Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

From the starting position it is not possible to make two moves with pawns from columns b and g. For example, p b11-b10 and p b12-b11 for black.

I successfully made those two moves on Black's first turn. I also did the same with Pawns in the g file. So, I didn't find this to be true.

Since the first move is not displayed on the board, on the square where the piece that made the first move stood, you cannot place another piece on your second move.

This isn't true. Maybe you tried to enter both moves at once in an incorrect format. Moves on the same turn should be separated by semicolons, and if you enter just one move at a time, it will update the board and prompt you for the second move.

From the starting position it is not possible to make two moves with pawns from columns b and g. For example, p b11-b10 and p b12-b11 for black. Since the first move is not displayed on the board, on the square where the piece that made the first move stood, you cannot place another piece on your second move.

Thank you so much, Mr. Duniho!!!

I programmed this game by modifying the code for Balanced Marseillais Chess. But I have not yet tested it to make sure everything works correctly.

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/doublemovedoublechess

Thank you!

Firstly, I am not a programmer, so I just don’t know HOW this is done, and secondly, even if I were one, I would consider such actions simply not correct on my part. I mean to interfere with the site's line of games, which, as I understand it, have some criteria for the implementation of the game by correspondence.

Well, as Fergus explained you are simply wrong on the second point: Creating Game Courier presets for their inventions is considered a task for the inventors here. Editors here already seem to be overloaded with their current tasks, considering the large backlog that exists for publishing submissions.

Creating a GC preset that does not enforce rules does not require any programming, and can already be used to play a game on line. Players can very well check the legality of their opponent's move themselves; if they play a chess game 'over the board' they would have to do that too.

Firstly, I am not a programmer, so I just don’t know HOW this is done,

There is a Developer's Guide and several tutorials for programming a game for Game Courier. For this particular game, you could probably start with the code for Extra Move Chess or Balanced Marseillais Chess and make some modifications for your game. I think the latter may be more similar to your game. However, if you have no experience programming, it could be tricky to do it just right. Barring that, it's also possible to create an unprogrammed version of your game. This will not enforce rules or display legal moves, but it will let people play in an over-the-board kind of way, as you would with a physical set.

and secondly, even if I were one, I would consider such actions simply not correct on my part.

Over a thousand games are available for Game Courier, and I certainly did not program or personally approve of all of them. People are using Game Courier to play games I've never heard of and do not know how to play. One thing that increases the status of a game here is if someone programs it for Game Courier and people start playing it here, and inventors are free to program their own games if they are able to.

A two-move knight is certainly not a Nightrider, but still ... In some cases, in the endgame, promoting a pawn into a knight by the first move, you can immediately hit the opponent's king by the second move.

Nevermind. I was reading the object as capturing two knights instead of two kings. To prevent this misreading, I have revised your sentence to read "To win the game of Double Move Double Chess, a player must capture both of the opponent's kings." This makes it clear that there are only two of them to begin with, which is true for kings but not for knights.

Firstly, I am not a programmer, so I just don’t know HOW this is done, and secondly, even if I were one, I would consider such actions simply not correct on my part. I mean to interfere with the site's line of games, which, as I understand it, have some criteria for the implementation of the game by correspondence.

What stops you doing this yourself?

(This is a serious question, not a rebuttal. I don't think any editorial permission is required for creating a Game Courier preset for on-line play, and many inventors of chess variants do create their own. So if there is something that discourages you to do it, it would be of interest to know what it is, and if we could remedy it by improving the site somehow.)

A two-move knight is certainly not a Nightrider, but still ... In some cases, in the endgame, promoting a pawn into a knight by the first move, you can immediately hit the opponent's king by the second move.

What effect does promoting a Pawn to a Knight have on the object of the game? There are two options:

1. It mainly increases the vulnerability of the player who promotes a Pawn to a Knight, because it gives the opponent one more target.
2. The opponent now has to capture one more Knight to win, which is an advantage for the player promoting a Pawn to a Knight.

Dear Sirs! Could you please make this chess variant available to play by correspondence on your site. Many fans of chess variants show interest in the game, but do not have the opportunity to play on the site where the experimental tournament is currently taking place. I would recommend such users to play on chessvariants.com

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.

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.

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

My submission is ready for publication.

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.