The votes in this contest were done anonymously over the web with the aid of some PHP scripts I wrote. This file was largely generated by a PHP script. Voters gave each game a letter grade and wrote some comments on the game. They were not required to give comments with every vote, but the only voter who failed to give comments with any votes failed to give comments on all votes, and his votes were deleted before the winners were determined, because voters had to comment on at least some of the games. So every vote here includes some comments.
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
I like this variant a lot. I have played it with both Zillions and with a four-player set whose colors happened to match the colors used in the game. I like being able to move a piece from each of two different armies during my turn. This opens up possibilities for different kinds of strategies. One of my strategies in playing this game, which came to me the moment I first played it, is to concentrate my attacks on one of my opponent's armies.
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
This is a very nice game, with a lot of unexpected twists and turns. The multiple victory conditions prevent endless endgames. The division of each side into two armies, each of which moves once in a players turn, allows for some juicy tactics where you attack one of your opponent's armies with both of yours. The rule that you can move your armies in either order make this game distinct from four-player Chess variants played two-handed.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
I never liked chess games with 3+ players, since there is no good way to resolve all the petty diplomacy problems around them. Anyway, this variant proposes a different approach to it. Create 4 armies, each player commands 2 of them. Like a split Marsellais chess army game. I was expecting less, and to my surprise, I enjoyed to play it! Perhaps the pawns are too strong, but it may be necessary (I didn't play that much).
B- : A good variant with some room for improvement
Nice game if you like multiplayer games. Seems a lot like some other 4-player chess games I've seen except this one has fewer pieces.
C+ : A bit better than the average Chess variant
My initial reaction was: "Berolina Pawns. Cool!" Then I read that they were regular Pawns, marching along until they bump into the edge of the board. Why? And why move two squares, when you have nowhere to go anyway?
C : Average as far as Chess variants go
Perhaps you should change the name of the game to "2 Armies Chess" since it has changed into strictly a 2-player game.
C : Average as far as Chess variants go
Look, there are four armies, each with a full set of chess pieces, a design that allows for access to all 3 enemies, and the name 4-Armies. The game is a 4 player chess variant, but the author tried to pass it of as 2 player. Was there something wrong with it being a 4 player variant?
D+ : It has potential, but it needs improvement
I tried this with 4 players and everyone cried foul at some stage, it's good for a wet sunday in January.
Total Voters: 8
Average (Mean) Rating: 2.49
Popularity Index:
3.90
A- : One of the best I've ever played
Lots of pieces to clash and interact with each other. Lots of chances for tactical situations. Interesting new pieces. A unique and interesting game. It's my vote to win the contest.
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
Well this is my chess variant. So I must not speak much here. But I just wanna say that this chess variant is the result of months of experiments and trials :)
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
The very presence of an assassin on a ces board instantly changes your mindset (its sanctioning is a powerful addition) However I found there were too many pieces to play with and the flying issue didn't grab me. Edit three rows down to two and you have an potentially explosive game.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
Upon reconsideration, what I first saw as chaotic is really just a wealth of options. This variant isn't bad tasting, just highly spiced :). The flying generals are a particularly nice feature.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
On the surface, this game seems like it has too many powerful pieces. But after playing it, I find that the pieces are not overpowered. The Gold and Silver Generals, while they are very mobile, have very limited capturing abilities, and the Lion, while have great capturing density, has limited range.
Personally, I found the number of leaping pieces to be a bit distracting. Keeping track of camels, cannons, knights, lions, elephants, and the gold and silver generals I found to be difficult (alas, my opponent did not). Also, the sheer number of unique pieces makes this game difficult to play on a physical board. And one other note: this game is truly LARGE, and does take a significant investment of time and energy to play. But it is worth it.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
I like the wide variety of pieces in this game. At the beginning of the game, it seems overcrowded, and development is slow. I'm anxious to get my pieces out, but the congestion from three rows of pieces makes that difficult. Despite losing the quicker development of other Chess variants, this game has charms of its own. With such a wide variety of pieces, good play turns more on understanding the relative values of pieces. It doesn't turn so much on this in Chess, because most players know that a Pawn is 1, Knights and Bishops 3, Rooks 5, and Queen 9. But relative values among the pieces in this game are not so settled, and this allows a player's assessment of a piece's value to make more of a difference in game play. Querying Zillions about a piece's value is not going to help resolve the matter, because Zillions sometimes makes mistakes in assessing piece value, especially for pieces which move and capture differently, as many of the pieces in this game do. The pieces in this game are an interesting selection, widely ranging in their powers of movement. Some are very weak. Some have strong attacking powers but move slowly. Others can move across the board quickly but have weaker attacking powers.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
I wasn't very enthusiastic about this game at first, probably because of the unattractive (to say the least) graphics, but in fact it is very playable, with the right amount of power on the right space. The Gold General, Silver General and Assassin are somewhat strange, but work well; I also like the idea of promoting the Elephant (Alfil) to a Bishop. Two critical remarks: the Camel should not be called `Deve' in the English description of the game (if the description were in Turkish, there is no way a piece could be called `Camel', is there?); and the Lion is not really the Murray Lion (that one can't make a quiet move to an adjacent square, it can only capture there).
