The Chess Variant Pages




[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Ratings & Comments

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Feeble Chess to Weakest Chess. Some Chess variants with weaker pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
Because they are so weak, the Feeble/Weakest pieces would do well on a 3x3x8 board, I think.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
Oops. It seeme I misremembered what the Spirit told me in my dream, for
when I tried to play the game it was too easy to end up in an impasse with
no good way to break it; and the reason was clearly that the Go Aways were
not performing their intended role.

Then I tried a few games in which the Go Away moved by leaping two squares
Rookwise or by moving one square diagonally, and things seemed to work much
better -- in fact, just about exactly right, in conformance to the original
vision of the game.

It is funny how the Wounded Fiend seems to be such an unimportant piece,
when it was the original inspiration for the game.

Under 'Interactions', it should be added that

'Leaping pieces can cross unharmed a square seen by a Basilisk, for their
talons never touch the ground and therefore the Basilisk does not see
them.'

The interactions are so complicated! I need to make a chart to see if I
left anything else out.

Rook-Level Chess[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
Thanks for the end-game! I deliberately left the Queen out of the leveling so as not to make thinks <strong>too</strong> uniform. <p> I wonder if the the <b>Rook-Level Chess I</b> army vs the <b>Rook-Level Chess II</b> army would be a balanced form of Chess with Different Armies? I would think so, but the <b>RLC II</b> army does have a significant 'can mate' advantage. Does it matter?

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
Hey, David. Somehow my last comment in the 'Rook-Level Chess' thread turned into its own 'Rook-Level' thread (no 'Chess'). Any ideas? <p><i>Hey Peter, I think it's fixed. There was an issue with spaces I think. Time will tell...</i>

Feeble Chess to Weakest Chess. Some Chess variants with weaker pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Doug Chatham wrote on 2002-04-11 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
If we created higher dimensional analogues of the Feeble/Weak/Weakest
pieces, would we be able to make a playable higher-dimensional CV with them
(perhaps even a Chess For Any Number of Dimensions)?

MonoChrome Alice[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
There's an idea for the Bishop's move -- give it a colorbound Wazir's move, so that it can only use it to change boards. Just repeat that term: <i>A colorbound Wazir's move</i>. I love to be able to say that and have it mean something

Feeble Chess to Weakest Chess. Some Chess variants with weaker pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
I am grateful for your effusive comments.

There will be more on the subject, as I like the game and have analyzed the
Weakest K versus Weakest King endgame -- it was very interesting.

But at the moment, I've gotten out a chessboard and some coins (with which
to mark mummies and statues) and am studying the play of the Game of
Nemoroth.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
A Wounded Fiend (not 'friend' unless you are a truly scary creature) is
impeded by mummies, as indeed a Rook would be. Notice also that it cannot
retrace its steps because of its own ichor, and therefore, as Azgoroth once
said, 'carries within it the seeds of its own destruction'. (The endgame
where each side has one Wounded Fiend and nothing else can be quite
interesting.)

This game is tough to get used to. For a while I thought I had made a major
rules error, but in fact when a Leaf Pile engulfs, the mummy does not
appear until it moves on, and so the Leaf Pile is vulnerable to being
engulfed by an enemy Leaf Pile. If it were not so, the first player would
attack with Leaf Pile (engulfing his own Human for greater speed) and win
by force.

Rook-Level Chess[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
gnohman wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
Rook-Level Chess is a very nice idea. Of course, the Queen isn't
R-level...

As for K+ND versus K, confining the K is tricky but it can be done.

Example: BKb8 WKc6, White ND e4, Black's move 1...Kc8 2. Nd6+ Kb8 3. Kb6
Ka8 4. NDc8+ Kb8 5. NDc6+ and 6. ND a6 mate.

