Rated Comments

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).

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

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!

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...

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.

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 chessvariants.com comment pages.

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
http://www.gamerz.net/pbmserv
In order to play in the tournament you must have a PBM userid.
Check out http://www.gamerz.net/tutorial.html and
http://www.gamerz.net/commands.html 
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 DavidNYJfan@hotmail.com
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!!

I'd like to see this article expanded to include other types of ...er..
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
Inchworms).

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.)

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!

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.

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!

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.

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! :)

I thought this page was good becuase it gave you all the rules.  They wer
eeasy to understand and showed diagrams for furthur clarification

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.

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?

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.

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

Ultima is very interesting, I play it with Zillions (not strong).
However,
I tried to find game annotations and I could not find any. It would be
nice
if you could give some games and some open sources. I wonder if there
exists opening and endgame theory.

Gert Greeuw
grw@geodelft.nl

Now that this comments page is up, I'd like to ask the regular 
readers of www.chessvariants.com to comment on Doublechess.
Doublechess is the first chess variant which I invented, and I
think it is my best one of all the ones I have created. It is my
pride and joy. At the time I submitted it to this site I had learned
that I was just a few months too late to enter it into the Large
Variants contest that was being held at the time. What a pity!
I feel that Doublechess would have been a very strong contender,
but by the time I first learned of this site's existence, the 
deadline for submissions for the contest had passed.

Doublechess' page on this site is unique in many ways. You
won't find too many other games on this site which have sample
games linked to it, and one of the games is annotated in detail.
(The link to my 'Doublechess web site' is no longer valid.)
Doublechess can be played by email on Richard's Play By Email
server, and I frequently conduct Doublechess tournaments on PBM.
The next one may be beginning in a few months and I will post
an announcement about it here (as I did recently for the forthcoming
Omegachess tournament which I will be running on PBM as well) when
I am ready to begin it.

Doublechess is a very simple variant. Simply lay two 8 by 8 chess
boards side by side. Use two chess sets, and replace the second
set of kings with a third set of queens. (if one does not have a
third set of chess queen pieces handy, substitutes can be used until
they are captured. Coins work well, for instance, a penny for a
white queen and a nickel for a black queen.) Set up the first army
of pieces in the traditional setup (RBNQKBRN) in files E to L
and the second army out in the wings (RBNQ, QBNR) in files A to D
and M to P. 

You will notice a few interesting strategic points about Doublechess.
Opposing bishops start along the same diagonals as each other,
often promting them to be quickly traded off if the opportunity
presents itself. If they avoid an early exchange, bishops of like
color can double themselves along the same diagonal to form a battery
in much the same way that one might double their rooks along the same
file in chess. Notice that whereas white begins with two dark squared
bishops on the left side of the board, or queenside (in Doublechess
terminology,
the 'queenside' refers to files A to H, and 'kingside' refers to
files I to P, mimicking the same sides of the boards which these
terms refer to in regular chess), and black has two light squared
bishops on the queenside. Likewise, white has two light squared
bishops to start the game on the kingside, and black has two dark
squared bishops on each side. Each side can try to exploit the other's
weaknesses on light or dark squares on each half of the board.

The way the board is set up, as players begin to develop their pieces
and pawns, the pieces tend to engage each other on each half of the
board in about the same amount of time as they do in regular chess.
In the middle game it is often the case where pieces will be interacting
with each other and threatening each other on each half of the board
completely independent from what is going on on the other side of the
board. In some ways then, Doublechess is like playing two games in one,
though one really needs to look at the board as a whole to truly
understand and appreciate the game.

There are other strategic differences between Doublechess and regular
chess which make my variant exciting and unique. It is more common
to sacrifice material for attack in Doublechess than it is in regular
chess, since one has so much material at one's disposal to attack with.
In Doublechess then, obviously king safety becomes extremely important.
Thus another axiom of dc is that it is quite possible to win despite
a material disadvantage, more often than one can overcome such a
deficit in regular chess. As long as one has enough pieces to launch
an attack, they can make things interesting.

I should also point out that the one rule that is unique and 
distinctive to Doublechess is the castling rule (see dc's page for
full explanation of the castling rule), and the pros and cons of
long castling vs. short castling can be long debated. It's another
twist to the game which makes it interesting. 

One advantage that my variant has over other CVs is that it only 
uses orthodox pieces, so it is very easy to learn how to play.
Perhaps more than any other CV, Doublechess has the 'feel' of regular
chess. There is a ZRF file available for download at the bottom of
Doublechess' page. I urge everyone who has not played it yet who owns
ZILLIONS OF GAMES to download Doublechess and try it out.
I welcome comments from everyone, pro or con, as to how they would
rate Doublechess as a chess variant. What are this variants'
strengths and weaknesses? Finally I would say that, although I 
realize I am very biased in the matter ;-)  I feel that Doublechess
is such an excellent variant that it deserves consideration as one
of this site's 'Recognized Chess Variants'  and as inventor of this
game I am necessarily disqualified from nominating it to that position.
Might someone else who has an equal appreciation for this game take
up the gauntlet and nominate it along with an eloquent essay on my
game's merits?

It would seem that I am not the first person to create a CV on an
11 by 11 board. (see my SPINAL TAP CHESS) It  would be interesting
to play a game of TERROR CHESS (for WHITE) vs. SPINAL TAP CHESS
(for BLACK) as a game of Chess Between Different Armies !!!

