You are on the backup site for Any posts, moves, or other changes you make here will not be permanent, because the pages and database from the main site will be backed up here every midnight EST. Additionally, things may not be working right, because this site is also a testbed for newer system software. So, if you are not here to test, develop, or merely read this site, you may want to change .org to .com in the navigation bar and go to the main site.

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 ]

Latest Ratings and Comments

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Paragi. Shogi without drop rule + Strong pieces. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2022-08-08 UTC

'If there are only two Kings left on the board, the player with the King on the rank closest to the enemy camp wins.'

I added this rule

Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2022-08-08 UTC

I modified the sentnences

H. G. Muller wrote on 2022-08-08 UTC

I think you can omit "the type and number of pieces captured in each other", as in a game without drops this must be the same if the position on the board is the same.

Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2022-08-08 UTC

Ah, I fixed them. Thanks !

// Even if there are only two Kings left on the board, the King closer to the enemy camp wins in the end, as the same situation cannot be created more than three times.

// About threefold repetition :

If the same situation occurs 3 times with the number, type, and location of each other's pieces remaining on the board, the player who created the situation loses. Simply put, no player can create the same situation 3 times in one game.

 - Even if it does not appear in a row, if the same state occurs 3 times in a game, threefold repetition is established.

 (Of course, it is also impossible to repeat the check consecutively.)

H. G. Muller wrote on 2022-08-08 UTC

You write the variant does not have piece drops, but then you write: " The player who can no longer move or drop pieces loses".

It is not clear what you mean by 'situation' in the description of the repetition rule. Is that just the same board position, or does it also mean the same player has to be on move? When you write the 'after it occurred twice no one can repeat the position again' you suggest that it does not matter who has the move. Because one it does, only the player that created the position for the first time could recreate it.

And about the absence of a 50-move rule: it it really your intention that when an endgame of King versus King results the players should go on until one of them gets stalemated by the ban on repetition? That seems awful.

The ascii diagram of the initial position seems redundant. And wrong too, because there is a Templar in there.

Daphne Snowmoon wrote on 2022-08-08 UTC

Can this be republished ?

Empress Chess. Help your Empress win her battle. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
H. G. Muller wrote on 2022-08-07 UTC

I suppose a smaller point advantage would also be winning, provided checkmate is impossible to force.

This rule is not well defined, however. When would it be considered impossible to 'force' checkmate, and who is to judge that? Presumaly the initial position would be a draw under perfect play if checkmate was the only way to win, like in orthodox. Does that mean that the first gain of a soldier can already lead to a win claim? And what if a piece gets traded? Can the player making the first capture claim the win before the recapture can be played?

Ben Reiniger wrote on 2022-08-06 UTC

This seems basically impossible to win: the empress is so mobile that it cannot be effectively mated, and achieving a 20 point gap is huge: being ahead by a princess and both rooks isn't even enough.

Three Realms Chess. (Updated!) A three layer variant with familiar and fantastical pieces. (8x8x3, Cells: 192) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on 2022-08-03 UTC

Forget my comment about Imp, I see what it is. And I should have remembered the Furious Fiend from shogivariants.

Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on 2022-08-03 UTC

Yes nice! I suggest to add a definition for "cardinal". Is that synonym of Orthogonal in this context? Maybe some diagrams would help understanding the moves. I have seen a typo : heaens. Why these name of Imp and Fiend? I have to check, I don t know these words in English.

Andrew L Smith wrote on 2022-08-01 UTC

I've fixed the file names, alongside a few formatting bugs and making sure pawns don't share a letter with any other piece.

Referee wrote on 2022-07-28 UTC

While I understand why Earth got the a-h files, I would suggest giving them to the skies, while Earth gets the middle ones (j-q). This makes the files be in alphabetical order when the board is setup, and as an added nice bonus, the "missing" files i and r keep the color alternation. vg a1 white, b1 black, ..., h1 black, (i1 white), j1 black, ..., q1 white, (r1 black), s1 white, ..., y1 white, z1 black.

Ben Reiniger wrote on 2022-07-27 UTC


It's particularly interesting how some of the 1-piece endgames (rook, angel) end up looking like a classical one to force the king out of Earth and then having the friendly king deliver the final attack. (The angel's isn't completely clear to me, since the lone king may move to the underworld early to avoid the angel's attacks, but I guess that's a significant enough detriment that then the friendly king can manage on his own.)

