Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Rated Comments

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
Xiangqi FAQ. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jeffry Simmons wrote on Sat, Apr 6, 2002 03:01 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
Very informative! But are the listings for clubs, organizations, and world's strongest players current?

Worse than Worthless. A discussion of pieces with negative value, and the Nattering Nabobs of Negativity![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on Sat, Apr 6, 2002 10:01 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
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.)

Space Chess. Three dimensional commercial chess variant. (3x(8x8), Cells: 192) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Isaac wrote on Sun, Apr 7, 2002 02:32 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
thank you for the rules for space chess. I too lost the directions to my set years ago. My set was purchased at a game store in 1994as well, looks extactly like the one you have placed on the web, but the box it came in says 1981 Pacific Game Company,INC. no. 1420

Chess History and Reminiscences. Project Gutenberg eBook version of this public domain book (large!).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Sun, Apr 7, 2002 04:57 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
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!

gnohmon wrote on Sun, Apr 7, 2002 05:08 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Bird lost a match to Steinitz by a mrer 7 to 6. 

'Bird is one of history's greatest non-GM chessplayers.' I said, but I was
wrong.

Steinitz was a tough cookie. Losing 7-6 makes Bird a GM in my estimation.

More than superb, optimal!

gnohmon wrote on Sun, Apr 7, 2002 11:29 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
The book itself is very disorganized and tough to read, with many passages
that are repetitive and uninteresting.

However, enough of Bird's personality shines through that I am glad to have
made his acquaintance.

To correct what I said earlier about the time of his career -- it was from
before the first tournament up to the times of Lasker.

Chain of Fools. Game with a Chess set where the goal is form chains of defended pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Mon, Apr 8, 2002 01:55 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
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.

Contest to design a chess variant on a board with 42 squares. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Glenn Overby II wrote on Mon, Apr 8, 2002 02:47 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
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!

Wildebeest Chess. Variant on an 10 by 11 board with extra jumping pieces. (11x10, Cells: 110) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Glenn Overby II wrote on Mon, Apr 8, 2002 02:54 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I recently sent in a nomination to make this game--a well-established, widely-disseminated, thoroughly-played design--a 'recognized' variant. If you agree, send the editors an email. :)

Overprotection Chess. If an attacked piece is more often defended than it is attacked, it gains extra powers. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on Mon, Apr 8, 2002 07:37 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
This looks like fun! I particularly like that once you overprotect a Pawn by two (easy enough -- just take an unattacked Pawn and give it two supporters), suddenly it captures forward and to the side. <p> I find myself wondering if overprotection is calculated recursively. That is, when determining overprotection, is overprotection taken into account? <p> Consider the following: <blockquote> White Pawns at <b>a3</b>, <b>b4</b> and <b>c3</b>; <p> Black Pawns at <b>a6</b>, <b>b5</b> and <b>c6</b>. </blockquote> Assume white's move. Can the white Pawn on <b>b4</b> capture the black Pawn on <b>b5</b>? If you apply white's Wazir capture first, then it can (since it is overprotected by two, black not having a Wazir capture as it is only overprotected by one), if you apply black's Wazir capture first, it can not (since then the white Pawn will only be overprotected by one). Curious, no?

gnohmon wrote on Tue, Apr 9, 2002 01:55 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
A Pawn or piece must be attacked in order to be overprotected. I said that,
right?

'and dynamic' ... 'where checkmating the opponent could also checkmate
you!' means that the enemy K is defended several times (but of course not
attacked) so that when you attack the enemy K it becomes overprotected and
gives check to your nearby King. I could have made that clearer, right? But
you're correct, even the closest reading of this doesn't really say whether
it's recursive. Yes, why not recursive, gosh darn it and gosh darn it
again?

If you could overprotect an unattacked piece, this would 'merely' be a new
(and perhaps an excellent) form of Relay Chess.

So, should add a line that the powers gained by an overprotected piece can
be used to overprotect another piece.

Should add a line 'therefore you can destroy your opponent's overprotection
by moving your attacker away'.

And should add the explanation of how giving check[mate] can check[mate]
yourself.

Better now?

Tron Chess. Every square passed by the queen creates a wall that hinders movement. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Tue, Apr 9, 2002 02:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
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.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on Tue, Apr 9, 2002 03:45 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
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! :)

Slanted Escalator Chess. Chess on an asymmetric board with interesting connectivity. (8x8, Cells: 60) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Apr 9, 2002 04:05 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
This is something new in a way, or at least something not often done. It is a game where the two sides, while having the same movement, have different board topologies to deal with in the opening and midgame, and I think it an interesting idea. Now, if there was just some way to determine if it was balanced . . .

