
<P>
The previous line appears blank but contained left-angle-bracket. P,
right-angle-bracket. In preview mode, I saw the html tag, but when viewing
comments I see a blank line.
<P>
This is inconsistent behavior.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Most of the recent flood of commants/feebback was caused by my article on
''Chatter Chess'''', which has not yet been seen.
<P>
Imagine what may happen if chatter chess ever sees the light of day, will
the comment system be able to handle such volume?
<P>
These are important considerations....
<P>
<Blink>

Grid Chess. Always move to a different 2 by 2 square part of the board. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCPoor ★
The comment system says 'skip to comments' but there are no comments.

This game should not be described without mentioning U-Grid Chess, and
also
Betza's Pinwheel Chess (and Orbital Rotating Grid and so forth).

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-02 UTC
We might also mention Realm Chess. I'm still trying to find Betza's
Pinwheel Chess on our site, but so far have been unsuccessful. Perhaps we
need to add it?

Contest to design a chess variant on a board with 42 squares. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-02 UTC
This contest is now closed, although non-competing entries will still be accepted. The judges are working on the judging, but still have a lot of e-mail games to go, and so don't yet know when they will be done.

Archoniclastic Chess. Pieces are augmented on squares of their color. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
JCL wrote on 2002-03-31 UTC
Note that any CV whose rules are lost would serve as Thespis Chess. --JCL

gnohmon wrote on 2002-03-30 UTC
<HR>I really ought to sieze the publishing delay as an opportunity to rewrite and improve the text of Ghastly Chess, on the principle that a sick wind blows poorly.<P> For Mikado, there is already List Chess, my 1977 name for 'many rule sets in one game'. One could also have Fan Chess, in which every piece carries a fan; instead of moving, the player can have one piece deploy its fan, which makes it immobile and ancapturable. It would take two turns to close the fan, and the first turn would leave the piece immobile but capturable. Stalemate loses, of course.<P> The Mikado is all about teaching the chorus to use the fan a certain way.<P> Any game with a Jester would serve for the Yeomen, and for the subtitled Iolanthe, any form of Fairy Chess does the trick.<P> Trial by Jury, though, wrecks everything. Bummer.<P> Would 'Chess and Verdi' work better? No, I thought not.<P> Puccini gives us Mimi Chess, where the Q gradually becomes weaker and ultimately expires. So, there's hope.<P> Basingstoke, indeed. <P>-- <BR>gnohmon<P><HR>

JCL wrote on 2002-03-30 UTC
'would perhaps come close to being almost nearly playable' Almost . . .
Well, if instead of each rank and file being different, if the board were
divided into maybe three zones in each dimension (left, center, right;
back, center, forward; etc.), then this might be actually manageable by a
normal human. And on the other topic, once youopen the door to Gilbert and
Sullivan chess, logic dictates all sorts of generalizations (Aristophanes
chess, Tolstoi chess, Rowling chess, ad...ad...I dunno) --JCL

PBA wrote on 2002-03-30 UTC
'would perhaps come close to being almost nearly playable' Almost . . . <p> <br> Reading the last several comments as an editor, I can not help but to suggest I see an article here (OK, I could help it, but I won't). If we can have <u>Chess and Physics</u> (and we do), why not <u>Chess and Gilbert and Sullivan</u>? (Of course, Gnohmon could remark that I'm sitting on two his articles already, and why should he send anything else in until I publish them, which is fair enough, but editors have no shame). <p> PBA

JCL wrote on 2002-03-30 UTC
As long as we are flogging this theme, how about Gondoliers Chess (two
Kings, and no one knows which is the real one), Buttercup Chess (exchange
King with random Pawn at start of game), Sorcerer Chess (each piece is
attracted to randomly chosen other piece), Lord High Executioner Chess
(must mate self before opponent, too drawish), Lysistrata Chess (Queen
refuses to perform, whoops, wrong playwright), and...and ('Basingstoke,
John') Aah yes, Basingstoke it is. --JCL