Four bridges. 4v4 Chess on a 17x17 board. (17x17, Cells: 264) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Ben Reiniger wrote on 2022-07-25 UTC

You should mention on this page what the two teams are, and what happens when a king is captured (both clarified on the linked site). Also turn order probably needs to be specified, even if it mostly doesn't matter. (For expediency of games, at least over the board, I would suggest to consider a team moves all at once, choosing the order amongst the four moves however they like.)

I notice the game is not symmetric: the "inner" team has what I assume to be an advantage of the vertical bridges that the "outer" team lacks.

Chess 66. (Updated!) Board based on the 8x8 arrangement - with the difference that 66 fields are now available. (8x8, Cells: 66) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Gerd Degens wrote on 2022-07-21 UTC

After contact with Ben Reiniger - see comments below - I have adapted my description of the variant 'Chess 66'.

New is that in switches can be operated as follows: It is possible from below, from above and from the side equally to move into the switch and that independent of the direction of the move the squares of a switch can be reached separately (4 or a4 respectively 5 or h5).

It would be nice if the editors of CVP would read my description again crosswise to finally arrange for a publication. If 'Chess 66' should be published, then 'Chess 69' seems to be published as well.

Mirodoly. Piececlopedia: Mirodoly. Some theoretical principles of the analysis of pieces, both for classical chess and for modern chess.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
H. G. Muller wrote on 2022-07-20 UTC

Well, for one, the article doesn't seem suitable for the piececlopedia, which describes individual pieces, rather than general theories of piece movement. Besides, the article doesn't seem to contain anything that is not elementary and already widely known. It escapes me why anything that is in there would have to be said at all. In so far it is not plain nonsense to begin with, like that "it would be a mistake" to have a piece like a Camel...

Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on 2022-07-20 UTCPoor ★

A bit pedantic article in my opinion. Example: "the lack of fundamental regularities", why not saying "irregularities"? Anyway, I don't believe that any chess 10x10 or 12x12 can be qualified of "classical".

An "infinite" Knight is mostly known as Nightrider, much more than Unicorn, a term that has been used for many other uses in the world of fairy chess and chess variants.

A piece moving CZ is not a "discovery" at all. It is known as Bison. Or the Falcon in the non-jumping version. A minimum of researches could be done nowadays with the help of Internet before announcing discoveries. For example here:

The Sagittarius is the combination of Antelope (4,3) and Murray Giraffe (4,1). Even on 12x12 board, these long jumpers are not practical to play with. They need larger board. In fact, there are not many CVs using them. There are more problemists' pieces.

Alexander Chess. A more battle-like version of chess. (10x10, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Bn Em wrote on 2022-07-19 UTC

Idk about 10×10, but fwiw 12×12, 16×16, and ∞×∞ versions of this idea all have pages on here already.

In particular the 12×12 page, like this one, contains little else besides the description of a game which differs from Chess in much the same way, differing only in extent (and of course actual tactics/strategy are probably as different from each other as from Orthochess at these sizes, but since there's limited — and very similar — discussion of even this on both pages…). The inspiration from Alexandrine battle tactics doesn't really add much to distinguish it imo.

Ofc I'm not an editor so it's not for me to say much as to whether or not it should be published, but it might be worthwhile for someone to write up a page on this idea (adding additional rings of spaces around the Orthodox set — or for that matter any other set, though e.g. Tamerlane on 17×17 is ofc incredibly niche) in general, like Fergus' page on Spherical Chesses. Perhaps I'll have a go at that one of these days if I'm not beaten to it

Mirodoly. Piececlopedia: Mirodoly. Some theoretical principles of the analysis of pieces, both for classical chess and for modern chess.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Ben Reiniger wrote on 2022-07-19 UTC

This doesn't qualify for inclusion in the Piececlopedia, but could be a Piece article introducing your Archer (a camel+zebra in the usual parlance) and Sagittarius (antelope+giraffe, though the further out leaps get the less often they are used and so I would take those names with a bit more skepticism about universality).