C : Average as far as Chess variants go
I always thought that too much pieces different pieces is the same board game, only confuses the player when he is trying to create an attack strategy. Perhaps that is a cause of the ignorance of Al-Ces moving and capturing ways, but that is only one more thing to prevent the game's popularization. My feeling is that on those type of games, is best to introduce just one or two fairy pieces on the board, so a Chess player can use them properly. The Assassin is an interesting piece, I like it!
C : Average as far as Chess variants go
Exploding pieces, such as the Assassin, do not appeal to me. I would be happier if the Assassins were replaced by Berolina Pawns, or some other weak piece. On the other hand, promoting the Elephants is a good idea. Perhaps it would be more in the spirit of older chess variants to have the following three rules. (1) When the Elephant moves to the home square of the opponent's Bishop, it may promote to a Bishop or stay as it is.(2) When the Elephant moves to the home square of the opponent's Camel, it may promote to a Camel or stay as it is. (3) When a Pawn (also Berolina Pawn) reaches the last rank, it must be replaced by a piece of the same color - not a Pawn, King, or Elephant. *N*O*T*E* the Elephants have a very limited movement - I believe that there are no other last rank squares that can be reached by Elephants in this game.
C : Average as far as Chess variants go
First, the rules assume a rather extensive knowledge of other chess variants. Second, the piece ratios are off. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate it, I'm just saying that at least the instructions need changing.
Total Voters: 10
Average (Mean) Rating: 2.83
Popularity Index:
8.30
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
I like originality, and this is the most original concept in chess variants I've ever seen: the pieces are right next to each other, yet they can't attack each other. Brilliant!
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
When I first looked at this game, I honestly didn't think very much of it. But playing against Zillions, and watching Zillions play itself I have decided that there is actually quite a bit of charm to this game, and some interesting decisions to make.
B- : A good variant with some room for improvement
I rate it this high because it seems to be a rather imaginative and interesting game. Personally however it is not my choice to win the contest. Any game which does not allow the pieces to engage each other in the traditional chess way is not my cup of tea.
C+ : A bit better than the average Chess variant
B2B innovates in just one sense, the board topology (which is nice for new players to catch on quickly) but I believe this innovation goes on a difficult direction, it prevents piece development cutting the center board topology, and spliting the board into two battle zones. The idea is interesting, a player should think were to send each piece, but there is much lateral moves to my taste. However, I was much more pessimistic before playing it. The game didn't went that bad, so I must drop some of my doubts about it.
C : Average as far as Chess variants go
Although splitting the battlefield into two separate areas is an interesting idea, the game hasn't appealed to me very much. I prefer Chess variants where both armies face each other across a single battlefield.
D : It seems unimpressive and/or uninteresting
I couldn't get my head around this, i found it too gimmicky and contrived.
F+ : One of the worst I've ever played
Development is a time-consuming nightmare. Pawns movements and strategy are confusing. Competition throughout the game is handicapped by the "barrier". All attacks necessarily entail extensions to the flank, at angles from the "barrier", which are often disadvantageous. Hence, there is no incentive for either player to attack.
Total Voters: 7
Average (Mean) Rating: 2.09
Popularity Index:
0.60
F+ : One of the worst I've ever played
Can't say it's a good idea to present an untested game as an entry to the contest. I haven't tested it either, for the simple reason that I don't quite understand the rules (and I'm a near-native Russian speaker). Surely the Chess Variants team would've been able to give a hand in getting the rules written up in intelligible English -- if they had been asked to do so! Alternatively, some examples and diagrams might've been helpful. Anyway ... a variety of men (women, rather -- assuming that what is called a Marquess was meant to be a Marchioness), including some potentially interesting ones, but no coherence, no ideology to hold the whole thing together. And the reader is left to wonder why the board is the shape it is (only so as to not be ten by ten square?) and why the pieces whose names correspond to higher ranks of the peerage aren't always the stronger ones.
