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 ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
Cardinal Chess. Just like orthodox Western "Mad Queen" Chess only substituting knight-bishop compound for Mad Queen. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jose Carrillo wrote on 2009-10-08 UTC
The Cardinal (called Prime Minister) was used by Gabriel Maura in his 9x9 game Modern Chess, invented in 1968.

This page is dedicated to the Prime Minister (Cardinal, Archbishop, Centaur, Adjutant, Equerry, Hawk and Janus):
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MStheprimeminist

Please let me know of interesting postitions with the Cardinal in action so that I can post them on the Prime Minister's page.

H. G. Muller wrote on 2009-10-06 UTC
This is one of the variants that I run on my Internet Chess Server. The idea is that variants like this are good exercise material for normal Chess players to get acquainted with the dynamics of Archbishop, Chancellor or Amazon. This would prepare them for Capablanca Chess and its sub-variants.

Vitya Makov wrote on 2009-10-06 UTC
Sure! I've played some games and really likes this change. All games are open with attack

Sam Trenholme wrote on 2009-10-06 UTC
Yep. Putting the Cardinal there instead of the Queen really changes the opening dynamic.

Vitya Makov wrote on 2009-10-06 UTC
1. d4 c5 2. dxc5 Na6 and now White can't hold on to the pawn, e.g. 3. Be3 e6 4. e4 Nxc5 5. Bxc5 Bxc5 and Black has an edge in development. 

4.e4 is impossible because of Be3. And why trade bishop for knight (5. Bxc5) in such position?! Why need to protect this dead pawn?!

Some variants:

d4 c5 
Nf3...

1. d4 c5 
2. dxc5 Na6
3. Nc3 (or c3 or Bf4)

I think d4 is not a very good move. It doesn't open diagonal lines for Cardinal. e4 - is the best. c4 is also good.

Sam Trenholme wrote on 2009-10-06 UTC
1. d4 c5 2. dxc5 Na6 and now White can't hold on to the pawn, e.g. 3. Be3 e6 4. e4 Nxc5 5. Bxc5 Bxc5 and Black has an edge in development.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2009-09-14 UTC
'Really diagonal is just orthogonal on a different, bigger board'
	This is something that I have illustrated with my Nested series of variants. For the implication in 3d, see my comments on Tetrahedral Chess.

'Knights are diagonal but use 2 different diagonals together that make them not colorbound'
	Not technically diagonal but I see what you mean. The moves of the Veering Knight and Backing Knight are again the orthogonals of a smaller board:
	.*....*.. ..*....*.
	...*....* *....*...
	*....*... ...*....*
	..*....*. .*....*..
	....@.... ....@....
	.*....*.. ..*....*.
	...*....* *....*...
	*....*... ...*....*
	..*....*. .*....*..

'hunters (pieces that move and capture in diferent ways)'
	It is snipers that have different noncapturing and capturing moves; hunters have different forward and backward moves (and no same-rank ones).

John Smith wrote on 2009-09-12 UTC
Maybe the Queen is easier to understand when learning Chess when it moves more like a King, because kings and queens pair in real life. In Shatranj, the corresponding piece is called a general, and generals do not pair with kings so much. In Xiang Qi, the king moves only orthogonally, maybe to pair better with the diagonal moves. Kings are really a difficult thing to choose, because it is the center of Chess and you want it to represent most pieces to   make different pieces at least seem important even if weaker.

I don't think the Queen is a more intuitive piece personally, but most people I teach Chess have problems with Knights more, and also then Cardinals. Many Chess players perceive some balance between orthogonal and diagonal, and sometimes also Knights. Really diagonal is just orthogonal on a different, bigger board and Knights are diagonal but use 2 different diagonals together that make them not colorbound.

Vitya Makov wrote on 2009-09-10 UTC
No, I think of 'leapers' as a kind of between squares (over the piece) movers.

Claudio Martins Jaguaribe wrote on 2009-09-10 UTC
Vitya.

As I said, I don't like leapers, because, to me, chess is a blocking game. But, if you see chess as a war game, you can think of leapers as a kind of artillery, firing behind the enemy line...

As for pawns, I have a softspot for pawns, all kinds, and for hunters (pieces that move and capture in diferent ways). I even looked for a variant where the pawns was in the first line, protected by the other pieces.

Vitya Makov wrote on 2009-09-08 UTC
I like (aesthetically) knight and pawn movement (both has original movement). Knight can leap, pawns captures not like moves. 

There cannot be invented real intuitive chess. Everyone has different intuition. Somebody doesn't like sliding pieces (rooks for example) etc.

Claudio Martins Jaguaribe wrote on 2009-09-08 UTC
I believe in an intermediate position...

The Queen movement is corolary to th Rook and Bishop movements, just look to a board. But it still have a aesthetic beauty. After all they are straight lines in a checkered board.

I don't think that the Knight have a beautiful movement, to me is rather weird and kind of cheating the leap and his bent path. That's why the Chancellor, the Archbishop and tha Amazon don't come to mind so easy.

The real intuitive chess would have no Knights, perhaps 2 more Bishops, and MAYBE another Queen. No pawns but short range pieces, like Wazir, Ferz and man (a kind of Alapo).

So, both of you are kind of right and wrong.

Vitya Makov wrote on 2009-09-07 UTC
'Rather, it was probably invented as the most obvious powerful and aesthetic piece' 

Very abstract for analyze of game invention! What is aesthetic piece? Are knights aesthetic?
Why then Queen not Chancellor or Cardinal (or Amazon)?

In my opinion (I'm not author of the post), 'Queen was invented on the basis of Rook+Bishop' not as independent idea. Because all inventions have basis concrete. I'm inventor (a little) and know basis of my ideas (this basis is not abstract).
Also basis of CWDA was ancient simple pieces (dabbaba, knight) and it's mixing, etc.
I think that ancient people had same logic like Betza.

John Smith wrote on 2009-09-07 UTC
I don't think the Queen was invented on the basis of Rook+Bishop. Rather, it was probably invented as the most obvious powerful and aesthetic piece pairing with the King.

14 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.