Anonymous wrote on 2002-03-30 UTC
<HR>In Basingstoke Chess, each turn after making a legal move a player may add one new rule (chosen from a pre-agreed list), or may say 'Basingstoke', which resets the rules to FIDE default.<P> This would be sort of like Progressive Chess, but in a meta manner of progressing.<P> <HR>

Anonymous wrote on 2002-03-30 UTC
<HR>What is the state of a bare king? Naked, of course.<P> Ask me something more difficult.<P> <HR>

JCL wrote on 2002-03-30 UTC
By the way, Race Chess is kind of like Rollerball Chess, which was an entry
into some contest or other, and is actually kind of neat. You realize that
the regular annual contests would be much more boring if Hans were born on
February 29?  (Yes, I know.  I pirated that idea.)  --JCL

JCL wrote on 2002-03-30 UTC
The very concept of Ruddigore Chess leads immediately to, 'What is the
state of a bare King?'  The mind boggles, at least my mind does.  --JCL

gnohmon wrote on 2002-03-30 UTC
<HR>Too many new ideas here to reply to, so I'll addd some new spices to the pot instead.<P> In Race Chess, both players have the same 'forward' direction. (No relation to _The Forward_, which is down on East Broadway by Canal Street.)<P> In Ruddigore Chess, I suppose you must make one capture per N moves or else one of your own pieces succumbs to the curse. Of course, if a man can't capture his own pieces then whose pieces can he capture? For the final touch, make it a shogi/chessgi variant with drops (there's a gi in ruddigore, just backwards). <P>Would 'Forward Chess' be the name of the feebback variant where more advanced pieces are stronger? (No relation to -- O, I said that.)<P> Ruddigore: one capture per move or else; captured pieces become reserves; you can capture your own; if you fail to make a capture you must choose one of your own which perishes -- gone from the game, not in reserve. Notice that when you place a reserve it is not a capture, therefore some other piece perishes.<P> Ruddigore Chess has not been playtested.<P> Left-right increments combined with rank increments suggest a game where each piece can have 64 different possible movement patterns depending on which square it occupies. If these were extremely regular, and therefore the player had some chance of remembering, the game would perhaps come close to being almost nearly playable.<P> Chatter is good.<P>-- <BR>gnohmon<P><HR>

PBA wrote on 2002-03-29 UTC
Oops, only added three squares to the Knight, maybe would a forward cH (capturing (0,3) leap) be too strong? <p>PBA

PBA wrote on 2002-03-29 UTC
John, I was going to reply to your, er, ah, <i>proposal</i>, but I find I can't think of <strong>anything</strong> appropriate to say . . . <p> <p> There seems to be Ruddigore in the air, since Ralph's submitted but as-yet-unpublished (I'm getting to it!) Chatter Chess also references it, not to mention the Ruthven (Negative Relay Knight) in 'Worse than Useless'. I wonder where I left my soundtrack CD? <p> <p> Balancing a Feebback and a non-Feebback army? One idea is to add all of th missing attacks from the back to the front: <p> <ul> <li> Kings are missing three back attacks, so they can capture (but not move without capturing) straight-forward or diagonally-forward two squares. </li><p><li> Queens are missing three attack lines back, so they can capture (but not move without capturing) in the forward four directions as Rhinos (four instead of three as it is symmetrical and because of duplicated squares). </li><p><li> Rooks only have a single attack line missing, so they get to capture (but not move without capturing) as a Halfling Bishop on the forward diagonals. </li><p><li> Bishops lose two attack lines, so they get to capture (but not move without capturing) narrowly forward as Rhinos. </li><p><li> Knights need four attack squares replaced, and they should be color changing, so they get to capture but not move without capturing as a forward or sideways Wazir. </li></ul> Would that balance it? <p> Another approach, but a very different game use a vertically cyclindrical board of 8x14, a line of Pawns on either side of the pieces, and have both armies consider forward the same direction. <p> PBA