MonoChrome Alice[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
David Howe wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
Continuing Peter's idea from his 'Alice Chess' comment on <a href='../diffmove.dir/monochro.html'>Monochromatic Chess</a>... <p>I don't like the idea that Bishops would be restricted to their initial board. Perhaps giving the bishops a non-capturing wazir move would fix this. Option 3 is also a nice idea (the switch-a-roo). <p>On the whole, I like this set of ideas. Perhaps it can be developed, with some play-testing, into a workable variant of Alice Chess, although Alice Chess itself is difficult enough to play... :)

Rook-Level Chess[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
Of course, there is the issue that on a larger board, since leapers are weakened, most of these pieces are probably not quite Rook-level anymore. One piece I do want to try in a larger variant someday is the NH (Knight + (3,0) leaper), since the H portion of the move would allow it to move around a 10x10 board slightly faster than a Knight moves around an 8x8 board.

Chigorin Chess. White has knights instead of bishops and a chancellor for his queen; black has bishops instead of knights. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
Okay, but I don't believe that the Chancellor is worth less than the Q. The
midgame forking power of a piece that moves in 12 directions is quite
amazing, the Chancellor has exceptional ability to save an inferior game by
giving perpetual check, and finally,

the drawn cases of K+Q versus K+P are wins in the endgame K+NR vs K+P.

Of course there are positions that favor the Q, but all in all, my
experience says they are equal.

Rook-Level Chess[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
David Howe wrote on 2002-04-11 UTC
It's an interesting idea, but would make for a more positional game with more trading off of material. I would recommend these Rook-level pieces perhaps for larger variants which would still include the usual knights and bishops.

Feeble Chess to Weakest Chess. Some Chess variants with weaker pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on 2002-04-11 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I wish I had thought of this! The idea of finding the weakest possible pieces that still provide a chess-like game is inspired. For some reason, it reminded me of my attempt to create a <a href='../newideas.dir/construction.html'>chess variant construction set</a>. The concept of a flipping move to switch between capture-only and move-only is something I never thought of. On the whole, a well-thought-out, and aesthetically pleasing game. I must try it out sometime!

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
ben wrote on 2002-04-11 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Question: can a wounded friend move over (but obviously not stop on) a
square occupied by a mummy?  i am not sure.

if anybody wants to try this game with me by email, send to
good7972@hotmail.com

Monochromatic Chess. Pieces remain on squares of the same color. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Here's an amusing possible solution to the problems with this variant: combine it with <a href='../other.dir/alice.html'>Alice Chess</a>. <p> Here's how it might go. You add a second board, like in Alice Chess, except the 2nd board has reversed checkering: a1 is white, not black. When a piece's move would otherwise cause it to move to a square of a different color, it instead lands on the equivalent square of the other board. Thus Knights always switch boards when they move, and Bishops never switch boards. <p> There are a number of ways to handle switching boards: <p> <ul> <li>Alice Chess-style. The move on the board on which the piece starts must be legal as in orthochess, and the square on the other board must be empty.</li> <p> <li>The Plunge. A piece moving to another color may only to move to a square that is empty on their current board, then they plunge through the board to the equivalent square on the other board, capturing any opposing pieces they land on, except for Pawns who may not plunge to occupied squares.</li> <p> <li>The Switch-a-roo. A piece makes a normal orthochess move on the board on which it starts, and then, if the destination square is of a different color than the piece's starting square, it moves to an equivalent position on the other board. If the space on the other board is occupied, then the piece occupying that space is moved to the space just landed on on the board that the moving piece started on. This version actually allows Bishops on the 2nd board.</li> <p> <li>The Last Square. The piece's move is as normal, except that if the piece would land on a color of square different from which it started, the last square of its move is the equivalent space on the other board, and the move does not pass through what would be the final square of its move in orthochess. The last square on the board on which the board-changing piece moved from may be occupied by a friendly or opposing piece -- it doesn't matter as the moving piece does not pass through it. </ul> <p> I don't know which would be best.

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
It would be nice if a place to click to create a new subject at the top of the comments page. Right now, as far as I can tell, you have to page down until you find an existing thread, and click there.

