Enter Your Reply The Comment You're Replying To Charles Gilman wrote on Mon, Apr 5, 2010 07:14 AM UTC:As someone who actually found out about these pages while searching for 3d nomenclature I have always found it odd that anyone should want to go to four or more dimensions. We experience the world in just three spatial dimensions, so that's the most in which an accurate game board can be built. It is no accident that most 3d variants, including most of my own cubic ones, are designed for relatively few board sizes - 5x5x5, 8x4x4, 8x8x3, 6x6x6, 8x8x4, 8x8x8. They gravitate toward boards that might already have been built for some other game. This is one of the reasons why I have never considered 4 dimensions, either for my own variants or for piece names. Has anyone ever had a successful game of a 4d variant? I hope that Redistribution 3d Chess is a bit more than a 'name game' - a 3d contribution to the Short-range project, at least. Or are you referring to my recent process of moving 3d pieces round the alphabet in Man and Beast 18? Edit Form You may not post a new comment, because ItemID Higher D chess does not match any item.