JCL wrote on 2002-03-29 UTC
How about Syncretic CHess? Another way to think about Feebback Chess is to
enfeeble the pieces when they are toward the back of the board (i.e. closer
to their first rank). This could be done by laming or spaciousing
(whatever, this is a concept, not a finished product). BUT, the pieces
would regain their normal powers as they approached the far rank. AND, you
could lift an idea from M-Chess, and give them different augmentors
depending on what ranks they stand on, perhaps leftward augmentors on
righthand columns, etc. THEN, you could make it Archoniclastic, augmenting
pieces depending on what color square they stand on. AND THEN, you could
apply this to Peter Aronson's Chess with Cyclical Armies! AND AFTER THAT,
you could work on the hex version for three players!! ('Basingstoke, John')
Ahh, yes. Basingstoke it is. --JCL

gnohmon wrote on 2002-03-29 UTC
<hr>I think your ideas for Feebback Chess are excellent. It is interesting to think how, when playing a non-Feebback army against a Feebback one, one could cause havoc by getting behind and backstabbing. However, for the Feebback army to be competitive, its forward powers would have to be heavily enhanced. <p>-- <br>gnohmon <p><hr>

PBA wrote on 2002-03-29 UTC
Of the standard CDA Armies, the one that I suspect would gain the most from being augmented is the Colorbound Clobberers, since it has four colorbound pieces per side to benefit from being made colorfree (the opposite of colorbound, of course). <p> Dragging the Feebback thread here so that poor David Short isn't left wondering just what this has to do with Spinal Tap Chess, I can see a number of forms Feebback Chess (but what JCL was talking about is Feeback Chess, another think entirely of course). <p> First, we have the Feebback Chess where pieces move back weakly. One form of it is where pieces can not capture when moving backwards. This is interesting in its effects, since Kings and Queens lose 3/8 of their capturing power, Rooks 1/4, Bishops and Knights 1/2, and Pawns are not effected at all. I suspect that this would make promotions easier, since the back rank would have to be guarded from the back rank. <p> Another form could have backward movements be <i>Lame</i>, so that all backward leaps are lame, and all backward steps and slide are spacious. I don't know if leap riders (Nightriders, Dabbabahriders, etc.) would be both lame and spacious. Both this and the previous variant could probably be applied to Different Armies. <p> Another interpetation of 'Feebback' would be to move the Pawns to the 3rd and 6th ranks (no double-move or <i>en-passant</i>), the pieces to the 2nd and 7th ranks, and to fill the back ranks with Feebs. Feebs only move one square straight forward without capturing, may be captured by either side, may be captured by Pawns moving forward, and promote on the last rank to Knight, Bishop or Rook (or in CDA to the pieces that occupy the equivalent positions). <p> There, I've taken this far too seriously, so I'd better go . . . <p>

gnohmon wrote on 2002-03-27 UTC
<HR>I had forgotten that the published Augmented Chess speaks only of augmenting the FIDE army.<P> In principle, augmenting equivalent armies should give equivalent augmented armies; I have not looked for specific exceptions.<P> I like the Crybaby, and of course the Crabinal has been kicking around for a while; and either can of course be augmented by Langskip.<P> It may be that in Archoniclastic Chess colorbound pieces are at a disadvantage; but my thought was that by having the augmented version also be colorbound, the disadvantage is removed or at least reduced.<P> Consider the Knight augmented to NW: half the time it is augmented, and half the time it is not. Its average is fifty percent, and the average of the Bishop augmented to BD is also 50% because one of them is never augmented and the other always is. The N/NW has the option of posting itself so that both pieces are augmented, but also has the disadvantage that both could be chased into unaugmented positions. Also, the weaker Bishop, the one that can never be augmented, has the advantage that it controls the squares on which the opponent's augmented pieces can be found -- a new type of levelling effect.<P> Therefore it seemed to me that colorbound pieces in Archoniclastic Chess had a special interest that would make it more fun if they're in the game.<P> -- <BR>gnohmon<P><HR>

