Comments by SimonEJepps

It means the common way it is interpreted, such as 2 squares along and then one to the side (or vice versa), like as you say an L shape. If however you took the quicker route of say 1 diagonal and then 1 along it could then move 1 square diagonally also. I have included some diagrams to make this more clear.

John,

I don't see why I need to change the rules(?). This game has been throroughly revised and also extensively tested with a friend of mine.

The game is finished now, complete, dusted... published...

I am kind of more attracted to it than I was. Indeed, it must be said that it is quite a good variant. The only problems I have with it is the slight divergence from the classic and somewhat 'romantic' absolute square board. The Champion at either end unfortunately takes away that all familiar routine of castling 'into the corner', nice and smoothly, with your fianchetto all lined up. It is the sentimental concepts that have been slightly tampered with. But that said it is 'enchanting' in its own way too. I would prefer 100 squares with no corner squares in a variant, but then may be I'm asking too much. I am only interested in it for the time being because it is commercial and easy to get started in tournaments. I would still like to see something more to my taste. However, it could catch on, I suppose. If they get their act together and manufacture an actual 'Fool' piece for the advanced version I might buy.

Interesting. Personally my way of approaching the queen loss problem is to add an additional piece that can compete against a queen, but without being as powerful as queen. Say about 6.25 in value. However, your game here is a good approach to that queen loss problem without introducing new pieces or requiring larger boards. The rule does make check mate harder, and perhaps giving the king an extra move instead of some other 'move-distribution scheme' won't go down well with other players - but all the same, as a variant it stands ok. ;)

Thanks, Jose. ;)

Actually another option would be to place the Minister where the King side Bishop usually stands - since it is also a Bishop you wouldn't be changing anything - then you would have the opposite coloured Bishops.

You then put the King side Bishop where the Queen is and put the Queen on the other side of the King as in normal Chess.

So like this:
R N B Q K B M N R

But yeh, 9x9's are irritating. lol.

Fergus, that's a neat little variant. I had a similar idea back in 2008, but not quite this extensive. I find all the notation and multiple merging a little bit of a mouth full, but all the same Fusion Chess is a great game to add to the list.

Flowerman - the way I registered was I sent in a Chess Variant by email - and then they made me a member. Email them here:

http://www.chessvariants.org/feedback.html#general

@Claudio

You need to click Post your own game, and select the relevant options for the type of game you are posting.

@Flowerman

Because as I have said earlier, you cannot discuss or rate the variant in some discussion thread, and secondly it is preferred that you use graphics to aid the explanation of the game, which is better used in an official page.

Hi guys. I remember seeing a variant somewhere, a commercially produced one, whereby all pieces are two-toned (half black half white), so it makes no difference which ones you pick, and their colour is determined by which way they face. For example if you are Black you would face the black side of your pieces towards your opponent.

Can anyone remind me of its name and where I can find it?