You are on the backup site for Chessvariants.com. 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 Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

Grander Chess. A variant of Christian Freeling's Grand Chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Joe Joyce wrote on 2006-02-28 UTC
Okay, Gary, I was trying to be nice and let him down easy. A. O. Myers does
a discussion of Grander Chess (first item under See Also) in which he
disagrees with K. Scanlon's elimination of en passant and treatment of
stalemate, but agrees with the new piece placement. Now, I also think en
passant should stay. And if there is a problem with stalemate, then give
the stalemater 2/3 of a point and the stalematee 1/3. That satisfies my
sense of what feels right. I'd even take a little issue with piece
placement, as the knights are, in both variants, pushed farther away from
the middle, thus weakening them somewhat, but I don't see an alternative
that's better or even as good as the current knight placement. (Obviously
I use the same setup in GS.) Finally, I don't believe the name is
justified. Fergus makes excellent points and sense in his comments. Mr.
Scanlon tried, but the group consensus is that he obviously did not
succeed. What he did, at most, was create a modest variant of Grand Chess
with a most immodest name. 
Of course, that puts many of us, perhaps me especially, at risk for our
games' names.