## Not Just "Great", but HUGE

The game of 8x8x8 3D Chess has 512 "squares" on its board, more than any form of Great Chess. This got me thinking about two-dimensional games of Chess on a Really Big Board.

### The Rules of N-Board Chess

• The well-known rules of FIDE Chess apply, except as specified below.
• The game is played on a larger board than the normal 8x8, but the board requires no special equipment because you can simply push several chessboards together into a square or a rectangle or a hollow square or a line or whatever shape you wish. For example, a 16x16 board is constructed by pushing four standard chessboards together in a 2x2 square of boards.
• Although the edges of the 8x8 boards have no effect on the play, (the 16x16 game is simply a 16x16 board and there is nothing special about crossing from one 8x8 area to another), the notation for moves pays attention to these boundaries. For example, in Sixty-Four Board Chess (a chessboard of chessboards!), the longest possible Bishop move is Ba1.a1-h8.h8, "the Bishop moves from board a1 square a1 to board h8 square h8".
• An unmoved Pawn can advance either one step, or all the way up to the midline of the board, or anything in between. On a single 8x8 board, this is exactly like FIDE Chess; the rule has simply been rephrased to generalize it.
• An unmoved Pawn that makes a long move can be captured en passant (by an enemy Pawn, of course) as though it had made any of the possible shorter moves. Once again, this is merely a generalization of the normal rule.
• Pawn promotion occurs at the last rank, just as in FIDE Chess.
• Castling is the same as in FIDE Chess, except that the King moves further. (The Rook, or whatever piece starts in the corner, moves the same distance as in FIDE Chess.)
• When distances are doubled, the "fifty move rule" must be at least doubled.
• Because the board is larger, the lineup of pieces may be different than in FIDE Chess. The exact lineup is part of the description of any specific game.

#### About the Rule of Pawns

If Pawns can only start with a single or double step, it takes a lot of time to make contact. Each side develops its own pieces without being bothered by the other side, and then starts slowly moving forward. When at last contact is made, both sides will have had plenty of time to prepare, and therefore games between master-level players will presumably be drawn much more often than they are in FIDE Chess. However, differences in skill during the long non-contact phase should reap rich rewards during the brisk struggles that ensue after contact; this is a good rule for Pawns, but it is not the rule that I have chosen.

The rule I have chosen is to allow unmoved Pawns to advance anywhere up to the midline. This is exactly what happens in FIDE chess, it is simply a matter of how the rule is phrased.

In Four Board Chess after 1. b1.a2-b1.a8, "the King's Pawn advances to the midline", in other words the equivalent of 1. e2-e4 in FIDE chess, the Pawn on b1.a8 appears to be dangerously isolated. Of course, another Pawn can zoom up to defend it, but then this small detachment of Pawns is isolated: the minor pieces can't reach the area for several moves. Advanced Pawns are not so great if you don't control the territory behind them.

I like this rule because of the strategic tension it introduces: you want to go faster and use the longest Pawn move, hoping to gain space and get an attack going, but by doing so you may weaken your position quite a bit.

Chessplayers are used to "a1 to h8", and most chessplayers can read moves in this range and follow them (at least vaguely) blindfold. To understand a move such as "o17-p19" takes more mental effort.

Although "Na1.g7-b2.a1" may take a bit of thought to decode, it still seems easier than the alternatives.

Furthermore, on boards larger than 24x24 there are not enough letters in the alphabet to permit the use of the usual notation.

#### Some Odd Four Board Games.

Four boards in a 2x2 square makes a 16x16 board.

### One Set, Four Boards

Suppose that each player just uses one normal chess set with the normal arrangement of pieces, but White starts with the Queen on a1.h4, Black starts with the Q on a2.h5.

Here is an ugly ASCII diagram:

```
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
. . . . r n b q k b n r . . . .  4
. . . . p p p p p p p p . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
. . . . P P P P P P P P . . . .  6
. . . . R N B Q K B N R . . . .  5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
```
Seems like a silly idea, but the small number of pieces means that the game won't take so many moves, and the position of the Kings means that they will never be safe -- and so there will be many short games with exciting attacks.