PBA wrote on 2002-03-27 UTC
This article is talking as if Augmented Chess was based on augmenting Different Armies, with its question of how do you augment a <b>BD</b> or a <b>FAD</b>, but the published version of Augmented Chess is based on augmenting the FIDE army. It seems to me that the only colorbound piece that needs to be augmented is the Bishop, which is an interesting issue still. <p> The interesting thing about augmenting the Bishop in this variant is that while you can give a colorbound augmentation to it (producing, say, a <b>BD</b>), that only helps one of them -- the one on the opposite color will never be augmented. This might be OK, as it yields a weak piece, and weak pieces can be useful and interesting, since you can threaten trades (is an Archoniclastic <b>NW/N</b> worth more or less than a Bishop?). Alternatively, as Augmented Chess offers alternate Knights and Queens, alternate Bishops could be offered. <p> What sort of alternate Bishops? You want Bishop replacements that: <p> <ul> <li>Are not colorbound;</li> <p> <li>Are worth almost the same as a Bishop;</li> <p> <li>And <i>feel</i> something like a Bishop to play with.</li> </ul> <p> That's a tall order. I have a couple of unscientific proposals: <blockquote> <h4>The Crybaby (WAA)</h4> Sort of a super-Waffle, the difference between <b>A</b> and <b>AA</b> is probably small enough to account for the difference between a Waffle and a Bishop, and it moves sort of Waffle-like. <h4>The Crabinal (ffNbsNhhB)</h4> It's bishop-like and not colorbound, but it is hard to augment, since of the original augmentors, only the <b>W</b> and the <b>D</b> work with it. </blockquote> <p> An alternative approach would be to render Bishops not-colorbound by using <i>Kristensen</i> Bishops (<b>mfbWB</b>). But this makes Bishops clearly more powerful than Knights, which is very likely undesirable. <p> Well, I've chattered on enough for now . . . <p> PBA

gnohmon wrote on 2002-03-27 UTC
<HR> On a 10x10 board, the forwardmost (1,3) jump is not so dangerous, as you suggest.<P> The real problem with the 10x10 board is that I do all my analysis and playtesting blindfold, and the chessboard in my head is only 8x8. For this reason, I give only small amounts of attention to other board sizes.<P> If you really want to do some heavy 10x10 work, run the numbers through my methods for estimating the whole-game mobility of Knigh and Rook and Rhino and so forth, then make some different armies!<P> However, I did find one problem with Chess on a Really Big Board -- Pawns are funny. Pawns might be okay on 10x10, but I don't think I really answered the question of what Pawns should be on 16x16. <P> Just a random grist for the mill.....<P>-- <BR>gnohmon<P><HR>

PBA wrote on 2002-03-26 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
The world obviously needs more Augmented Chess variants! I wonder, though, if moving this to a 10x10 board where Camels/Long Knights (and maybe (3,3) leapers) are not out of place would allow a more natural selection of Augmenters. <p>PBA

Danadazo. Game played on the 47 edges of a grid with rounded corners, borrowing elements from Tafl. (Cells: 47) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
PBA wrote on 2002-03-26 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I do like the idea of playing on edges as opposed to points or cells. It really does give a different topology. <p>PBA

JCL wrote on 2002-03-27 UTC
Speaking of different topologies, I could swear I once came across a
variant where the position of a piece within a square had an effect on its
state or capabilities, but I have, perhaps mercifully, forgotten everything
about it that might enable me to track it down. --JCL

Alice Chess. Classic Variant where pieces switch between two boards whenever they move. (8x8x2, Cells: 128) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
JCL wrote on 2002-03-29 UTC
Daniel, do you realize that the site icon in the upper left-hand corner
takes you to the index page? I have visited regularly for years, so I have
the 'What's new?' page bookmarked. --JCL

Daniel wrote on 2002-03-29 UTCGood ★★★★
Make your pages have a 'printer option!' That way I could take your data
home with me and actually use it!! Also, put a 'home' buttin at the
bottom
of each page, it would make site navigation easier... Thanks, Daniel

Chessgi. Drop the pieces you take from your opponent. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Chad wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
You can play this game at <a href='http://www.goldtoken.com'>GoldToken.com</a>.