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jianying Ji wrote on Tue, Apr 9, 2002 05:41 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Absolutely great, in coherence of theme and originality!

Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
meee wrote on Tue, Apr 9, 2002 11:14 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I thought this page was good becuase it gave you all the rules.  They wer
eeasy to understand and showed diagrams for furthur clarification

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Lawson wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2002 12:08 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
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.

Overprotection Chess. If an attacked piece is more often defended than it is attacked, it gains extra powers. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2002 04:01 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
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?

Slanted Escalator Chess. Chess on an asymmetric board with interesting connectivity. (8x8, Cells: 60) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2002 04:55 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
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.

💡📝David Short wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2002 05:22 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
gnohmon, you're wrong about a few things. first of all,
while black rooks can control double files if they are on the
a,b,g, or h files, a white rook on the b-file would control
both the a-file and b-file, and likewise a white rook on the 
g-file controls both the g-file and h-file. Download the ZRF
and you'll see. 

Bishops may seem weak but they may yet have a purpose in the game.
It may be true that their ability to penetrate the other side of
the board and attack is more difficult, but they'll still be
pretty good as stay-at-home defenders. Note however that white
bishops at a3 or h3 control very long diagonals (bishop at a3 
attacks e8, bishop at h3 attacks d8)

and while black may be able to control the outside files with
his rooks faster, white should be able to occupy the escalator
squares more quickly. In order that white does not get an overwhelming
advantage in the game, I gave black the first move. Time will tell
if the game is balanced sufficiently or not.


Incidentally, if anyone who has ZILLIONS OF GAMES would like to
play either SLANTED ESCALATOR CHESS, or SPINAL TAP CHESS

http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/spinal-tap-chess.html

or both, with me by email, drop me a line at [email protected]
We can email each other the notation and record and save our games
with ZILLIONS. 

What I really like about SLANTED ESCALATOR CHESS is that not only
is there interesting connectivity around the board, but that it's
going to be a bit challenging for each side to try to navigate the
board to get to the other side and get a good attack going. 
Should make things very interesting!

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2002 05:29 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
It would be nice if a place to click to create a new subject at the top of the comments page. Right now, as far as I can tell, you have to page down until you find an existing thread, and click there.

Monochromatic Chess. Pieces remain on squares of the same color. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2002 08:10 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Here's an amusing possible solution to the problems with this variant: combine it with <a href='../other.dir/alice.html'>Alice Chess</a>. <p> Here's how it might go. You add a second board, like in Alice Chess, except the 2nd board has reversed checkering: a1 is white, not black. When a piece's move would otherwise cause it to move to a square of a different color, it instead lands on the equivalent square of the other board. Thus Knights always switch boards when they move, and Bishops never switch boards. <p> There are a number of ways to handle switching boards: <p> <ul> <li>Alice Chess-style. The move on the board on which the piece starts must be legal as in orthochess, and the square on the other board must be empty.</li> <p> <li>The Plunge. A piece moving to another color may only to move to a square that is empty on their current board, then they plunge through the board to the equivalent square on the other board, capturing any opposing pieces they land on, except for Pawns who may not plunge to occupied squares.</li> <p> <li>The Switch-a-roo. A piece makes a normal orthochess move on the board on which it starts, and then, if the destination square is of a different color than the piece's starting square, it moves to an equivalent position on the other board. If the space on the other board is occupied, then the piece occupying that space is moved to the space just landed on on the board that the moving piece started on. This version actually allows Bishops on the 2nd board.</li> <p> <li>The Last Square. The piece's move is as normal, except that if the piece would land on a color of square different from which it started, the last square of its move is the equivalent space on the other board, and the move does not pass through what would be the final square of its move in orthochess. The last square on the board on which the board-changing piece moved from may be occupied by a friendly or opposing piece -- it doesn't matter as the moving piece does not pass through it. </ul> <p> I don't know which would be best.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
ben wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 07:15 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
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
[email protected]

Feeble Chess to Weakest Chess. Some Chess variants with weaker pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 01:02 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I wish I had thought of this! The idea of finding the weakest possible pieces that still provide a chess-like game is inspired. For some reason, it reminded me of my attempt to create a <a href='../newideas.dir/construction.html'>chess variant construction set</a>. The concept of a flipping move to switch between capture-only and move-only is something I never thought of. On the whole, a well-thought-out, and aesthetically pleasing game. I must try it out sometime!

Doug Chatham wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 04:56 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
If we created higher dimensional analogues of the Feeble/Weak/Weakest
pieces, would we be able to make a playable higher-dimensional CV with them
(perhaps even a Chess For Any Number of Dimensions)?

25 comments displayed

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.