### 64 Pieces, Four Boards

A more chesslike proportion of pieces would be to have 4 chess-sets' worth of pieces for the four boards. If you tried to develop all your pieces before attacking, the "opening" phase of the game would last 40 or so moves.

In fact, you could use a totally-chess setup. Each player starts the game with 16 doubled Pawns and four repetitions of the normal setup. There are too many Kings, of course, and each player already has doubled Rooks in the center; so this is not a perfectly pleasing setup. Even so, it's interesting to consider this opening position and imagine what it must be like to play such a game.

Here is an ugly ASCII diagram:

```
r n b q k b n r r n b q k b n r  8
r n b q k b n r r n b q k b n r  7
p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p  6
p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p  5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P  4
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P  3
R N B Q K B N R R N B Q K B N R  2
R N B Q K B N R R N B Q K B N R  1

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
```
A more reasonable setup might be to have a front row of Pawns, fill the third rank with really weak pieces, put the King in the center on the second rank, fill in the rest with other pieces.

This presents the player with an interesting problem of coordination. In order to get a safe King position, you need to choose one side, keep the Pawns on the fourth rank, get the King over there, bring some of the weaker pieces back from the third rank to cover; and you need to do this without spending too many moves.

I haven't filled in all the details of this game because although I think it is probably playable, the huge mass of pieces seems too heavy for my taste.

## Four Board Chess

Four boards in a 2x2 square makes a 16x16 board.

Think about this board for a moment. It's quite impossible that a game played on this could be Chess with a capital C, don't you think? But of course we can have a nice game that is a chess variant and is interesting to play; the game I will present is fairly much like Chess, subject to other design constraints.

Think about this board for a moment. How large it is! It must take quite a few moves to play a game on this board, and if it is a very tactical game I think I would get a headache from having to think so hard for so many moves; and so I want this game to be a bit more strategical and less tactically intense than FIDE Chess.

The "Rose" is a circular Knightrider (example: from e1 to g1 and if g2 is empty continue to h4, g6, e7, c6, b4, c2, e1) which cannot use its whole move on any board smaller that 13x13; because this board is even bigger, I want to put this piece on it!

Here is an ugly ASCII diagram of the Rose's move:

```
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
. . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . .  3
. . . 3 . . . 1 . . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
. . 4 . . . . . O . . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
. . . 5 . . . 7 . . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . x . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . x . . . x . . . . .  5
. . . . x . . . x . . . x . . .  4
. . . . . x . . . . . x . . . .  3
. . . x . . . x . x . . . x . .  2
. . . . . . x . . . x . . . . .  1
. . x . x . . . O . . . x . x .  8
. . . . . . x . . . x . . . . .  7
. . . x . . . x . x . . . x . .  6
. . . . . x . . . . . x . . . .  5
. . . . x . . . x . . . x . . .  4
. . . . . . x . . . x . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . x . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
```

### Funny Notation for Circular Riders

*sigh*

The "funny notation" gets creakier and creakier as we push its limits. I didn't want to have ugly punctuation or brackets, but now I must.

The lower case 'q' will be the modifier for circular riders, because 'o' is already used for cylindrical and 'c' for capture.

qN is the Rose, but the qK could also be written qAWFAqAFWA. (The qK could start with an F move or with a W move.)

As one example of its move, the circular King, qK, could go from e1 to f1 and if f1 is empty could continue in the same move to g2, and so on to g3, f4, e4, d3, d2, e1.

Here is an ugly ASCII diagram of the qK's move:

```
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . 4 3 . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . 5 . . 2 . . . . .  1
. . . . . . . 6 . . 1 . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . 7 K . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . x x x . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . x x . x x . . . .  1
. . . . . . x x x x x x x . . .  8
. . . . . . x . x K x . x . . .  7
. . . . . . x x x x x x x . . .  6
. . . . . . . x x . x x . . . .  5
. . . . . . . . x x x . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
```
I think that circular pieces should be permitted to use the null-move, that is, to go around the circle and stop where they started.

