Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
'I wish to state a variant based on the current listed variant called 'Three Handed Chess'. My version is exactly the same layout, conditions and reasoning as 'Three Handed' except for the variation rules to eliminate ganging up on the third man.
'My method is that when attacking the man on the right and removing a piece, you get to remove the same piece from the man on the left as well. This has two effects; it shortens an otherwise very long playing game, and it means no player can afford to ignore his best chance of winning, i.e. attacking his '2 for one target', the man on the right. Also you can never trust the man on your left to leave you alone for very long. You are just too good of a target.
'Notice also that attacking is of higher value than defense. But at some point, you must try and slow your attacker down. This is a fast, aggressive game.
'However, there is one more rule; after a check, if a possible check-mate exists and the third player has not had a turn between the check and the failure of the victim to escape, the third player is guaranteed one last move to break the check-mate. If he succeeds, play continues in the normal direction from the 'third' player.'
Ha-ha! One of my old Navy buddies and I were playing Chess for Three on the corner of Hannah's bar one afternoon with somebody's 12-year-old daughter who had wandered over to see what we were doing, and wanted to play the game. Not only was she a cutie, she was quick, resolute, and absolutely brutal, and we two old fools, initially falling all over ourselves to help her out, never even had a chance. Worst stomping I've ever gotten. But ain't that life for ya? We played with three separate third guys, all named Brian, the same afternoon. Blew 'em away.
Hi, Jaan: I made a Chess for Three game on a triangular board (in the alphabetical index here) some years ago and had to deal with the same issues, of course, especially what to do with a dead King's remaining men. I've found that the two weaker players tend to gang up on the strongest anyhow, as a matter of survival, until one King falls, at which point, in my game, his pieces become inert and may be taken by either player as required to get them out of the way. My thinking was that for the capturer to be able to recruit the captured King's pieces would constitute an overpowering advantage which would preclude further fair play, although a subsequent victory by the (now) weaker player would be a very satisfying 'David vs. Goliath' feat. So how often does the disadvantaged guy win in your game? The shape of the board may affect the practicality of a rule requiring mutual assistance; on a triangular board a moment sometimes occurs when a Queen has both of the opposing Kings lined up in such a way that she can take them in sequence, taking one and 'checkmating' the other. I think that would be less likely on a board with square cells because it's easier for a targeted King to duck to one side.
What happens if e.g. player A moves a piece already in player B's kingdom to player C's? Also, how does e.g. player A move through the centre diagonal from player C's kingdom, or is that not allowed? Another possible variant would be one where player A can only capture/check trhe pieces of player B, player B those of player C, and player C those of player A. Has that ever been tried? Threats would always be non-mutual, and it could make for some interesting blocking moves.
10 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.