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
Space Chess. Three dimensional commercial chess variant. (8x8x3, Cells: 192) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Isaac wrote on 2002-04-07 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
thank you for the rules for space chess. I too lost the directions to my set years ago. My set was purchased at a game store in 1994as well, looks extactly like the one you have placed on the web, but the box it came in says 1981 Pacific Game Company,INC. no. 1420

Worse than Worthless. A discussion of pieces with negative value, and the Nattering Nabobs of Negativity![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on 2002-04-06 UTCGood ★★★★
I'd like to see this article expanded to include other types of
cursed pieces and cursed players.

For example, how about Restless (or Hyperactive or Flying Dutchman)
pieces that have to be moved each turn (e.g., the King in Triplets)?

Or how about the Ruddigore Chess curse that requires a player to
capture an enemy or discard a friend at each turn?  (By the way, a similar
curse is imposed on the players of Sudden Death Chess.)

Perhaps you could also include Hesistant (or Hamlet?) pieces that
require two or more turns to move (somewhat like Ralph Betza's

Finally, how about Cuckoo pieces that can only capture friendly 
pieces? (Some species of cuckoo place their eggs in nests of birds of 
other species.)

King with a Shotgun. Twice each game, the King can make a non-moving Rook capture. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Adam Norberg wrote on 2002-04-06 UTC
Just as a note from the author: Ed's variant of doing queen attacks does
work well, also. But don't get too trigger-happy- it's good defense. Make
sure you don't get blindsided by a bishop in the classic variant!

The major downside to the queen shot variant is that then you can't
reasonably use a bishop to move in for the kill; you pretty much have to
lose two pieces to the shotgun, unless you use knights well...

-- Adam Norberg (sgamer [att] swbell [dott] net )

Discussions[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-06 UTC
Great idea David -- thanks!

Xiangqi FAQ. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on 2002-04-06 UTC
I just visted <a href=''></a> on and it appears as if the FAQ hasn't been updated in some years. If anyone knows where we can get an up-to-date (or more up-to-date) FAQ document, please contact us. Thanks.

Discussions[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
David Howe wrote on 2002-04-06 UTC
Ok guys, I've created a minimal discussion system. Feel free to start using it (and breaking it). I still have more work to do, but it's basically functional. Please do let me know if you have any particular requests or criticisms (or kudos :)...

Xiangqi FAQ. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jeffry Simmons wrote on 2002-04-06 UTCGood ★★★★
Very informative! But are the listings for clubs, organizations, and world's strongest players current?

Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jere wrote on 2002-04-06 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I had not played chess in 40 years. It was a great refresher; covered all the rules in a straight-forward manner. Nice job.

Omega Chess. Rules for commercial chess variant on board with 104 squares. (12x12, Cells: 104) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Short wrote on 2002-04-06 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I would like to announce that I am going to be running an Omegachess
tournament by email on Richard's Play By Email server at
In order to play in the tournament you must have a PBM userid.
Check out and 
if you are new and want to sign up for a free userid and password
on the server. You do not have to have ever played Omegachess before
on the server to compete in this tournament. If you would like to play
in the event please email me your PBM userid to
I have not yet decided exactly how I am going to structure the Omega
tournament. It will probably be a round robin tournament, with between
4 to 8 games in the first round, and a certain number of players 
advancing to a second and final round.

I would also like to announce that I am also going to run a chess
tournament on PBM too. This is traditional orthodox chess!
This tournament is open to the first 25 players who email me to enter.
I will be creating five 5-man sections. Each player will play a total
of 4 games, 2 as white and 2 as black, one game against each of the
other players in the tournament. The 5 section winners will then
advance to a final 5-man section for the championship of the tournament.
In the event of a tie for first place in a section the first tiebreaker
is head-to-head result. In the event of a draw or a 3-way tie where
A beat B, B beat C and C beat A, all tied players advance to the finals
and a larger final section will be created. Again, to compete in this
tournament you must have a PBM userid. You may enter both tournaments
if you like. When emailing me please make sure to specify which
tournament you are entering. Thanks again and good luck!!

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]
gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-06 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
People should know that the excellent diagram that makes it so easy to
visualize the chatter moves was added by the editor, not the author.

The editor gets an 'excellent' rating for this page.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-06 UTC
That was an excellent chatter response.

Responsible usage of the rules tells us that a piece which takes only one
step ends its move after that one step and therefore is not eligible to
chatter. However, your idea sounds like a lot of fun!

One can always arbitrarily restrict Kings and Pawns from participating in
the fun; and I think this would be necessary, not only because it appears
to be too difficult to chase down a King supported by multiple riders (note
that 'a K supported by a Bishop' can only run towards the Bishop), but also
because the offensive uses of Chattering Pawns would dominate the game, as
they do in N-Relay II.