Rook-Level Chess[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-10 UTC
The discussion of piece values and the purpose of the variant for <a href='../diffsetup.dir/chigorin.html'>Chigorin Chess</a> reminded me of a conceptually-related idea I had a while ago I called Rook-Level Chess. <p> <h4>Rook-Level Chess</h4> <p> The idea I wanted to explore in Rook-Level Chess is: how would the play of Chess be affected if the Rook, the Knight and the Bishop all had approximately the same value? It seemed to me that threats would be harder at the very least. Anyway, drawing on Ralph Betza's work on the value of Chess pieces I selected stronger Knights and Bishops that retained some of the character of the existing pieces: for Knights I used NW (Knight + Wazir or Marquis), for Bishops I used BD (Bishop + Dabbabah or Bede). These pieces retain the color behavior of the pieces they replace: the Marquis is color-changing, and the Bede is colorbound. <p> I sent this to David Paulowich, and asked him how he thought this would affect exchanges. He replied that we would still prefer a Rook to a Marquis and a Marquis to a Bede, as you could mate with a Rook + King vs King, but not with Marquis + King vs King or Bede + King vs King, and he still though color-switching pieces more valuable than colorbound ones, other things being equal. <h4>Rook-Level Chess II</h4> <p> Given the above comment, I wondered if the powered up Knight and Bishop could retain <i>different</i> characteristics of the base piece? So, for Rook-Level Chess II I replaced the Knight with ND (Knight + Dabbabah or Vicount) and the Bishop with BW (Bishop + Ferz or Dragon-Horse). In this case I retained that the Knight was a strictly leaping piece not attacking adjacent pieces, and I retained that the Bishop was a non-jumping piece. Are these pieces of equal value? And could you mate with Vicount + King vs King? (Dragon-Horse + King vs King is a win.) <h4>Discussion</h4> <p> I've played around with Rook-Level Chess a bit with Zillions for what it is worth, but I strongly suspect it loses somethings that Chess has. If nothing else, weak pieces can be fun since they can harass stronger pieces. <p> Other versions are of course possible. Given that Ralph has settled down to rating the Crooked Bishop (zFF) as equal to a Rook (there being a brief point where he was rating it at 1.5 Rooks), a Crooked Bishop might replace the Bishop nicely. <p> I should eventually add these as modest variants.

Slanted Escalator Chess. Chess on an asymmetric board with interesting connectivity. (8x8, Cells: 60) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Tony Paletta wrote on 2002-04-10 UTC
Agree with gnohmon that there is an imbalance. Suggest reversing e-side escalator and transposing one side's royals (e.g., Kd1 and Qe1).

Chigorin Chess. White has knights instead of bishops and a chancellor for his queen; black has bishops instead of knights. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Tony Paletta wrote on 2002-04-10 UTC
My comment that Black was ahead was based on R+B vs R+N multiplied by pawn promotion. The B vs N is probably just a wash -- maybe giving White some early play but moving towards Black in mid-end play.

Tron Chess. Every square passed by the queen creates a wall that hinders movement. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on 2002-04-10 UTC
Leaving rubble pieces behind as the TronQueen slides is the problematic
part, because (and I've run into this problem again and again) there's no
(direct) way to generate a move that creates more than one piece.

The solution that leaps to mind is to have so-called 'empty' squares be
dummy pieces with no images, and turn multiple ones into Walls at the
appropriate time (which is also problematic, but doable).  That's probably
what I'll have to do, but it means reimplementing all the Chess moves so
that chess pieces are trading places with dummy pieces instead of moving to
empty squares.  Capturing means trading places with the captured piece and
turning it into a dummy.  There are lots of things that could go wrong and
strange bugs that would surface.

The two-board approach meant that the dummies could cover the underboard
while the chess pieces moved about on the overboard.  When you play the
game, you only see one board.  The second board occupies the same pixels. 
It's just an implementation device.

Adam Norberg wrote on 2002-04-10 UTC
Don't use two boards... I suggest you download Rubble Chess (another one of
my inventions, Z'd by Peter Aronson) and take it apart to find out how it
worked. All you need to do is make variants of it where the <foo> leaves
behind Rubble Pieces, for <foo> being any chess piece. (I don't think pawns
would work very well, but...) You can also make special starts where the
board starts full of walls (rubble chess start), etc...