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
David, Peter, great idea! This makes it easy to comment, is practical, timely, and should have a wide audience.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-02 UTC
It seems to me that <b>Ruddigore Chess</b> actually seems playable! But I would suggest that the first three turns be declared a Bank Holiday with no capturing required.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2002-04-03 UTC
David, will this page be linked to the side bar somehow? That would help in the future when it is not longer the new item in the Feedback page.

Chaturanga 4-84. An Updating of Chaturanga for Four Players with modern pieces and an 84-square board. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2002-04-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Very nice game. It is highly playable. Very enjoyable. The double teams
interact in a cooperative way. The board is interesting to play on,
especially with the center squares which change your piece types.
   Although the game harkens back to Chaturanga, even the 4-player version
of Chaturanga, and other 4-player games, there is a lot on ingenuity here.
The idea of changing piece type in the center adds some of the ancient
flavor too. The double team environment in-itself adds a new element in
many ways.
   The rules are simple to grasp. Traditional chess moves are used, along
with the ancient moves in the center. The center, of course, alludes to the
traditional struggle in chess to capture the center.
The game is very nice. By that I mean that it is graceful and evocative.
   Nice game. Try it!

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
If you think Ruddigore Chess seems playable, by all means test a bit more
and write it up! You're the inventor. I just blathered away with a crude
sketch of the rules and a crazy suggestion, you saw the possibilities and
found the specific rule-set that makes it work -- in other words, you do
all the hard work, it's your game.
<P>
You'll mention me, of course, but you know I would never have pursued the
idea further...

Grid Chess. Always move to a different 2 by 2 square part of the board. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-03 UTC
Pinwheel Chess was invented early 1970s by me, in NOST/Algia.

The idea is, it's grid chess, but each grid rotates 1/4 turn after each move; and alternate grids rotate backwards -- e.g. a1 goes to a2, and c2 goes to c1.

I wrote the program that displays the board and lets 2 people play, more than once, in different languages. Long lost, of course, even if you could find compilers/interpreters for those languages.


Orbital Rotating Grid Chess is like Pinwheel Chess except that e4,e5,d4,d5 is one cell, (so far just as in Offset Grid Chess, but...) and the other squares in c4-f6 are another cell, and the remaining squares in b2-g7 another, and the remaining squares in a1-h8 (in other words, the 28 edge squares) are another cell. And they rotate in opposite directions. Chaos!


Knight's Tour Rotating Grid Chess, not the right name, but you take a Knight's tour, and each turn the pieces on a1 move to b3 and the pieces on c2 get transferred to a1, and so forth
And finally, Brownian Motion Chess, where the squares are randomly inserted into a linked list, unknown to the players, and each turn everything moves forward on the list one step.
All that was from just one of my densely-typed two page articles in N/A in early 1970s.

I have all the back issues, and some other stuff, packed in a box to send them away, but I never get around to doing it. So nag me.


Critique: Pinwheel could be played postal, which was the only mode back then, but you'd be crazy to try. Both pinwheel and Orbital should be playable (and even fun!) in a noncompetitive online situation.

Knight's Tour is just an over-the-top thingy all us CV designers like to do, and Brownian Motion is over-the-over-the-topmost.

--
gnohmon



Chaturanga 4-84. An Updating of Chaturanga for Four Players with modern pieces and an 84-square board. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I have no idea whether or not it's really playable, but judging purely by
the text, the number of ingredients in the recipes, and the quality and
amount of spices, I would have to guess that this is a very fine piece of
work.

Applause.

58 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.