Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I wish you good luck, and great fortune in finding a suitable opponent. I found it quite difficult, and finding the minimum number of pieces to force mate was even more difficult. Ben Reiniger put up with my fumbling around pushing pieces until I realized it required the lone king vs king and 2 major pieces from the 1 queen and 2 bishops (bishops and rooks essentially exchanging roles when going from FIDE to my 4D game) and a specific alignment of the 4 pieces, which can also be forced. The advantage to my method is that it demonstrates a forced mate on any-sized 2D boards. Most 4D games cannot do that. Once you get past a 5x5 2D board, you can no longer use the trick of putting your king in the middle of the gameboard and then using a ridiculously powerful 4D queen placed between your king and the opponent's king to pin that king against the side of the board in mate. If the 2D boards are 6x6 or larger, that tactic does not work, because the opponent king has another row of squares to which it can retreat and get out of check.

Build the playspace. Make at least 1 physical board so you can push pieces. A physical game makes things more real. I believe using a physical board makes teaching and learning at least a little bit easier. And with 4D variants, the easier you can make it, the better, unless your goal is for no one to ever play the game. However, making a physical game for demo and experimenting with is worthwhile, I've found. Sometimes you can suck people into making a few moves in the game. And when you have physical components, you can use anything else you have handy to look at ideas far afield from chess.

I've found that the basic 4D board has uses in many games besides chess. I've designed a wargame, a trading game, and an empire-building game, a "3X" game, not quite a 4X game since all points on the board are already known at the beginning of the game so there is no eXploration, just eXpansion, eXploitation, and eXtermination. All of these games are played on a "simple 4D board". I don't necessarily tell people that when they first play. But they should notice that on a larger than normal board, it is rather easy to get from any one location on the board to any other. There are more ways to get from here to there than in 2D or 3D.

Happy designing!

I'm not seeing hordes of players clamoring to play it.

I'm not really expecting a lot of people on this one either. I still hope to build the playspace, but I'll expect a long wait before finding someone to play with me. (Crazier things have happened, though.)

Thanks, Jean-Louis, I appreciate your assistance. I will have to dig up my version of Pritchard and look up Maack. Apologies for the slow reply; a combination of health issues slowed me down considerably last month.

I'm not surprised Maack's version "failed to recruit players". My version of 4x4x4x4 was deliberately designed to make it as easy to play as possible. I'm not seeing hordes of players clamoring to play it.

Thanks, guys! :) I hopefully will be able to actually construct the (3D) playspace before too long.

Congrats on having it published! It was long but resulting!

Astounding. I don't think I'll ever play something so complex, but the concept and work are awesome. The case, when reading about game rules and design, is almost as exciting, as the play itself.

Pursuant to possibly creating a Game Courier preset for this game (as mentioned a while ago), I've updated the 2D playspace graphic.

Once it's properly aligned, this will represent a space 82" x 58" (6'10" x 4'11").

Question: Will I need to rotate the "corner" Faces from their current 45 degree turn?

The author, Bob Greenwade, has updated this page.

I put up some pictures of my (currently hypothetical) physical playspace. I probably will need to edit most of the illos to reduce their size before I go much further, though, since my file storage is filling up.

It did take me by surprise last night to see that the game was fully published. I didn't think it was quite ready (still needing some illustrations for movement from Face to Face, which I'm still going to work on short-term), but I think it'll still be good for now.

I'll have the edited illos to do, plus the movement illos, plus more of the Icon Clearinghouse and more preparation work than expected for the Dealer's Chess Expansion Set #4 (edit: plus figuring out how to fix the Snake vs. Mongoose game so it's actually playable in a balanced manner), so I think it'll be a while before I need to bother an editor or tech specialist again (other than trying to fix the Lariat in Zwangkrieg).

PS: Are the blue numbers too dark to be legible against the black trays?

I may need to do some illustrating on movement between Faces and probably will provide such when I start posting about the physical playspace, but otherwise I think the "Geometric Concept" section is pretty good to go.

I also need to describe, and probably illustrate, Fergus' alternate coordinate system.

I'd appreciate editorial feedback at this time about anything that's unclear or simply forgotten.

Here's a tentative, preliminary look at a 2D playspace for this game:

No labels or paths shown; it's just the basic configuration.

I actually hadn't noticed, until you pointed it out earlier, that this system gives each cube a number (0-7). I think it'd be a bit much to show pictures of each, but it's an interesting (and rather cool) feature.

I'll probably point that out the next time I go in to edit the text.

I replaced the zeros on Black's cube with sevens; the trailing zeros were throwing off even more patterns than what you describe.

Okay, I've modified my tesseract image to use 7 instead of a trailing 0. This has the effect that each cube in the tesseract consists of all the faces with the same digit, which makes it easy to designate each cube with that same number, and each face designation is a combination of the numbers belonging to the two cubes which share that face. So, there are two ways of designating a face that give the same result in a convenient circling back kind of way.

I replaced the zeros on Black's cube with sevens; the trailing zeros were throwing off even more patterns than what you describe.

I've changed and added graphics and edited text to reflect that change, and to describe the notation standards. I'll give a closer look at your notation a bit later.

I still need to make breakouts from the Schlegel diagram, and figure out if and how I can illustrate your circular notation method. Plus, something showing the relative directions of the Ranks and Files at the zero point.

And I'm sure you and others can point out other things that need to be done before this game is publishable. :)

That's a decent, fairly organic alternative.

