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.

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

# Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Earlier
Nested Chess. A variant hiding another on its diagonals. (15x15, Cells: 141)
George Duke wrote on 2009-08-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
```This is the Sawtooth board, found nowhere else in CVPage surprisingly. The other diamond chesses (Betza'a rectahex etc.) are different and only Gilman's Nested Shogi and couple other Gilmans also have it, if adding the one-square cap on each side. Sawtooth is popular in math problems* and puzzles. One finding: that the outer Bishop binding (including corners) becomes isomorphic with perimetre Rook, based on different board sizes by formula. With n= each integer, by 2n+2 for Rook and 4n+3 for Bishop, there are: n=1, Rook on 4x4 = Bishop on 7x7; n=2, Rook on 6x6 = Bishop on 11x11; n=3, Rook on 8x8 = Bishop on 15x15. Thus Rook on standard 64 squares is oh so like Bishop binding-one on 15x15 Sawtoothed. In Rectahex
Betza uses different diamond geometry, not Sawtooth, to get hexagram connectivity.
*When referring to recreational math above, remember to try innocently to emulate Einstein in no way diddly doodling, as it turned out, at the Swiss Patent Office by daydreaming in the utmost possible depth for the photoelectric effect and special relativity. Who knows where the chicken scrawls may lead?(war is imbedded in *scrawl*.)
http://www.chessvariants.org/diffmove.dir/rectahex.html
Betza begins: ''Is hexagonal chess really hexagonal, or is it merely a rectangular dream?''```

Charles Gilman wrote on 2006-08-25 UTC
Fair enough, I have removed the second name. I had thought that there were other usages of it than that in Dabbabante Chess, but after waiting for a comment to that effect I see that there has not been one.

Jeremy Good wrote on 2006-08-21 UTC
Charles, looks intriguing and worthy of further investigation. A technical point, if I may? The Dabbabante actually appears to be different from the closely related Dabbabah rider. I presume V.R. Parton invented the Dabbabante for his Dabbabante Chess. Here is a description of the piece from that page: Dabbabanate Chess 'It is tempting to consider the Dabbabante a sort of Dabbabah-Rider (that is, a piece that can make repeated leaps of two squares orthogonally in the same direction as long as all the squares landed on but possible the last, are empty), but it isn't, really. Instead, the Dabbabante is a Super Dabbabah, able not only to leap (0,2), but (0,4), (0,6) and (0,8) as well. It is leaper, not a rider.'

Edited in 8-22: In other words, I believe it's a mistake to refer to the dabbabah rider and dabbabante as equivalent.