--Adam

Robert Price wrote on 2002-04-10 UTC
The trouble with my Zillions implementation is, a piece that captures a
Wall disappears until you make the board redraw itself.  When the computer
plays against itself, it's not a problem.  But when a human captures a
Wall, he needs to hit Ctrl-F twice or something.  It would be an easy, easy
thing for Zillions Development to fix.

I guess it's my own fault for trying to make two boards, one on top of the
other.  I just thought it would be more elegant that way.

Slanted Escalator Chess. Chess on an asymmetric board with interesting connectivity. (8x8, Cells: 60) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-10 UTC
Um, okay, but Black has 2 doublings on each flank and W only one; and
1...a7-b6 already exploits a doubling to tie W down a tiny bit. 

Have you considered slanted escalators on a 9x9 board?

On the 8x8 board, it seems to me that the clumsiness of Bishops should be
regarded as an opportunity to find some other piece that fits the game
better. Perhaps not as strong as a Rhinorider.

Pieces have to use their own movement powers, so isn't it more of a
staircase than an escalator? And so wouldn't ascending pieces get tired?

It's too late at night, I'm getting silly.

David Short wrote on 2002-04-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
gnohmon, you're wrong about a few things. first of all,
while black rooks can control double files if they are on the
a,b,g, or h files, a white rook on the b-file would control
both the a-file and b-file, and likewise a white rook on the 
g-file controls both the g-file and h-file. Download the ZRF
and you'll see. 

Bishops may seem weak but they may yet have a purpose in the game.
It may be true that their ability to penetrate the other side of
the board and attack is more difficult, but they'll still be
pretty good as stay-at-home defenders. Note however that white
bishops at a3 or h3 control very long diagonals (bishop at a3 
attacks e8, bishop at h3 attacks d8)

and while black may be able to control the outside files with
his rooks faster, white should be able to occupy the escalator
squares more quickly. In order that white does not get an overwhelming
advantage in the game, I gave black the first move. Time will tell
if the game is balanced sufficiently or not.


Incidentally, if anyone who has ZILLIONS OF GAMES would like to
play either SLANTED ESCALATOR CHESS, or SPINAL TAP CHESS

http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/spinal-tap-chess.html

or both, with me by email, drop me a line at DavidNYJfan@hotmail.com
We can email each other the notation and record and save our games
with ZILLIONS. 

What I really like about SLANTED ESCALATOR CHESS is that not only
is there interesting connectivity around the board, but that it's
going to be a bit challenging for each side to try to navigate the
board to get to the other side and get a good attack going. 
Should make things very interesting!

Overprotection Chess. If an attacked piece is more often defended than it is attacked, it gains extra powers. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-10 UTC
Changes made as best I understood. <p> Alas, the Happy Editor song can never be written down or recorded, lest the secret society of web editors silence y

Slanted Escalator Chess. Chess on an asymmetric board with interesting connectivity. (8x8, Cells: 60) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Very interesting.

1. At first sight, the board seems unbalanced because a Black R at b6
attacks
both b2 and c2, but a WR b3 does not get its power doubled.

I would suggest that in the long run this advantage is much greater than
W's advantage of first move.

2. The Bf1 can't go to c4, right? Perhaps Bishops should be replaced by
something else. (Not zFF, that would increase Black's advantage.)

3. A Knightrider on a6 attacks both f2 and e2, right? And a Rose on h6
attacks both d3 and e3, and therefore... interesting.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-10 UTC
It recently occurred to me that I might have named the Zombie an Iron
Golem so that its dissolution by ichor would be a nethack reference.

But perhaps that would have been inappropriate after all. Lovecraft never
played a game of Nethack in his life.

Overprotection Chess. If an attacked piece is more often defended than it is attacked, it gains extra powers. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-10 UTC
Yes, I'm afraid that recursion (drat and drat again) must be explicitly forbidden, which is too bad because it sounded like fun.

Chigorin Chess. White has knights instead of bishops and a chancellor for his queen; black has bishops instead of knights. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-10 UTC
'Favors Black, you think? Then perhaps you will be willing to offer me
substantial odds as we play a game for some enormous stake of money, 
perhaps a penny on a1 doubled on each successive square?'