Total Voters: 1
Average (Mean) Rating: 0.30
Popularity Index:
-1.70
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
Like the Touranian variant, the pains involved with creating the new piece and its move is most of the battle. Of all the variants this is my favourite as it comes up with the goods for attack and defence with excellent subtleties. In fact the rules have seriously made me reconsider some of my pieces. Author must come up with some real names instead of abbreviations Sol and Big Bat are a sign of laziness.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
This game is based on the idea of making the pieces in Chess stronger for a larger board. Almost every piece is more powerful than its counterpart in Chess, and it introduces a new piece, called a Prince, which is an enhanced Amazon. This would be too much power for any piece if the King moved as it does in Chess, but the King in this game is powerful enough to checkmate an ordinary King on its own. So that helps keep things balanced. It seems to be a well-balanced game, but for my tastes at least, the pieces in this game may all be a bit too powerful. The King, Queen, and Prince can all jump adjacent pieces, and the Knight can make two moves from its back rank, which makes it a very powerful defensive piece. Some of these extra powers may be a bit too much.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
This game has potential. Interesting new pieces, but not too many new pieces to have to learn.
B- : A good variant with some room for improvement
This is a very polished, well put together Chess variant, but it doesn't supercede FIDE Chess, no matter what the box might say. It shows signs of the principle that you can't change one part of game without affecting other parts. Clearly there's been a series of incremental changes that led to the current design, however, the result may be further from FIDE Chess than was originally intended. But that's OK, as, taken as its own game, Big Battle is a pretty good game, even though it isn't exactly my cup of tea (I find the supermobile King annoying).
C- : Almost as good as the average Chess variant
A somewhat traditional way to enlarge the chess board, and at the same time increase each piece power, in order to get approx. the same balance as in FIDE chess. I try it, and I think it's inferior if you compare with Grand Chess, for eg. Anyway, the balance seems ok. I really didn't like the extra powers of the King. It increases the rule complexity without that much advantages.
C- : Almost as good as the average Chess variant
A word to marketing types: never say that a product supersedes a classic. That can only be the verdict of history. My money is on Chess still being on game store shelves long after Big Battle (and all the other games in this contest) has gone the way of the 8-track tape. Now to the game itself. The creator had the right idea in souping up the game pieces of normal Chess, making them more mobile to compensate for the bigger board. However, some of the pieces are not to my liking. The Big Battle Knight in particular, with its added powers when it is on the home row, is far too convoluted to lend itself to clear thinking. And the King is far too mobile for my tastes. However, the game as a whole is fast moving.
C- : Almost as good as the average Chess variant
This variant is nice in the fact that all of the pieces recieve some kind of boost to compensate for the larger board. I don't like the king's move, though. It would take 2 rooks and 1 queen to cake-walk the king down, and none of the pieces can checkmate that king with only another king to aid them. At least, not as far as I can see.
D+ : It has potential, but it needs improvement
A reasonable attempt to make the army stronger, so as to justify the use of a larger board. It's a pity, though, that the equation Q=R+B no longer holds (since the Queen can do something that neither the Rook nor the Bishop can). And since the Prince is stronger than the Queen, shouldn't each army have one of him and two of her? Lastly, I have no use for the hype, and am making a deduction for it (the rules of the contest did contain a warning against that sort of thing).
Total Voters: 8
Average (Mean) Rating: 2.30
Popularity Index:
2.40
B- : A good variant with some room for improvement
I like the way the board is set up, except for the way the king can back himself up into one of those little corners. It just seems to easy to me to build a strong defensive position.
C+ : A bit better than the average Chess variant
Well, I have played again one or two games of this variant. It is a very strategical variant, where the war is a slow process. The hole in the center slows down the movement. It is a variant to be played in the elder years, or when you have long long times to evaluate the growing positions etc. The thing I did not like is that, that hole impedes the pawns, and those two pawns are almost useless throughout the game.
C : Average as far as Chess variants go
I can't say I find this very interesting. The board is new, but not particularly different. The pieces (except for the addition of the Marshall) are standard, and no changes are made in them for a board that is 11 squares deep instead of 8.
C : Average as far as Chess variants go
"These extra squares make for excellent hiding places for the kings." True enough in the opening, so the players may choose not to castle. But the four black-square corners of this board make for strange endgames. How would you ever force mate with King, Knight, and Bishop(white-squared) against a lone King? More generally, a player's two Bishops are not of equal value.
C : Average as far as Chess variants go
This is a straightforward "big board" variant with few new pieces and modest rule changes. That said, however, I did not find it especially engaging. Even with the ability of "quick pawns" to move three on their opening, it takes time to bring up each sides' pieces and engage. The 'chancellor' (knight plus rook) piece helps in having another dynamic piece to cover the long distances (11x9, +1) of the the basic layout. The 'black hole' acts unobtrusively but importantly to divide some of the action (as in my Back to Back variant). The endgame can center on one quadrant of the board.