As long as I have introduced brackets, I must introduce a few new modifiers. (Soon there will be a scarcity of lower-case letters to use as modifiers!).

The XiangQi Knight makes a non-capturing W move, and may not stop; if the W square is empty it *must* continue with an F move outwards. I think 'g' is unused, so this would be 'gAmWFA', "go".

The Gryphon makes an F move and *then* if the f square was empty it may if it wishes continue outwards with a Rook move. Call this 'tAFRA', "then".

Here is an ugly ASCII diagram of the Gryphon's move:

```
. . . . . . . . .12 . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . .11 . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . .10 . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . .  1
. . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . . . R . . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  1
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  6
x x x x x x x x . x x x x x x x  5
. . . . . . . . R . . . . . . .  4
x x x x x x x x . x x x x x x x  3
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  1

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
```
The 'aAWFA4' makes alternating (outwards, of course) W and F moves up to a length of 4: from e1 to e2 and if e2 was empty may stop or continue to f3, so on f4 and g5; now has taken 4 steps and can go no further. All the F moves must be in the same direction as each other, all the W moves must also.

Here is an ugly ASCII diagram of the aAWFA4's move:

```
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . .  1
. . . . . . . . W . . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . x . . . x . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  3
. . . . x . . x . x . . x . . .  2
. . . . . x x . x . x x . . . .  1
. . . . . . . x W x . . . . . .  8
. . . . . x x . x . x x . . . .  7
. . . . x . . x . x . . x . . .  6
. . . . . . . x . x . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . x . . . x . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
```
This section will eventually be removed from here and put into the "funny notation" file.

### Two Sets, Four Boards

Sixteen Pawns on the second rank, sixteen pieces on the first; here is an ugly ASCII diagram of the setup:
```
r n d w b o a q k c j b w d n r  8
p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p  7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P  2
R N D W B O A Q K C J B W D N R  1

a b c d e f g h a b c d e f g h
```
The pieces are R, N, FD, WFA, B, Rose, NB, Q, K, RN, NLJ, B, WFA, FD, N, R; the Rose is represented by a circle (the letter O), the RN is the Chancellor (letter C), the NB is tha Archbishop (letter A), and I have chosen semi-random other letters for the remaining pieces.

The Rook, Knight, Bishop, King, and Queen appear in their usual order, but a few new pieces are insterted.

The FD jumps of (0,2) or (1,1); the WFA moves like a King or jumps to (2,2); the NB is Knight plus Bishop, known as the Archbishop; and the RN is the Rook plus Knight, known as the Chancellor.

The SuperKnight NLJ is the Knight (1,2) plus the long Knight (1,3) plus the long, wide Knight (2,3). You can't have this piece on an 8x8 board because it's too long and can threaten multiple mates with its first move, so the NLJ seems good for the 16x16 board.

The NLJ is obviously destined for use as an attacking piece. On the 8x8 board, it would be at least as strong as the Queen even before taking into account its ability to crush the opening. On the 16x16 board, who can say?

This lineup contains a very basic and logical selection of the fundamental geometrical moves, except for my idiosyncratic insistence on including the Rose in the lineup of pieces. These are largely the basic units of Chess, and anybody who designs a 16x16 game with 32 pieces is bound to come up with something reasonably similar, at least if they want it to be like Chess but a bit less tactical.

Although the Rose is a powerful piece, it contributes to the feeling of spaciousness because its farthest reach is only half the board.

Meanwhile, the relatively uncrowded starting position causes the long-range pieces to have more mobility than they normally do in FIDE Chess. Bishops attacking from miles away; seems like a charming feature of 16x16 games.

#### The Weak Pieces Are the Most Important

In this game, you would never trade a Bishop for a Knight; but if the Knight is defending an area where you want to attack, you might be willing to sacrifice a Bishop for a Knight.

