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 Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEX! Chess. A game designed to be as different to chess as possible while still being the same as chess. (1x72, Cells: 72) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Julian wrote on 2015-04-30 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
What is the point of the PlasticKeyboard?

Doug Chatham wrote on 2007-03-10 UTC
A Mook is a Rook that can castle and a Computer is a Rook that cannot castle.

Marco Silva wrote on 2007-03-10 UTCBelowAverage ★★
Whats the difference between a Mook and a Computer?

Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2005-11-21 UTC
Other possibility: The player who missed the 'Ouch!' lose the game after the other player´s claim. It can provoque an 'Ouch!', but it would not be valid at that time.

Greg Strong wrote on 2005-11-21 UTC
I'll repost this question, since the old message got lost:

What happens if you make a move, but forget to say 'Ouch'?
My suggestion: Your opponent gets to punch you in the arm.  That should
provoke an 'Ouch!'

David Howe wrote on 2005-11-16 UTC
Apparently at some point, our database was restored to an earlier state, which means we lost some comments. I apologise for that -- I have no idea why the database would have been restored to two days earlier, unless our server had some sort of crash and the site had to be restored.

As far as letting other people use my code for the commenting system -- I certainly have no objection. I shall work on packaging the code and documenting how to use it. Perhaps I shall even clean it up and make it more generic. However, that is all in my spare time, of which, I seem to have less and less these days.

My apologies to all the people I haven't gotten back to. Believe me, I still intend to get back to you all. Perhaps over the holidays! ;-)


Peter Aronson wrote on 2005-11-16 UTC
Well, David Howe is the keeper of the comment system, and he seems to be
unavailable at the moment.  I don't think any of the rest of us have much
of clue of how it works, except maybe Fergus?

Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2005-11-16 UTC
are they lost forever, i've been waiting for a comment from an editor, cause i rated a game ... seems they are all out of town or something :)

David Paulowich wrote on 2005-11-16 UTC
Apparently two days of messages were accidentally erased from this site. See the 'Time Warp' comments thread on 2005-11-11.

Jianying Ji wrote on 2005-11-16 UTC
what happened to the new version of this page, and the comment that the author added answering the 11/7th question?

Moisés Solé wrote on 2005-11-07 UTC
Is it just me, or is checkmate a draw?

Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2005-11-05 UTC
pretty 'bent' ideas coming out lately, and this is one of them, would be interesting to see how this plays .. yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees? (he he)

Thomas McElmurry wrote on 2005-11-04 UTC
Yes, they are, although they're replaced by the more basic concept of Rex capture. Strictly speaking, moving into 'check' is legal in EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEX! Chess, but it's a very bad idea to do so if you can avoid it, because it will result in an immediate loss if your opponent is on his toes. The AnalogComputer and Water ensure that the same applies to Seeing Red out of or through 'check', and the last sentence in the Main Rules section establishes that 'stalemate' counts as a draw.

Doug Chatham wrote on 2005-11-04 UTC
Question: Are the standard chess rules for checkmate and stalemate properly reflected in this variant? I'm not sure.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2005-11-04 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Simulating En Passant is what the Oranges are all about.

The idea of expressing 2d Chess as a 1d game has obvious extrapolation to expressing 3d or even 4d games in 2d. Of course this would use several Fires in a row, forming a Firewall - to go with the Computers and Keyboards, I suppose!


Greg Strong wrote on 2005-11-04 UTC
This is interesting, and worth a laugh if nothing else. There is still a difference from Chess, though. I don't see any equivalent to En Passant.

Doug Chatham wrote on 2005-11-03 UTC
For the tournament language, I nominate Xhosa. The clicking noises should make the game fun to listen to. :-)

I also nominate Chinese, since the game could use something that makes it sound like an Eastern variant.


Jared McComb wrote on 2005-11-03 UTC
I would think that having each player have two of the same thing would still qualify as different armies, but whatever. Furthermore the game has 'Chess' in the title. ;)

(zzo38) A. Black wrote on 2005-11-03 UTC
I included instructions for using a deck of cards. As the language to use in international tournaments, I would let people give ideas and vote.

I have a few ideas for language to use in international tournaments:
  • Latin
  • Ancient Egyptian
If you have any idea, or would like to vote, you can indicate it as well.

Doug Chatham wrote on 2005-11-03 UTCGood ★★★★
Jared, your question is answered in a previous comment -- the inventor wants it to look like the players have different armies.

Now, I notice this game still uses a board. (How quaint!) I suggest replacing the board with a deck of cards, or perhaps a voice-operated game where a player tells the opponent what he wants the piece positions to be...


Jared McComb wrote on 2005-11-03 UTC
How come one player has two GoldenKeyboards and the other player has one each of Golden and Plastic? Was this intentional?

Todor Tchervenkov wrote on 2005-11-03 UTC
What about translating this game in other languages? What language should be used in a international tournament?

(zzo38) A. Black wrote on 2005-11-03 UTC
Quote:
There are a couple of points where the wording could be improved. 'If it steps on an opponent piece it is captured and is permanently off the board' seems to imply that the moving piece is captured, rather than the opposing piece. Also, the phrase 'your other Mook' in the description of seeing red could be taken to mean that one must have two Mooks in order to see red.

Quote:
Two other notes. First, ShoppingCarts should be able to promote on the square where a Rex began, as well as those you list. Second, you only need 71 squares--the last Fire is irrelevant to the play.


OK, I fixed those things. But I didn't remove the last square, because it isn't important to do that. I know the last Fire is irrelevant to the play, but I will keep it in, in case other variants of this game come up (copying rules from other variants) to see what happens and how relevant the extra square is in these variant rules.

Thomas McElmurry wrote on 2005-11-03 UTC
This is a very appealing game which seems to have considerable strategic depth. I think it is worthy of serious study.

There are a couple of points where the wording could be improved. 'If it steps on an opponent piece it is captured and is permanently off the board' seems to imply that the moving piece is captured, rather than the opposing piece. Also, the phrase 'your other Mook' in the description of seeing red could be taken to mean that one must have two Mooks in order to see red.


J Andrew Lipscomb wrote on 2005-11-03 UTC
Two other notes. First, ShoppingCarts should be able to promote on the square where a Rex began, as well as those you list. Second, you only need 71 squares--the last Fire is irrelevant to the play.

25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.