I had almost put the above statement into the story of getting a regular
chessplayer to play Chigorin Chess, somewhere after the part where 'variant
rhymes with deviant and that starts with d and rhymes with t and stands for
trouble.', and way after the part where the regular chessplayer says with a
sneer is that some kind of fairy chess.... (I'm not suggesting that
you're
the offensive non-PC 'regular chessplayer'; the misinformation
about relative values of N and B is part of general unwisdom, that's
all.)

Read any monograph on the Chigorin Defense. You'll find that many 
players now believe the N to be superior in the early stages of the game,
which agrees with my findings on the theory of chess values so I think
it must be right.

Given the advantage of the first move to go with the advantage of fast
development, the *white* side in Chigorin Chess probably has a large
advantage. In order to Castle K-side, Black needs to move two Pawns and two
Bishops; and one of those P moves looks suspiciously like a weakening
move.
White can go 5.O-O at the earliest, but Black can choose to go 3...O-O;
think about it!

And, of course, this is the whole point of Chigorin Chess! You can get a
'regular chessplayer' to play, because he will want to prove that the
Bishops are so much superior...

Overprotection Chess. If an attacked piece is more often defended than it is attacked, it gains extra powers. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-10 UTC
Shall we go with Tony Paletta's suggestion, and avoid all temporary powers when calculating overprotection? It does make it simpler, and importantly improves clarity.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
You have trapped me and won the game of game-making!

You suggested recursive, and I said 'sure, okay', and then you hoisteded me
with me own petard by pointing out a most ingenious paradox, more ingenious
than Doctors Einstein and Schweitzer. I am bereft, like an apprentice to
Pilate.

Where can I find an mp3 of busy editorial beavers whistling the 'Happy
Editor' song as they undo a previous change?

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Wow!!  

Who said theme doesn't count in abstract games?  I want to play this, but I
think I'm going to be disapointed when the pieces remain silent.  I want to
see a ZRF, but not too soon.  Whoever does it needs to do a good job on the
graphics, not to mention audio, to do the game justice.

'What eldritch noise did I hear?'  Perhaps the screech of the El.

Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
meee wrote on 2002-04-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I thought this page was good becuase it gave you all the rules.  They wer
eeasy to understand and showed diagrams for furthur clarification

Chigorin Chess. White has knights instead of bishops and a chancellor for his queen; black has bishops instead of knights. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Tony Paletta wrote on 2002-04-09 UTC
This variant seems to favor Black materially by at least a pawn.

Overprotection Chess. If an attacked piece is more often defended than it is attacked, it gains extra powers. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Tony Paletta wrote on 2002-04-09 UTC
Apart from the paradox problem, the need to take into account temporary
powers makes assessment of overprotection a bit complicated. 

I would suggest ignoring temporary powers in assessing overprotection.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jianying Ji wrote on 2002-04-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Absolutely great, in coherence of theme and originality!

Slanted Escalator Chess. Chess on an asymmetric board with interesting connectivity. (8x8, Cells: 60) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
This is something new in a way, or at least something not often done. It is a game where the two sides, while having the same movement, have different board topologies to deal with in the opening and midgame, and I think it an interesting idea. Now, if there was just some way to determine if it was balanced . . .

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on 2002-04-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I've heard vague rumours that this game, or a game very much like it, is
still played at Miskatonic University...

The excellent rating applies to presentation and originality. I have not
playtested this game (yet). Truth be told, I'm not sure I *want* to! :)

Overprotection Chess. If an attacked piece is more often defended than it is attacked, it gains extra powers. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-09 UTC
Busy editorial beavers have made the requested edits to this page, all the while whistling the 'Happy Editor' song. <p> Ok, I read the part about having to be attacked to be overprotected, but somehow it didn't sink in. But there's still a lovely paradox here. <p> Consider: <blockquote> White has Pawns on <b>a3</b>, <b>b4</b> and <b>c3</b>, and a Rook on <b>b1</b>. <p> Black has Pawns on <b>a6</b>, <b>b5</b> and <b>c6</b>, a Rook on <b>b8</b>, and a Bishop on <b>d6</b>. </blockquote> The white Pawn on <b>b4</b> is attacked by one piece, and defended by three, so it can move and capture as a Wazir. Which means it attacks the black Pawn on <b>b5</b>. The black Pawn is then attacked by one, and defended by three, so <em>it</em> can now move and capture like a Wazir. But this reduces the white Pawn on <b>b4</b> from being overprotected by two to being overprotected by one, which means it can no longer capture the black Pawn at <b>b5</b>. But if it can not capture the black Pawn at <b>b5</b>, the black Pawn isn't attacked, and so can't capture the white Pawn which suddenly overprotected by two, which means it <em>can</em> capture the black Pawn. But it can't . . .