C- : Almost as good as the average Chess variant
I think this would be a better game without the hole in the middle. Although diverting the action to the sidelines is an interesting idea, it generally hurts gameplay.
D : It seems unimpressive and/or uninteresting
Nothing terribly new. I wonder if there is some point in placing a King into such a narrow square.
D : It seems unimpressive and/or uninteresting
The idea of boring a hole in the middle so as to avoid the traditional battle for the centre is not a bad one. But there is something unnatural about this board (esp. the outstanding squares, whose exclusive purpose of filling up the number is too transparent). And then there is the problem of Pawns being blocked by the hole, for which no solution is proposed.
Total Voters: 8
Average (Mean) Rating: 1.84
Popularity Index:
-1.30
A : A truly exceptional variant
I am giving my own game an exceptionally high mark because that seems to be the done thing here. But the fact is that I am well pleased with Cardmate. It started as a mere whim, a desire to experiment with a marriage between chess and a family of games of an entirely dissimilar nature, but then it developed into a game with a character of its own, and its design and strategy turned out to be a good deal richer than I had anticipated.
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
I like the ingenuity of this game. The idea of using cards for pieces is a good one to try out. Although it may seem like this game adds too many new pieces to remember, there is actually a pattern to the new pieces that makes it easy to remember how they move. From one through seven, the numbered cards can each cover as many spaces as the number on the card (not counting the non-capturing backward move each one can make). And there is a pattern to how this works. Any one that is odd can move straight forward, whereas no even card can. All above 1 can move diagonally forward. All above 3 can move sideways. All above 5 can move diagonally backward. The other number cards and most of the face cards correspond to regular Chess pieces, which makes sense. The only new piece among these is the Jack, which moves as the Chancellor from King's Court. So it isn't too hard to remember how the pieces move. I also like how suits are incorporated into the game with special capturing rules for cards of the same suit. My main complaint about the game is a practical issue. I made my own set out of a deck of miniature sized cards, and it would be more convenient if each card were only one piece. My complaint is that the Ace doubles for two different pieces. I know that this makes sense from a card-playing perspective, because an Ace is normally both the lowest and higest card in a game. It makes a difference only from the perspective of making a set for the game. Anyway, I just put a penny on one to distinguish it from the other. Overall, this game is a good blending of Chess with various elements from card games.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
Very interesting, if a bit hard on the eyes. While it plays well enough, I must admit that a lot of the reason for the grade is because I find the idea of combining cards and Chess very appealing, and the author has done an elegant job of combining them. The rule that within a suit, only higher cards can capture lower cards, and then it is obligatory, also adds some addditional tactical interest, and keeps Cardmate from being just another large Chess variant with funny names for the pieces.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
I really liked the way you increased the number of possible pieces from 13 to 14. It makes me wonder, are you superstitious? No matter, the game is a fine game, though I still have some trouble committing the moves to memory.
C : Average as far as Chess variants go
The concept of using playing cards as chess pieces is intriguing (I've played with the idea myself), but this game is a bit slow. Most of the pieces move only one square per turn, and on a 100 square board, that's time consuming. Giving the pieces more long-range abilities would make this a much more dynamic game.
D- : Not among the worst, but it's a bad game
Way too damn complicated to learn how to play.
F+ : One of the worst I've ever played
I start to read the rules, and my eyes got hypnotized with the size of them. Each different card has different moves. The game was probably better, if you gave cards 1 to 7 same move/capture potential plus the hierarquical capturing, it would simplify the rules, and keep some resemblance to chess pawns. Another point, each set should have 13 cards, not 14, in order to use a deck of cards in this game (you could cut a little of each card on one side, to use to shogi reusing stuff). It needs a lot of more work. However, the idea of using a deck of cards is nice!
Total Voters: 7
Average (Mean) Rating: 2.33
Popularity Index:
2.30
A- : One of the best I've ever played
The main original idea of this variant is the board topology, a strange 3D world, where 3 planes intersect each other. I play it and I find that it was amusing. It's unexpected to find 3 little boards, instead of a larger one!
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
I found this a lot of fun to play, even if Zillions usually did clean my clock :). One thing I didn't expect though, was for a 100-square variant to have the feel of a small board variant. I suppose for a 3D Chess variant, 100 squares *is* small. The central squares worked well in keeping lines of attack open.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
This is a three-dimensional variant, which automatiacally raises it a grade. I think the world would be better off with more three-dimensional games. It also has a design that makes me want to slap my head and say "Why didn't I think of that?"
