Ratings & Comments

FEN Code: 13m8a3rnbqkbnr3pppppppppp25/25PPPPPPPPPP3RNBQKBNR3M8A13 gives Grand Chess on a 12x12 board, with the pieces rearranged a little. Ignore the four dots on the diagram above. For Omega Chess on a 12x12 board, first replace the Marshalls and Cardinals with Champions. Next replace the dots on d2, i2, d11, i11 with Wizards. Omega Chess is played on a 12x12 board that has forty squares missing from the edge - it also works for playing many 12x12 postal games.


might it be worth somehow marking Editors specially in the Comments?; there is currently no indication of who is or isn't an editor w/o going to one of the special pages
We used to have icons for this, which I had inadvertently left out when I rewrote the code for displaying comments. However, some of the code was still in place, and I fixed it up to identify editors, the webmaster, authors, and inventors. Instead of .gif files, I used unicode emojis for some icons, but I left the editor image alone, since it seems appropriate. However, I didn't display it for the webmaster, because the two icons didn't look good together. If you hover over an icon, you will see a tooltip saying what it is. Also, the names of editors (which includes the webmaster) appear in boldface, and the names of authors or inventors appear in italics.
Thank you for your comment! I will definitely clarify in the rules that the game is played on a rectangular board. I'm not at all against criticism or specific comments regarding the game. This helps to detect deficiencies and correct them in a timely manner. Any discussion regarding the actual process of the game is welcome. At the end of this tournament, I will definitely send all materials on this game to your email address specified in your profile or to this address [email protected] It is difficult for me to judge how long this tournament will take. Everyone plays two games with everyone and the time control is 10 days per game + 12 hours per move. Considering that the level of players is very different, and the resulting pawn endings are extremely complex, it can take a long time for a tournament with such time control. I must say that my search for the perfect initial setup for Double Chess or Double King Chess started a long time ago. I experimented with different starting positions, but the problem of two kings always remained. To exchange the second king for a third queen or a fairy piece means to change the name and concept of Double Chess. When I saw Quadruple Besiege Chess by Charles Gilman I immediately realized that this is exactly what Double Chess should look like. The idea of a double move was born from the formula: two boards + two players + two kings (two sets of pieces). Yes, the columns of pawns seemed awkward, but when testing the game, it turned out that such a structure of pawns is almost ideal. For comparison, you can look at the gameplay in Double Move Pawn Chess by Galvin. We can say that Double Move Double Chess is a game of two phases: first, a game with long-range pieces and if you manage to survive in this mess, then the transition to interesting and unusual pawn endings, where the very concept of a double move takes on completely different outlines.
Sorry if my comment has caused offence; this was not my intent. Nor was I recommending this not be published (as Ben notes, I'm not an editor so it's not my place to do so), merely noting some things that I found unclear.
In particular wrt the geometry of the board, your comment confirms what I thought; I just wasn't completely sure that's what you meant: your opening sentence simply says the game is inspired by QB w/o further qualifying what aspect of it, and whilst the beginning of your note refers (as does your response) to ‘changing geometry in space’, note that QB's shape doesn't change during the game — it's unusual but constant — so I thought it better to clarify which board you meant that to risk incorrectly assuming the wrong one. Iow your article (as you note) never mentions unusual geometry, but doesn't (to my admittedly conservative reading) deny it explicitly enough for me to be confident it's not assumed. And in any case it's a moot point as Ben (an actual editor) is happy to leave that aspect as is and you've answered my question here.
As for the question about testing, that's cool that you do! It's not unusual that people don't, which for some games can work OK (especially if it's intended more as ‘artwork’ or theoretical exploration than actual play, as some of us are more inclined to), but for stuff like this that's more unusual can be risky. I'd be interested to see some games, maybe even with some analysis, though idk about participating in a tournament — correspondence play is not really my thing; I'm more of an over‐the‐board player (and also I don't understand Russian, so I would have difficulty navigating the linked website).
As to alleged prejudice, I apologise if I've come across that way; the comments were not aimed at you in particular, merely at the page as I saw it. And I'd've expected, of all places, that a forum devoted to chess variants would be among the likeliest places to get these kinds of questions. Nothing personal.
@Editorship: it was briefly a thing for us non‐editors to explicitly disclaim editorship when commenting on unpublished articles; would it be preferred to continue doing so? Or (@Fergus I suppose) might it be worth somehow marking Editors specially in the Comments?; there is currently no indication of who is or isn't an editor w/o going to one of the special pages, and since People Don't Read Documentation…

On broader editorial commentary:
I endeavored to clear the editorial backlog a few months ago, and started with 2022 as at that point there were more incomplete or reviewed-without-response entries than ones needing attention. I apologize for not going back further to see some of your older submissions. You've commented on them now which should bring them back to our attention.
Grand Dice Chess I had requested changes on last July and you hadn't resolved them until Fergus pointed them out again (and I think the external link issue remains unaddressed?). We can follow up some more on that page.
I am very glad that your variants see online play! That's no small feat, and I look forward to hearing a little about results. I know that you sent some materials relating to another variant that I haven't had time to review, and I apologize for that too. (Work and family have kept me increasingly busy.)
Back to this page:
I think it's reasonable for Bn to ask about board geometry mostly because of the setup: pawns surrounding and even behind pieces is quite unusual, unless "behind" wraps around. And it's fine that you don't use that geometry, and I don't even think it needs to be mentioned in the page, but that someone commented to ask doesn't surprise me.
Bn's other comments are worth addressing. Note that they are not an editor, but I appreciate all site members contributing to the discussion. I don't think any of the things they've said detract from likelihood of publication, but giving answers like "it is tactical, but that's fun" or "it actually doesn't become too tactical, because XYZ" add context to the game.
I appreciate the Notes on this page. While the interesting aspects of your games may be obvious to you, to a new reader pointing them out is good practice.