Tron Chess. Every square passed by the queen creates a wall that hinders movement. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
When Nemoroth finally appears, you will be amazed by the piece called the
Wounded Fiend, and the distant resemblance to the Tron Queen.

There must be something in the air that makes people come up with similar
ideas at nearly the same time.

Overprotection Chess. If an attacked piece is more often defended than it is attacked, it gains extra powers. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
A Pawn or piece must be attacked in order to be overprotected. I said that,
right?

'and dynamic' ... 'where checkmating the opponent could also checkmate
you!' means that the enemy K is defended several times (but of course not
attacked) so that when you attack the enemy K it becomes overprotected and
gives check to your nearby King. I could have made that clearer, right? But
you're correct, even the closest reading of this doesn't really say whether
it's recursive. Yes, why not recursive, gosh darn it and gosh darn it
again?

If you could overprotect an unattacked piece, this would 'merely' be a new
(and perhaps an excellent) form of Relay Chess.

So, should add a line that the powers gained by an overprotected piece can
be used to overprotect another piece.

Should add a line 'therefore you can destroy your opponent's overprotection
by moving your attacker away'.

And should add the explanation of how giving check[mate] can check[mate]
yourself.

Better now?

Chess eBooks[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
David Howe wrote on 2002-04-08 UTC
I'm considering adding a section to the Chess Variant Pages for chess eBooks. Right now I'm aware of only two: Chess History and Reminiscences by H.E. Bird, and Edward Lasker's Chess and Checkers: The Way to Mastership. Both are Project Gutenberg files. Does anyone know of any other online chess eBooks?

Overprotection Chess. If an attacked piece is more often defended than it is attacked, it gains extra powers. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
This looks like fun! I particularly like that once you overprotect a Pawn by two (easy enough -- just take an unattacked Pawn and give it two supporters), suddenly it captures forward and to the side. <p> I find myself wondering if overprotection is calculated recursively. That is, when determining overprotection, is overprotection taken into account? <p> Consider the following: <blockquote> White Pawns at <b>a3</b>, <b>b4</b> and <b>c3</b>; <p> Black Pawns at <b>a6</b>, <b>b5</b> and <b>c6</b>. </blockquote> Assume white's move. Can the white Pawn on <b>b4</b> capture the black Pawn on <b>b5</b>? If you apply white's Wazir capture first, then it can (since it is overprotected by two, black not having a Wazir capture as it is only overprotected by one), if you apply black's Wazir capture first, it can not (since then the white Pawn will only be overprotected by one). Curious, no?

Tron Chess. Every square passed by the queen creates a wall that hinders movement. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Adam Norberg wrote on 2002-04-08 UTC
Author's note: I'd like to see this in Zillions.
--Adam Norberg

Wildebeest Chess. Variant on an 10 by 11 board with extra jumping pieces. (11x10, Cells: 110) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Glenn Overby II wrote on 2002-04-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I recently sent in a nomination to make this game--a well-established, widely-disseminated, thoroughly-played design--a 'recognized' variant. If you agree, send the editors an email. :)

Contest to design a chess variant on a board with 42 squares. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Glenn Overby II wrote on 2002-04-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
It's amazing what range can be found among these entries, unified only by
one simple requirement and the ethereal concept of 'chess'.  This was fun!

Chess History and Reminiscences. Project Gutenberg eBook version of this public domain book (large!).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-08 UTC
chessvariants could have a page with links to all known downloadable chess books...

Discussions[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-08 UTC
I agree with John Lawson.