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
As far as 3D games go, this is a good one. It is easier for me than other 3D games I have tried. Having the central squares shared by all three levels works out well. I'm generally not a fan of 3D games, but this one has more appeal for me than 3D games usually have.
D+ : It has potential, but it needs improvement
The board was too wieldy, I kept going into backgammon mode.
Total Voters: 5
Average (Mean) Rating: 2.80
Popularity Index:
4.00
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
This is an interesting alternative, I played this with strangers on a long haul flight, we were hooked.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
The board has a unique starting setup, which I like, but it seems to easy for white to continuously check the king at the expense of all his "black" bishops. Than again, I suppose it would take quite a fool to exhaust his/her pieces like that within the first 15 moves of the game.
C- : Almost as good as the average Chess variant
There are too much power in the 10x10 board. I play a couple of games but I didn't like the game dynamics. Many pieces may attack the same square. Perhaps the Queens should be removed and the setup reworked, in order to each player use both bishops and rooks in a more balanced way.
C- : Almost as good as the average Chess variant
I suspect how much you like this game depends on which aspects of Chess you like. I find the play -- with nothing but sliding pieces, and a very small variety of pieces -- rather reminds me of games of the Tafl family (this is not necessarily negative, as I like Tafl). But with so few types of pieces, and no weak pieces, I find the play dry and excessively abstract for my tastes. But it is not without amusement value.
D : It seems unimpressive and/or uninteresting
A rather silly game which invites massive piece trades and very difficult to use conventional chess tactics in a game like this.
D : It seems unimpressive and/or uninteresting
Philidor called the pawn the soul of chess, and the knight is without question one of the most interesting pieces; without these two, what is left of the game?
D- : Not among the worst, but it's a bad game
I don't like this game. It has a variety of flaws. There are no Pawns or anything equivalent, which makes it harder to protect the King and to set up other defensive structures. There are fewer types of pieces than in Chess, and there are too many of the few types that are in the game. The game starts in the middle game, and it doesn't get interesting until many piece exchanges have happened to winnow down the excess Rooks and Bishops. Pieces can't even be moved to protect the King without either checking the enemy King or allowing a Rook to get pinned by a Bishop. One of the things I like about Chess is the ability to play pieces of different abilities against each other. This game feels more like Checkers, which I don't enjoy as much, because so many of the pieces have the same powers of movement.
Total Voters: 7
Average (Mean) Rating: 1.77
Popularity Index:
-1.60
A : A truly exceptional variant
As the creator of Grand Cavalier Chess, I'm glad that people have commented on it. But I would like to dispute some of the comments people have made about it. There are no Knights in the game. Pawns are replaced with Cavaliers, not with Knights. Cavaliers move as Chinese Chess Knights, not as FIDE Knights. This means they can be blocked and do not jump pieces. Given that each player begins with nine jumping pieces and nine non-jumping pieces, the Queen is not so out of place as she might seem. One of the things I wanted to do with this game was to keep the pieces from all becoming too much alike. Replacing the Queen with a Paladin would defeat this goal. It is also why I added a Cannon to Grand Cavalier Chess. I wanted a piece that could attack another piece without putting itself in danger from the piece it is attacking. So I didn't want to add another piece that moved like a Knight. Instead, I wanted a piece that would shake things up and keep things moving. The Cannon does this well, and the Queen does it to a lesser degree. Also, I disagree with the idea that the Knight King is too powerful. Given how the Knight King moves, the Queen and Marshall are both major pieces; the Paladin and Nightrider are both minor pieces; and two Paladins are equivalent to a major piece, but two Nightriders are not. This exactly parallels Chess, in which the Queen and Rook are major pieces; the Bishop and Knight are minor pieces; and two Bishops are equivalent to a major piece, but two Knights are not.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
I think it's proper to give some remarks about the game made by the nice host of this tournament :) Indeed, the games draws inspiration form Grand Chess setup, and seems to have a nice balance. The change of pawns for knights is a BIG leap forward :-) into a more tactical game, and less positional. However, I saw the Queen as a complete outsider in this game (even the King and Cannon can jump). I would replace it by another jumping piece (perhaps by the paladin, and replace the paladins by two knight+ferz (or wazir), or something as powerful as that.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
The placement of the Cannons is brilliant! Makes for great fun trying to analyse possible openings. But I believe the "Knight King" is too strong. I am going to take the unusual step of suggesting a change in the game rules. Let the "New King" move like a Knight or two squares orthogonally. Consider this checkmate position: White New King on (a1), Black Queen on (b2). Clearly it is easier for many of the pieces to attack this New King.