Decimal Chatter Chess, on a 10x10 board, would become quite interesting if
you had the Pawns on the third rank, all Riders on the first, and a second
rank full of weak steppers -- the usual suspects, W, F, Crab, Barc, A, and
D -- because the early play would be dominated by the weak pieces being
thrown forwards by the power of the riders. You'd need to arrange your
pieces very carefully, making room for the weak pieces to get past the
Pawns, setting up intersecting lines for the riders, and putting the
weakies where they could join in the fray but not get in the way. All the
while trying to maintain a defense against the pesky foe.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-05 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
You know, I can't see any reason (aside from restraint) why stepping pieces couldn't take advantage of chatter even if they can't create it (sort of like a low-power line mixed in with higher-power lines). Then, if a stepper could move to a square containing a rider's line, it could ride away on it! In that case, castling and Pawn-double-step could definitely generate chatter lines (and we'd have to distinguish between capturing and non-capturing chatter lines). Of course, chasing down a King supported by a Bishop could be rather difficult . . . <p> The above would probably result in a fairly crazy game, but it would also come closer to working with different armies. <p> And for the list of possibly unplayable games, I'd like to add <u><a href='../d.betza/chessvar/confu01.html'>Confusion 1b</a> Chatter Chess</u>.

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on 2002-04-05 UTC
Ok, I'll look into extending the feedback system to allow some sort of message threading based on something other than existing pages. I understand why people do not like the yahoo group system, although it does have some nice features. Give me a few days to come up with something.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-05 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
The comment system allows you to see the whole discussion on one page,
instead of needing to access (and then page down past all the garbage) a
new page for each message.

This is a huge advantage, and I expect that people will abandon the yahoo
thingy and flock to the comment pages.

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-05 UTC
I fall between Peter and David here.  When I write a comment, I don't
really plan it.  Something in the page, or another comment sets me off, and
I just start writing.  If it leads somewhere not completely germaine to the
page being commented on, so be it.

BUT, the result is that discussions that are potentially interesting or
inspiring get buried attached to pages that effectively conceal them from
later browsers.  (Look at the recent discussion attached to the
'Archoniclastic Chess' page.)

To do the thing properly, comments should be limited to the variant they
are attached to, and any flight of fancy should be moved to the discussion
group.  I think this is against human nature (at least mine) and I would
probably never make 50% of those posts.  Furthermore, the discussion group
posting may be cryptic outside of context of the variant page that inspired

On the other side, the number of people 'misusing' the comment system are
relatively small.  It would be a huge waste of time and resources to build
a parallel discussion system for a handful of 'chatterers'.  Also, the
public discussion board has a better possibility of attracting random

Maybe a compromise is possible.  Let me note here that I am no programmer,
and I have no idea how difficult any particular idea would be to implement.
 An idea that seems simple to me might be to allow the writer of an
extended comment to select a small set of keywords ('Ruddigore',
'double-move') which the comment system could also search for.

Better ideas?

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-04 UTC
It would seem kind of redundent to have you build a discussion group when we already have one. However. There would be some advantages to a home-built discussion board: <ul> <p> <li>It could be integrated with the comment system. What <strong>I</strong> would like to have is a single system where both comments and general discussion are displayed in order of posting. It seems awkward to me to have two different systems with two different user interfaces for one purpose: discussing Chess variants. And I know for a fact there are for both people who use one but not the other.</li> <p> <li>It would be faster (it would hard to be slower!).</li> <p> <li>It wouldn't have all of the stupid advertising the current incarnation of the discussion group has.</li> </ul> <p> But still, it would seem like a lot of work for something which we already have, if not in ideal form.

David Howe wrote on 2002-04-04 UTC
While I agree that discussions of new game ideas are valuable, I don't think they are appropriate for the feedback and rating system. It's better to keep the discussions relating to a particular page on our internal feedback system, and use our discussion group when the commentary digresses to new game ideas. The discussion group has many more features than my crude feedback system, so I think it's better to use that. That is, unless you want me to build a discussion group system that lives on the chess variant pages... :)

Chaturanga 4-84 ZIP file. An Updating of Chaturanga for Four Players with modern pieces on an 84-square board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-04 UTC
A variant has been added where both moves of a side are made in sequence, instead of alternating; a sort of limited double-move version. Thanks to John Lawson for the idea!

