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 Earlier
Timeline. Pieces travel through time on four 4 x 4 x 4 boards. (4x4x4, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Ryan wrote on 2015-05-15 UTC
I have a question: Say it's someone's turn to move, but that person has no valid moves. What happens then? Do they lose? Stalemate? Or is that person's turn just skipped and the other person gets to go again?

Ben Reiniger wrote on 2010-08-10 UTC
I really like this concept, though I haven't played it before.  Concerning the sample 'Case II', it is worth noting that even if U captures R--freeing B--W can immediately recapture B by the same move suggested.  (It might be worthwhile to capture B now (as in the suggestion) just to threaten U's current square (if R is ever captured at his starting square, that is).

Rooks do have the devastating ability to win the game in four moves (after two moves getting into position) by sweeping through the opponent's home row if they can avoid being captured first.  While bishops enjoy greater mobility, their range is only half the board, so I think the pieces are relatively well balanced.

Anonymous wrote on 2008-02-20 UTCGood ★★★★
GREAT concept, a very good game, but it might be a better game with 'real' pieces, instead of the 'block' art.

Jonathan wrote on 2007-11-01 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Though I don't much care for the zrf of this game (it's a 2 dimensional version, for those who don't know), I really, really like the concept and usage of the real thing. I admire this very much.

emmy T wrote on 2004-12-01 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
WOW. This was obviously well-thought-out and organized. Even though it deals with space-time in 5 dimensions, I wasn't confused at all. The author has managed to communicate a hugely complicated concept gracefully, using everyday language.

Anonymous wrote on 2003-08-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
So what if it's 5D, at least it's not confusing. The idea behind the
chits is simple and elegant. I had no headache like when I was reading
Raumsnach.

  (Apology for my obvious misspelling of 'snach')

Mads Engelund wrote on 2003-06-10 UTCGood ★★★★
The concept is very good, but it's actually a 5D game- 4 spatial and time. It needs to be simpler and the rook is too weak.

7 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.