ArchMage Chess. 10x10 30v30 Fantasy Chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Ben Reiniger wrote on 2022-07-19 UTC

Several of the image files now appear to be missing.

Alexander Chess. A more battle-like version of chess. (10x10, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Ben Reiniger wrote on 2022-07-19 UTC

I feel like I've seen this before, but I can't find it on our pages right now. There is a thread from 2014 on, and a slightly older post on another thread there. But if it doesn't exist here, I'm fine publishing this page. (I think the link description should be more explicit on what the change is.)

Chess 66. (Updated!) Board based on the 8x8 arrangement - with the difference that 66 fields are now available. (8x8, Cells: 66) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Gerd Degens wrote on 2022-07-19 UTC

To start with point (2): This is clear that a rook on a8 cannot move to a3...a1 if a switch is occupied.

Regarding point (1), I already had doubts yesterday. According to my imagination so far, the squares of a switch (e.g. 4 and a4) can only be reached from a1...a3 or from rank 4. In my description I assume that a bishop starting from e8 can only reach square 4 of the switch and not a4. This affects a rook/queen on a8 in the same way.

But in this case it means that a move into the switch cannot be done if a piece is on a4, because then the squares 4 and a4 would be occupied together - which would not be in accordance with the rules. But this does not seem very logical.

Therefore, I think that a pragmatic solution for switches should be used.

If the switch should not be occupied, it is possible to move into the switch from above, from below or from the side, whereby either field 4 or a4 respectively 5 or h5 can be occupied.

In case the switch is occupied, the piece in the switch must be captured when the opponent's piece moves into the switch; the opponent's piece takes the place of the captured piece.

This means for your point (1): The rook on a8 can capture the piece on a4, and then it stands on a4.

This also means that a bishop on e8 can reach either square 4 or square a4. If a4 is chosen, then the next move can be towards f8 or towards d1. I think that such an procedure simplifies the rules and makes the game easier to play. What do you think?

Perhaps a remark about 'Avatar Chess'. The variants you mentioned (Lumberjack, Smess) were not known to me before. In normal chess, a piece has a fixed skill level, which means that during the game two kings, two queens, four rooks, etc. define the game. In Avatar Chess it is possible that up to 6 queens, 12 rooks etc. are in play - of course rather theoretically and then only for a short time. I think that this could be interesting.

Ben Reiniger wrote on 2022-07-18 UTC

That helps, yes. To be explicit about the "last" question in each case then, the answer is "not"? My piece on a4 (1) cannot be captured by and also (2) blocks movement (to a1...3) of an opponent rook on a8?

Gerd Degens wrote on 2022-07-18 UTC

Thanks Ben for the questions, here it should be clearer in the description (although it is already described between the lines, but that is probably not enough).

When capturing on a switch, first assume that there can be only one piece on a switch (here I differ from Fergus Duniho's Reroute66, a variant of my idea). So, for example, if a rook or queen starts from a1...a3 or from rank 4 and the switch is not occupied, then either square 4 or square a4 can be occupied in the switch.

But there is no choice if the switch is occupied by a piece. If a rook or a queen moves from a1...a3 or from rank 4 into the switch, then the piece in the switch must be captured (because two pieces on the switch are not possible). If the piece was on square 4, then the opponent's piece is on square 4 after the move has been executed (applies to a4 in the same way).

Furthermore, an occupied switch cannot be jumped over and a direct change from 4 to a4 (vice versa a4 to 4) is not possible - differently in Reroute66.

Have I understood the question correctly and hopefully answered it correctly? I would be glad.

Ben Reiniger wrote on 2022-07-17 UTC

I didn't really follow the discussion on this variant earlier, but gave the page a fresh read. I think I mostly get it now, except how capturing on a switch works. It might be clarified in the comments, but it should be made plain in the page text as well. (Perhaps it is there too and I have missed it and/or it wasn't quite clear enough.)

Let's say I have a piece on 4, and the opponent has a piece that can otherwise move to a4 but not 4. Can they capture (and if so where do they end their move) or not (if not, could they potentially continue moving through a4 past my piece? I'm not sure that makes sense for any piece at the edge of the board like this, so probably moot, but I'll ask in case)?

Same question reversing 4 and a4. (Now the last question certainly can apply, e.g. the opponent piece is a rook on a8.)

25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.