B- : A good variant with some room for improvement
I think this is a much better game than regular Cavalier Chess; if (nearly) everyone is going to move as a knight, then they need a lot of space! And the addition of the Cannons is a welcome attenuation of the `give every man a knight's move' thing, which I feel is being pushed to too much of an extreme in Cavalier.
Total Voters: 4
Average (Mean) Rating: 3.17
Popularity Index:
4.70
A- : One of the best I've ever played
I really enjoyed playing this one. I especially liked the special edge squares that mixes very well with the draught-like capturing. The must capture rule balances very well with the edge uncapturable status.
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
As the author, I can rate this variant anyway I want, secure in the knowledge that it won't be counted at the end. I must admit I'm fond of it, and I am not of all of my creations. Jumping Chess was intended as an experiment in mapping Chess from replacement capture to capture by jumping, and that the resulting game seems pretty playable is a nice bonus. And while it plays very differently from orthodox chess, a fair of amount of Chess's character does come through, which implies that Chess's character lies mostly in other parts of the game than the method of capture.
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
I actually played one or two games in this variant with the inventor. It is indeed a good game, fastly evolving, with always some movement on the board. It has the taste of the "open games" in orthodoz chess. Another plus for this game is that it is easy to transfer your knowledge from chess, by just putting the idea of capturing by jumping. And it is an interesting and creative idea that capturing is obligatory if you are at the edge, where it is almost impossible to be captured. The only negative aspect of this game, if there is one, is that people who got used to playing orthodox chess may not like the difference made by changing the capturing style.
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
I found this game to be quite fun to play, although the method of capturing does take some getting used to. The addition of the extra rows and columns makes it easier to capture edge pieces. Allowing only capturing pieces to move into the extra squares seems to work quite well. Defensive development works completely different than in orthodox chess, as pieces cluster together to literally back each other up. Lone pieces, even if the squares they are on are protected, are vulnerable.
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
This game has a very novel approach to capture, which I like. I also like how it keeps the basic pieces with a minimum of movement changes.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
This game is based on an intriguing idea, to combine Chess with how pieces are captured in Checkers. The combination of these ideas is ultimately inferior to Chess itself, but it is not without interest. Having to capture by jumping makes capturing and attacking more difficult, which can be annoying for anyone used to the usual method of capturing by displacement, but the game opens up new kinds of strategy and tactics. It is a very different kind of strategy game than regular Chess is, but it is worth playing, because it requires new sorts of thinking.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
A rather interesting game. Takes a while to get used to the new method of capturing. Not a bad game at all. Has potential.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
Fascinating idea - I really want this game to work! But the "capture from the edge" rule bothers me. I would be happier with the more limited EDGE RULE: A player with a King on an edge square that has a possible capture must make that capture, even if it results in their King being captured. This would prevent the Kings from hiding on the edge for very long.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
Good points are a different but intuitively manageable board; no piece changes; and a small tweak to the rules that simultaneously changes the game, keeps it familiar, and accommodates the challenges of a large 100-square board. Jumping not only changes tactics, it changes the range of pieces as well- everyone gets an extra square, or more, to move. The dificulty (without extensive practice) is in remembering the tricky moves that the computer can get up to while jumping.
B- : A good variant with some room for improvement
I really like this one. Having the pieces jump to capture instead of displacing is a stroke of genius. It made this game a true chess variant instead of simply normal chess played on a bigger board. Also, the rule that pieces on the edges must capture whenever possible is a very wise addition. It lends itself to a very different strategy from normal chess.
C+ : A bit better than the average Chess variant
The idea of chess with overtaking capture obviously has much potential, and I like the way the Knight's capture is implemented. However, because of the special status of the edge squares (which implies that they are destined to be empty most of the time), they don't feel as though they are really part of the board, and the central part is rather overcrowded. The visual design of the ZoG implementation leaves much to be desired (for one thing, the pieces are too big for the squares). Otoh, the HTML description is excellent.
F : The very worst Chess variant I've ever played.
You should forget about playing checkers. It is an elementary game for elementary minds. Capture by replacement is more efficient and its strategy carries a geometric, visual aspect which capture by jumping distorts.
Total Voters: 12
Average (Mean) Rating: 2.82
Popularity Index:
9.90
A+ : One of the all-time greatest variants ever
Since this is my entry, I know my vote doesn't count, but I would just like to say my piece. The heart and soul of chess (and, by extension, of chess variants) is in the pieces, not the board, so I believe that any worthwhile chess variant would have pieces that are substantially different from those of normal chess. As for why I made a game with different armies...well, I know it has been done before, but I don't believe it was done to this extent, where even the royal pieces move differently.
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
The cause is noble, making chess unisexual. And, despite what others may say, I believe that disbalanced forces in a game really allow a person's personality to come to play.