One problem with it, which I thought of before going to sleep, is that the twelve intermediate faces all border on two edges with the number 0. For example, 12 borders on 01/02 and on 10/20. But it could be made to work by substituting another symbol for each of the two zeros, such as Z for the preceding 0 and X (Roman numeral 10) for the trailing 0. Alternately, you could use 7 instead of a trailing 0, which would make all the numbers around a face unique, and then use a different symbol than 00 for the center square. This also has the advantage of numbering each cube in the tesseract. The diagram I made makes it easy to identify the 8 cubes. These are:

0. The inner cube of 01-06, 02-05, 03-04
1. 01-10, 12-15, 13-14
2. 02-20, 12-26, 23-24
3. 03-30, 13-36, 23-35
4. 04-40, 14-46, 24-45
5. 05-50, 15-56, 35-45
6. 06-60, 26-56, 36-46
7. 10-60, 20-50, 30-40

ranks and files will sometimes border each other along a common edge.

This is common among non‐flat spaces; most multiplayer square‐cell boards have the same property (indeed some are effectively on cube surfaces, giving exactly the same effect seen here), as does the board of my Spherical Corner Chess.

That's a decent, fairly organic alternative. I'll certainly consider it; I'll present both, but decide along the way which is the main one and which is the alternate for people with different preferences.

It may come down to which is easier for me to illustrate. ;) (And remember that "simpler" and "easier" aren't necessarily the same thing....)

I thought of a different kind of coordinate system while in the shower. Each face has four sides, and each side borders on two other faces that share a number in their designations. For example, 01 borders on 02/12, 03/13, 04/14, and 05/15. So, its edges may be designated 2, 3, 4 and 5. Call the center square 00 and the eight spaces surrounding it 02, 23, 03, 34, 04, 45,05, and 45, dependinv on which sides each is closest to. Then call the outermost spaces 22, 32, 33, 43, 44, 54, 55, and 54. The higher numbers are used for spaces further from the center. Here an 11 multiple means a space that is two spaces toward that edge from the center. Any space in the game may then be designated by two numbers, perhaps written with a hyphen between them, such as 01-00 for the space White's king begins on.

So, instead of putting Pawns and Spears on the first two ranks, do that for only two, and put them on the last two ranks for another two, on the leftmost files for another two, and on the rightmost files for another two.

I only put one setup illustration in for that because it would be too much to have four (not to mention that there really isn't a way to change the letters and numbers on the Musketeer board painter).

I've gotten a start on expanding the explanations, but I'm about ready to call it an evening. There are more illustrations to come, of course, especially the Schlegel diagram (which is uploaded) and its breakouts (which I haven't made yet).

I have figured that the coordinate system I describe works; I just have to figure out how to illustrate that.

Maybe if you start Territory Faces with the edge appropriate to the edge of the Home Face is starts on, things will work out more easily. So, instead of putting Pawns and Spears on the first two ranks, do that for only two, and put them on the last two ranks for another two, on the leftmost files for another two, and on the rightmost files for another two.

But even that is not an ideal solution. If, say, you start 02 on a rank and 03 on a file, then they will border along a file on 02 and a rank on 03. So, there is no way to escape files bordering with ranks unless you come up with a new non-Cartesian coordinate system.

I did already have in mind a solution to your last question: in all such cases, the lowest number takes precedence. In your example, 23 would continue from 02 rather than 03.

Here's where things become more difficult. By looking at an empty tesseract illustration, I'm able to plug in face designations and work things through. While 02 and 03 are Territory Faces of 01, so are 12 and 13. Like with 02 and 03, the edge they share in common is the left file of one and the right file of the other, and this edge also borders on 23. However, the edge of 23 it borders on is perpendicular to the edge that 02 and 03 border on. So, if 02 and 03 bordered it along a file, 12 and 13 would have to border it along a rank, or vice versa. This means that ranks and files will sometimes border each other along a common edge.

Maybe if you start Territory Faces with the edge appropriate to the edge of the Home Face is starts on, things will work out more easily. So, instead of putting Pawns and Spears on the first two ranks, do that for only two, and put them on the last two ranks for another two, on the leftmost files for another two, and on the rightmost files for another two.

Good points, all that.

I'll leave the parallel-cube illustration there, but also add at least one designation-free version, and bring back some of the Schlegel diagrams (the cube-within-cube illustrations) for comparison, including the series of breakouts that I had, and the 2D layout as well as an updated 3D playspace. (I could also stack the "spread" diagrams into a sort of limited or modified Dali cross.)

As for the rank/file designations, that is admittedly something that I'm still figuring out. We're all used to the equivalent of {0,0} at White's left elbow, and I'm inclined to work things out the same way, but beyond that I'm not sure. The only way to be truly absolute about that would be to designate the White King's position as 0 and work out from there, with a special diagram for 01 and another for 06, 10, and 60, but I'd still be unsure about (as you say) what to do with 23, 24, 35, and 45. I'll sit down with it presently to work that out (probably parallel with the new diagrams).

I did already have in mind a solution to your last question: in all such cases, the lowest number takes precedence. In your example, 23 would continue from 02 rather than 03. (Explaining that is going to be a breeze, though, compared to making an illustration of it.)

Since 02 and 03 are both Territory Faces on 01, the edge shared between them will be along the left file of one and the right file of the other, but at the edge where they are adjacent to each other, each is also adjacent to 23. Following what I proposed earlier, this would have to be both the left file and the right file of 23, but that's a contradiction. So, this will not work. How, then, can ranks and files on each face be arranged in a consistent way?