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]
John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-04 UTC
By the way, if anyone were interested, the link to the World Camelot
Federation website, where the rules of Grand Camelot are posted is:

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-03 UTC
Well, the game has been played a fair number of times against the computer and at least once by e-mail vs a human opponent, and it seemed to play fairly well (of course, there might be something wrong with it, after all I <em>lost</em> :)). <hr> A play order of AABB instead of the more usual ABAB for a four-player partnership game transforms it into a limited double-move variant, rather like one whose name I can't recall, where you get to move a piece on the left side of the board and one on the right side each turn. Limited double-move variants tend to be fun and exciting, so I can see the appeal, and spliting the double-move between partners has some piquant aspects, particularly if communications are restricted and reading minds is not at least one of the partner's strengths. I think I may add an AABB variant as to the Chaturanga 4-84's ZRF (still double-dummy, alas). <p> As for bid multiplayer Chess with a dummy . . . Could be done. Should it? :) <hr> Thanks for the kind words, Tony.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-03 UTC
<P>A CV in which the players have goals is my Hi-Lo Chess, in which each player secretly selects one of the goals W, L, D, WL, WD, LD, or WLD.<P>In order to get more variety in the selection, we used to write a pack of paper slips with goals and require the players to shuffle and use the top goal from the pack.<P> There must be a 'mate me' rule and a 'perp me' rule -- if at the end of your move your opponent has a mate in 1 or a perpetual check, you can require that it be played.<P> Scoring: if you have one goal and achieve that goal you get 1 point for the game; if you have 2 goals you get 1/2 point if you succeed. If you have all 3 goals, you get 1/3 point no matter what -- you can gain by preventing your opponent from achieving his goal.<P> Inspiration: High-Low Poker.<P> <HR> Hi-LO Chess is extremely well tested, I have played more than a hundred games face-to-face with a human opponent. Fro the number of games played, you can guess that it's an enjoyable game.<P> It's a game of incomplete information. You try to guess your opponent's goal while concealing your own; and then you can plan and execute a brilliant combination the purpose of which is to checkmate yourself.<P> I don't remember the date of Hi-Lo, but it's probably late 1960s.<P>

John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-03 UTC
Peter, I've recently been playing Grand Camelot in another venue.  Grand
Camelot is a four-player version of Parker Brothers Camelot game.  (To the
peanut gallery: Yes, I know it's not a chess variant; let me finish.)  

Grand Camelot has two unusual features for a four-player game:
1 - Partners sit side by side.  Translating to this game, Red and Green
would be partners against Yellow and Black.
2 - The turn sequence is a 'figure-8'.  Translated to Chaturanga 4-84, that
would be Red - Yellow - Green - Black (repeat)

This small change works surprisingly well, and I've wondered if it would be
as successful in a 4-player CV like this.  I generally find 4-player
abstract strategy board games annoying, but Grand Camelot is lots of fun
and very exciting.

Also, the comment about the ZRF being double-dummy brought an idea to mind.
 Has there been a CV (e.g. Bridge Chess or Whist Chess) where the players
bid to achieve a certain outcome?  The partner of the 'declarer' sits out,
and the defenders play without communication.  This might be a possible
thing to design.  One could even play a Feeback version with ones
physician, attorney, and accountant.

Xiangqi (象棋): Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Xiangqi (Chinese Chess). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
willem wrote on 2002-04-03 UTCGood ★★★★

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on 2002-04-03 UTC
So, given the amount of chatter about Chatter Chess and Ruddigore Chess and
so on, do we need 'virtual' comment pages so we can discuss variants that
haven't actually been posted?  Then, going forward, the comments will be
where they belong.  I mean, who's going to think about looking for comments
about Ruddigore Chess attached to the Archoniclastic Chess page?

Also, to David, I like the little subtle link to the recent comments at the
top of the What's New page, but I don't think in GMT.  Maybe we could
include the current time in GMT, or the time elapsed since the last
comment, or something like that.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-04-03 UTC
I'll add <b>Ruddigore Chess</b> to my 'to do' list, but since that's already 1.83 miles long, don't expect it this quarter. But I will almost certainly write a Zillions Rules File for it, and bully poor Tony Quintanilla into playing it with me by e-mail so I can see if it works or not before publishing. Someday. <p> (I realize I don't <em>need</em> Zillions to play the game by e-mail, but it makes it more convenient and enforces rules that might get missed. Also, I find programming a game a good way to examine a game's rules in details.)

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


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.


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.
You'll mention me, of course, but you know I would never have pursued the
idea further...

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]
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.

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 2002-04-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
David, Peter, great idea! This makes it easy to comment, is practical, timely, and should have a wide audience.

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=''></a>.

Alice Chess. Classic Variant where pieces switch between two boards whenever they move. (8x8x2, Cells: 128) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
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
of each page, it would make site navigation easier... Thanks, Daniel

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

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]
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

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

Archoniclastic Chess. Pieces are augmented on squares of their color. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
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

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 2002-03-27 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>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 2002-03-29 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 2002-03-29 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>

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

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

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

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>

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

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

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>

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>

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

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
'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, dunno) --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 2002-03-31 UTC
Note that any CV whose rules are lost would serve as Thespis Chess. --JCL

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.

Grid Chess. Always move to a different 2 by 2 square part of the board. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
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?

58 comments displayed

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.