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
In line with its literary purpose, Mad Chess attempts to be a Chess-like game but not a variation of Chess (cf. Jetan), and I think it does a good job of that. There is an interesting array of novel pieces, some of which I'm sure we'll see in many games yet to be invented, and it is obvious that much hard work has gone into balancing the two armies, composed as they are of different men (an intriguing idea in its own right). One flaw I find is that the two sides' royal pieces are rather too mobile, as are the pawns, and that makes for some very long endgames. (Then again, the Pawns in Ultima, one of the most remarkable games in my book, are also highly mobile.)
B- : A good variant with some room for improvement
On the plus side, this variant adds many interesting new pieces, and it is fun to pit armies of different abilities against each other. There is a different kind of challenge in this than there is in Chess variants with equal armies. On the down side, this game may be unbalanced. Nevertheless, it is not grossly unbalanced. In 4 tests I ran with Zillions of Games playing itself at this game, black and white each won 2 games. But in playing both sides against Zillions, I got the sense that it is imbalanced in favor of white. In two games I played, I won as white and lost as black. Also, white seems to have the better pieces overall. The Unicorn is a much better attacking piece than the Rhynokeri; the Valkyrie is more maneuverable than the Berserker; the General is a great defensive piece, but the Warlord is not; the Jester is a stronger piece than the Fool; the Steelqueen is better at escaping check than the Stoneking; and Crazy Footsoldiers are more maneuverable and better at making defensive structures than Mad Infantrymen are. In Black's favor, the Spectre might be a slightly better piece than the Steeldragon. I think this would be a more balanced game if the stronger pieces and their weaker counterparts were more evenly mixed between the two sides. Nevertheless, learning how to win as Black is a worthwhile and interesting challenge, making this game worth coming back to.
C+ : A bit better than the average Chess variant
This is a wildly inventive game -- perhaps too inventive. With the super-mobile Pawns and the Kings that move as Knight + Ferz or Knight + Wazir, the game is fluid to the point of Chaos, and many of the pieces are gratuitously strange. And while there is nothing wrong with Chess with different armies (see Ralph Betza's work on the Chess Variant Pages), I'm not sure this game is really balanced. I think this game shows some potential (and its author some real potential) but needs more polishing and balancing.
D- : Not among the worst, but it's a bad game
I would named it Confusion Chess. Perhaps it's my problem. I never liked Ultima or variants that take too much different moves and capturing powers. A new player must forget what he knows about the chess pieces to play almost the same game as Chess. A good note to the effort of balance both armies
F+ : One of the worst I've ever played
When the forces of both players are not equal and symmetrical in their relative arrangements, you have a fundamentally unstable game where one player has a predestined, game-winning advantage over the other. A game using Zillions where the computer plays both players at an equal and meaningful search depth (also, time-consuming) will prove my point.
Total Voters: 7
Average (Mean) Rating: 2.41
Popularity Index:
2.90
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
In retrospect, the starting positions of the pieces need to be changed to reduce the rabbit's power. However, I like the other new pieces, as they add a certian amount of novelty.
B- : A good variant with some room for improvement
This is a very interesting idea, but some of the new pieces don't work as well as I would like. The Rabbit's starting position is unfortunate -- being able to attack on turn one -- and the Trebuchet, Ballista and Count, with their odd mixture of limited moves and jumping, just don't seem to work very well. All of that's a pity, as I like the board a lot.
B- : A good variant with some room for improvement
Though I would have chosen a different name for this variant, the game itself is most intriguing. The circles built in to the board changes the strategy of the game completely. My only problem is with the new pieces. They don't really add much to the game.
C+ : A bit better than the average Chess variant
This game is based on a very interesting idea, that the board would allow pieces to travel around in loops. But I am not fond of the pieces added to the 100 squares version of this game. Although the Rabbit is a good natural piece for this game, the Count, Trebuchet, and Ballista seem contrived.
D+ : It has potential, but it needs improvement
I like the board, and I like the word coined to describe it. But what a bloodbath the game is from the very beginning! It seems it's all about not having the ill fortune of being the first one to be unable to capture back. Men who can capture over the heads of an arbitrary number of others may have a use in Tenjiku Shogi, but that's a different story.
F+ : One of the worst I've ever played
The pieces seem too strong for a 10x10 Chess board. Almost everything is subject to initial attack, and the white rabbits penetrate too strongly inside the Black army. The topology is not that confusing, but the use of some pieces are. I really do not like it.