I had asked about motivation, and you gave some, and Greg added a good point about bishops really benefiting from the large back space (as opposed to the 1-2 rows in other variants). I do share his concern for the outside knights (and really, all of them to a lesser extent).
I'm publishing this now, but I would suggest adding into the text somewhere about the motivation, and the use of the large rear space benefiting bishops in particular.
I had tried to help with the graphic, but Greg has gone a step further and implemented it, so again thanks to him.


Your analysis of the rule is certainly valid. I considered not leaving that rule in and honestly only left that rule in as a "flavor" nod to Shogi. I figured that between the fact that you only have three pawns per player and many of them will end up mutated from being captured in the Arena, including or leaving that particular rule out wouldn't really make a huge difference in the gameplay. It could be interesting to play with your suggested rule change and see if that makes much of a difference or not over the course of a a series of games...


As I stated above I was inspired by Gilman's initial arrangement not his toroidal chess. Nowhere in the rules does it say that the chessboard changes its geometry in space during the game. Therefore, the game is played on a normal rectangular 8×16 board. The game is played according to the rules of Galvin's Doublemove Chess with the AISE's modification, the Italian chess variant organization. In other words, this is a double move w/o any restrictions. I never publish my chess variants without first testing them. On April 9 of this year, the first experimental Double Move Double Chess tournament will be held on the website http://playashshi.ru/. You can take part in the tournament and only then draw your own conclusions about how the gameplay goes in your opinion.
In light of the fact that recently my chess variants have ceased to be published on your site, finding fault with almost every word and every letter in the description of the rules, I act rather instinctively by posting one or another of my chess variants, waiting for your approval. If earlier a publication on your site meant a quality mark for me, now I see the exact opposite. I don't understand the prejudice against myself. My chess variants are implemented in many platforms on the Internet and people enjoy the games. I do not receive any commercial benefits from their implementation, and all my activities as a chess composer and inventor of chess variants are aimed at exploring the limitless chess game in all its manifestations.
I have no illusions about my Double Move Double Chess and Grand Dice Chess and three others on your site. I know you will never publish them. I'm tired gentlemen. Tired of prejudice and stupidity. Do not force me to explain the obvious things in the description of my creations. All texts of my chess variants are posted on the Internet in the form in which I posted them here. And not a single user has had similar questions that I had the honor to observe here in the comments under my unpublished chess variants.

I did cut those to shape, though
Before I read that, I thought you might have used clear sticker paper, which prompted me to search for the product.
H.G., your image is not showing up in the comment, though it does show up if I load it in a new tab. My best guess as to why is that it is using http, and this is an https site. Try uploading it here and changing the link.

Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.

Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.


It's not clear, given the reference to Quadruple Besiege, whether you mean this to be played on the (twisted‐toroidal) QB board, or merely on a normal rectangular 8×16 one. Even saying ‘on two boards’ doesn't really clarify things in that respect. Obviously this has effects on e.g. the meaning of ‘forward’.
Have you tested this? The usual restrictions on double‐move games (stop on giving check, one move per piece per turn, ⁊c) are there to retain some of the clarity of the original game; w/o restrictions things like rifle capture and pieces which can reach anywhere on an empty board (or indeed one with relatively few pieces) in one move become possible, though since you mention the former that may be your intent? Probably it'll be a bit too tactical for most tastes



The rule that Pawns cannot be dropped on files already containing a Pawn is completely pointless with chess-like pawns. In Shogi this rule is necessary, because Pawns capture straight ahead, and it would be very advantageous to persistently drop Pawns protected by other Pawns, so stick a deadly and unassailable thorn into the opponent's defense line. With chess-like Pawns you could do the same thing, by dropping the Pawns diagonally in front of each other. Your rule does not prevent that. You should forbid dropping a Pawn diagonally in front of another Pawn instead.


For making boards a large sheet of paper, a pencil and a ruler always served me well.
I put stickers on draughts chips to make pieces. I did cut those to shape, though:

Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.

Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.


In early April, I plan to hold an online correspondence Double move Double Chess tournament. I hope by then you will publish the rules of Double Move Double Chess which will serve as one of the official links to this chess variant.

Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.

I do not currently have an equally easy way to make round boards. If you know of an easy way to make a round board, please share!)
What I did to make a hexagonal board will work for any 2D board.
- Create an image file.
- Divide it up into parts if you want it bigger than you can print as one piece.
- Make sure each image file will print to the size you want.
- Print the parts onto sticker paper.
- Apply the sticker paper to boards you can piece together later.
If you want a circular board in particular, you can start by having Game Courier generate an image of the board.


I am not a programmer, so if anyone would like to create a Zillions of Games file or a Game Courier preset of Arena Cheturshogqi, please feel free to do so, just be sure to let me know!

I have added links to the Avery site, photos of different parts of the process and some of the sets made with this method. I believe that the article is ready for publication.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Since there were no text files for this game providing credits, I am presuming the author is H. G. Muller, because this game did not originally come with Jocly, and I copied the Jocly files from his site at one time.