PETER ARONSON I challenge you to create a ZRF for such a game
IMMEDIATELY!! :-) I could then challenge Brian Wong to a game by
email! (if anyone has his address!) (mine is DavidNYJfan@hotmail.com)

though I suspect that TERROR CHESS has the more powerful army!
Then again who can say for sure?

 
                     TERROR CHESS vs.  SPINAL TAP CHESS

A game of Chess Between Different Armies created by
David Short with thanks to Brian Wong.


                 a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h   i   j   k
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
           11  |*R*|*S*|*W*|*V*|*Q*|*K*|*M*|*W*|*V*|*S*|*R*| 11
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
           10  |*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*Cr|*Cr|*Cr|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*| 10
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            9  |   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |  9
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            8  |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|  8
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            7  |   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |  7
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            6  |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|  6
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            5  |   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |  5
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            4  |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|  4
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            3  |   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |  3
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            2  |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:|  2
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
            1  | R |:B:| N |:C:| A |:K:| Q |:Mr| B |:N:| R |  1
               +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
                 a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h   i   j   k


Diagram index:

R- ROOK
B- BISHOP
N- KNIGHT
C- CARDINAL
A- AMAZON
K- KING
Q- QUEEN
Mr- MARSHALL
P- PAWN


Cr- CRAB
S- SQUIRE
V- VICEROY
W- WIZARD
M- MINISTER


Pawns move 1, 2, or 3 squares on their initial move and the en
passant rule is the same as it is in OMEGACHESS.
Each side may castle as its game's rules dictate.

How about the Tripunch Terrors, another army to compete against the
Fabulous FIDEs? :-) King and Pawns are standard. The rest of the pieces are
from Tripunch Chess, but they flip as pieces do in Weakest Chess- these
pieces have capturing and non-capturing modes, and can flip (as a move)
from one to the other. To keep the pawn line defended, the Reapers and
Combine start in capturing mode; the others start in non-capturing mode.

If flipping pieces are half as strong as regular pieces (and that seems to
be the estimate in the Weakest Chess article), then the Tripunch Terrors
are about 4 Pawns too strong as described. So we remove the ability to move
as a Bishop from the Harvesters and Combine... and then we should have a
game. So here's the official lineup: the Flipping Reaper, the Flipping
Nightrider, the Flipping Aanca, and the Flipping... the Flipping...

Give me some time. I'll come up with a name for that last one. :-D

It would seem that TERROR CHESS is identical to THE SULTAN'S GAME

http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/sultan.html

with the exception that the positions of the marshall and
cardinal are reversed. THE SULTAN'S GAME pre-dates TERROR CHESS
on this web site by three years. 

Nevertheless I still propose that my idea above for a variant
of chess between different armies would be intriguing. 

Oh and I would suggest variants with and alternately without
the 'Battle Move' when programming the ZRF for the above proposed
new variant. Players can decide for themselves which they prefer
to use.

Gee, now I wonder where he could have gotten the idea for this game,
huh? Well, you know what they say, 'immitation is the sincerest form
of flattery' so I guess I should be honored, eh? To anyone who is
not overly familiar with this web site I suggest you scroll down
on this comments page and click on the link for Double Chess below
or find it in the alphabetical index (the one with my name next to it).


Anyone can create a variant on a 16 by 8 board but it's not going to
have the same 'feel' of regular chess like my variant Doublechess does.
I have always felt that games with two kings are flawed. Chess should
be single-minded. Checkmate one king, period!

Tony, what you say about the added or diminished relative scopes of
the knights and bishops in double-board variants is true, just as
it is in larger variants to begin with (the knight is an extremely
weak piece in 10 by 10 variants) but the beauty of a game like my
Doublechess variant which I invented is that the knights still 
have their roles to play. Like I said before, pieces on each half
of the board tend to engage each other at the same rate they do in
regular chess. Pawns challenge each other, knights move up to the
third (or sixth rank, for black) rank to attack enemy pawns,
files open up for rooks and queens, diagonals open up for bishops
and queens. 

I think one point that needs to be made here is that in
Full Double Chess, stronger pieces are used, and that's fine,
if you are a player who likes new fangled pieces that can do neat
little tricks and jump through hoops. My Doublechess is more traditional,
uses only orthodox pieces and has the look and feel of traditional 
regular chess. So whether a game like my Doublechess or the new
Full Double Chess appeals to someone is going to be a matter of personal
taste, I guess. 

p.s. I would still like to encourage people to add comments below to
my Doublechess variant, for which I began a discussion.

I've played it and I agree with Ralph--the best way to introduce randomness
into Chess.

A checkmate rule I find satisfactory:
If a player is mated by a single move, the game is over.
If a player is mated by two consecutive moves, if taking two consecutive
moves would relieve the mate, the mated player wins the next toss
automatically and can play two moves.

For stalemate the rule is the same.

Perhaps Tutti Frutti Chess could be considered a Half Board version of
Double Chess, because it uses all possible combinations of the basic pieces
on an 8x8 board.

However, Double Chess has the interesting thought of having two Kings,
which seems to be an excellent inspiration for making sense of such a wide
board.

I do like this game, although the Cavalier is a very 'irregular piece'.
I propose to replace it's movement by the one of the Croocked Bishop!
This
would produce a very enjoyable game, don't you agree? :-))
The other pieces, I believe, are well balanced for 10x10 board, and the
fact that Knights depart from the 2nd row turns them more valuable in the
opening and during the rest of the game (a problem with other 10x10 board
variants that place them on the 1st row!).

Please comment me on this to: nuno_cruz78@hotmail.com