Chain of Fools. Game with a Chess set where the goal is form chains of defended pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
This appears to be an excellent game, with a lot of thought and effort.

Is it a chess variant? Not really, even though it uses chess pieces. It's a
mathematical (topology) abstract game, and you might find many fans for it
in rec.games.abstract -- give it a try!

Many abstract mathematical games become popular and widely played, but the
market for them is not 'chess variant' people. 

I haven't tried Chain of Fools, but if it's as good as it looks you'd be
doing yourself a big favor by taking the game over to rec.games.abstract,
where you can find folks who will really appreciate it.

Chatter Chess. Variant based on the idea of line chatter where rider pieces can switch to other friendly pieces' lines of movement. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-07 UTC
I think I was a little unclear about my idea. A stepping piece would move on a chatter line if one of the squares that it could move to was on that chatter line. Thus, a player with a King on <b>a3</b>, and a Bishop on <b>a1</b>, with the Bishop having a clear move to <b>h8</b> could move the King all the way to <b>h8</b>. Which is why it could be hard to run down the King without disposing of the Bishop first. <p> But in any case, your suggestion to exclude the King and Pawns from this behavior is probably wise, leaving it for various Faerie and CDA pieces in their stepping moves.

Discussions[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-07 UTC
Detail mode.  This is how I use the comments:

   I arrive at the What's New page via bookmark.

   If there is a new topic of interest, I investigate, and comment if
inspired.

   If the 'last comment' time is more recent than the last time I logged
on, I review the recent comments. 

A minimal visit is two clicks (What's New, recent comments).  Usually I
visit at least every other day.  If the comments were in summary, I would
have to expand each one to see what it's about.  

By way of explanation, I attempt to reduce the amount of typing and mousing
I do to a minimum.  Many of my older, professional IT colleagues have
become diabled due to repetitive motion injuries.  I have many years left
to work, and I spend 8 hours a day in front of my workstation earning a
living, then come home and play with my personal computer.  I would like to
be able to enjoy my computer in retirement without wrist braces and voice
response.

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-07 UTC
Good point John -- I have changed the default to 25. Now the question is, should the default be summary mode or detail mode??

Chess History and Reminiscences. Project Gutenberg eBook version of this public domain book (large!).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on 2002-04-07 UTC
Project Gutenberg also has Edward Lasker's 'Chess and Checkers: The Way to Mastership'. Here's a link to it. If enough folks want this on our site as a web page, I'll create it. Otherwise, here's the link to it on PG's web site: <a href='http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext04/lchch10.txt'>Chess and Checkers: The Way to Mastership</a> (text file).

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-07 UTCGood ★★★★
The book itself is very disorganized and tough to read, with many passages
that are repetitive and uninteresting.

However, enough of Bird's personality shines through that I am glad to have
made his acquaintance.

To correct what I said earlier about the time of his career -- it was from
before the first tournament up to the times of Lasker.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-07 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Bird lost a match to Steinitz by a mrer 7 to 6. 

'Bird is one of history's greatest non-GM chessplayers.' I said, but I was
wrong.

Steinitz was a tough cookie. Losing 7-6 makes Bird a GM in my estimation.

More than superb, optimal!

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-07 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
More than excellent, superb!

Harry Bird is one of history's greatest non-GM chessplayers. His
originality combined with his longevity (he played against Morphy, and he
played against Lasker, maybe even against Vidmar, if I remember rightly)
combined with his strength (not a world champion, but surely stronger than
me) make him one of the more interesting personalities in modern chess
history.

I have often heard of this book, but was never fortunate enough to find a
copy. Now I can read it at last.

More than superb, optimal!

Discussions[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-07 UTC
I know I'm just being a pest, but maybe the default number of comments that are on the new comments page should be rather less than 100. It loads really fast, but if there are 100 long comments, it could take a while for us poor benighted souls who live too far out in the boondocks to have DSL, and don't wish to pay our cable companies triple per month. If they were just 'Excellent, great job!' it would be OK, but when some of those wordy people start writing, and talking about things that aren't even chess variants, well.....

58 comments displayed

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.