Total Voters: 6
Average (Mean) Rating: 2.05
Popularity Index:
0.30
C+ : A bit better than the average Chess variant
Since this game is mainly just an expanded version of regular Chess, it doesn't have any grievous flaws, and it is a fairly good game. But in exapanding Chess, it adds very little, just four pieces which each can cover only a quarter of the board. These pieces are sometimes useful defensively, but they add very little to the character of the game.
C : Average as far as Chess variants go
I would like to begin by thanking Lee Tomkow for sharing pictures of his very attractive chess set and board with us. After reading the comments on this page, I must agree that the new piece he has added is too weak. It would be better if you could force checkmate in an endgame with King and "New Piece" against a lone King. There are many such pieces to choose from: for example, the piece which moves like either a Knight or a Dabbaba(jumps two squares orthogonally).
C- : Almost as good as the average Chess variant
As a work of literature, the rules have some value, but the game itself doesn't do much for me. Adding two very weak pieces and enlarging the board does change the game, but doesn't seem to add very much (also, I'm not fond of pieces that can only reach 1/4 of the board).
D : It seems unimpressive and/or uninteresting
There's really not much to this variant. The new pieces are too reminiscent of the alfil of medieval chess--and there is a reason the alfil is not a part of today's game. To make an interesting new chess variant, you need something more than just a bigger board--and you certainly need better pieces than the ones found here.
D- : Not among the worst, but it's a bad game
The author, says with reason, that he didn't want to change much for newcomers to play without difficulty, but I'm afraid he exaggerated on his concern, since the modifications are minimal, and in fact are not very good. The two new pieces (with equal powers!) are very weak and the game looses power in a 100 square board. When enlarging the board, each army should be strengthen in a proportional way, imho. This does not happen in Tourarian.
D- : Not among the worst, but it's a bad game
I admit it. I don't like this game. The author clearly wanted to sound pretty rather than accurately convey a good set of rules. In fact, the rules are rather vague, "adding two pieces" and all that. Not to mock what represents a great deal of work, but I just can't give this game a higher rating.
D- : Not among the worst, but it's a bad game
Looks like the author considers the symbolic associations (and the story about having been here and there, and having had the game set made of this and that material, etc. etc.) to be of greater value than the game itself. Rightly so, perhaps. The Coin and Ship are so weak that they might as well not exist, so Touranian International (what a name!) is just a battle of the two OrthoChess armies on a ten by ten board, which is way too big for them (it's not for nothing that they've operated on eight by eight for centuries; a larger board really needs more power).
Total Voters: 7
Average (Mean) Rating: 1.30
Popularity Index:
-4.90
A : A truly exceptional variant
INVENTOR'S COMMENTS: In this game I have achieved all of my goals for chess on a 10x10 board. Pawn promotion now follows a simple and elegant rule. But I suspect we will be seeing new chess variants for years to come. It might be a good idea to repeat this contest in the year 2010, allowing both old and new variants to enter.
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
UC has a nice balance between classic and fairy pieces, so a new player is not overwhelmed with too much new moves and captures. Perhaps the Unicorn is too strong for a 10x10 board, but that is also balanced by the Queen and both Chancellors. It seems UC is able to give some nice games for players that like variants with fairy pieces.
B+ : A very good, very well-done Chess variant
This game introduces a very nice piece called the Unicorn, which can move as a Nightrider or a Bishop. Zillions places its value between a Chancellor (R+N) and a Queen (R+B), which are also in this game. I like this piece better than the Cardinal (B+N), because it is a better match for the Chancellor and Queen. Instead of combining the two weakest minor pieces in Chess (as the Cardinal does), it combines the Bishop with another piece that is between a Knight and a Rook in value. Overall, Unicorn Chess plays well, very much like Chess, and what is good strategy in Chess is usually good strategy in this game. The pieces are well-selected, and the power of the pieces seems suitable for the size of board it is played on.
B : A good, well-done Chess variant
Not having to do with the game, but the graphics on the page could use some improvement. At the very least, the author has a version of MS Paint (or the Mac equivalent)that they could have used. That said, it is still a great game, with a nice starting setup and a good chance for development. I have a little problem with the pawn structure, but it isn't much.
B- : A good variant with some room for improvement
A nice large Chess variant. The Unicorns (Nightrider/Bishop combinations) are nicely mobile, and a piece density of 44/100 leaves the game with a Orthodox Chess-like feel. I do think that it would be better if it adopted a 3 square initial Pawn move like many other large variants, since with 6 jumping pieces per side, it often feels like the Pawn line is being left behind.
C- : Almost as good as the average Chess variant
I liked the look of this and had high hopes but I couldn't get into the flow. I didn't care about the pieces enough to want them to win.
Total Voters: 6
Average (Mean) Rating: 3.00
Popularity Index:
6.00