Each player has 7 long-range pieces, 2 mid-range pieces, and 6 short-range pieces. In such an open position, it may be rather difficult for the long pieces to do much by themselves; in order for an attack to succeed, most often you nust either sacrifice something or bring up a short-range Pawn or a short-range piece to help.

In fact, because it takes the weaker pieces so long to get from one part of the board to another, their wise use will be the deciding factor in most games.

#### The Starting Lineup

Perhaps it is possible to have a better choice of pieces in the game Without greatly changing the promising characteristics of the game.

The lineup presented above was my fourth try.

Originally, I had the WA instead of the WFA; this created a pleasing symmetry because the WA and FD together combine the 4 basic non-Knight geometires in two complementary pieces, but it wasn't quite right.

Changing it to a WFA made it possible to have all the Pawns initially defended, and added a new level of value to the game -- the WFA is worth more than the N or FD, less than the NLJ, perhaps as much as the B but not quite. The difficulty of exchanging unlike pieces for equal value adds spice to the game.

I avoided putting the B at c1 because b2 seems like such a perfect square for it; I wanted you to work harder. I first put the B at d1 but once that the WFA replaced the WA, it seemed like more fun to put the B at e1. This gives you two black-squared colorbound pieces on the left side and two white-squared colorbound pieces on the left; experience has shown that this is more interesting than a balanced setup.

I also made things inconvenient in other ways: c3 is wanted for the development of both the N and the FD, and moving the center Pawns does not open the way for the Bishops.

What about the arrangement of Rose, NB, Q, RN, and NLJ? My choice is fairly random but I see no real reason why some other arrangement might be better. (I've thought about it...)

It seems logical to have Q on one color and NB on the other.

#### Observations About Four Board Chess

This game is designed for face-to-face play between players of at least moderate skill.

If its design has been successful, you will find that this game is somewhat less tactical than FIDE Chess. As a result, you should need to do less calculating and should be able to move more quickly (and therefore the elapsed time and the total mental effort required to play a game might not be much more than FIDE Chess).

#### Sample Game of Four Board Chess

R, N, FD, WFA, B, Rose, NB, Q, K, RN, NLJ, B, WFA, FD, N, R.

1. b1.a2-b1.a8 b2.a7-b2.a1
2. Qa1.h1-b2.h1 a2.h7-a2.h2
3. b1.b2-b1.b8 qNa2.f8-a2.h3

White's attack is my favorite opening for sample games. Here it might even be a good move because it exerts long-range pressure on the center and is not easy to drive away.

Black defends and develops with ease, and now White has no more immediate attacks. Neither side wants to trade Pawns and lose a tempo, but White can't afford to let the RN sit on b1.b1 forever.

White could aim to attack the undefended Pawn at a2.h2 by moving the Pawn away from a1.d2 and following with Ba1.e1-a1.b4; this doesn't look dangerous. White could try to attack the nQa2.h3 by moving the P from b1.e2 and then Bb1.d1-b1.g4; again unconvincing.

Because the minor pieces take a while to reach the scene, the battle is less tactically intense than FIDE Chess.

4. (NLJ)b1.c1-b1.a4 (NB)a2.g8-b2.a7
5. (NLJ)b1.a4-a1.h6 (NB)b2.a7-b2.c6
6. Qb2.h1-b2.h2 (NLJ)b2.c8-b2.a5
7. b1.h2-b1.h8!? (NB)b2.c6-b2.f3!?

White's threat to put the Rook on the a1.h1 file is quite disturbing; Black chases the Q simply because b2.f3 is potentially defended by the qN or the b2.e7 Pawn, while Black's own Q covers b2.f2 and can follow up by going there. (That is, the NB isn't out on a limb but is going to a place where other pieces can cooperate with it.)

8. Qb2.h2-b1.d6 (NB)b2.f3-b1.c8
9. Qb1.d6-b1.g3 Qa2.h8-b2.d4

White's 8th move attacks Black's King-Pawn another time, but Black's reply attacks the WQ and while defending the Pawn; then if 9. Qb1.d6-b1.c7, (NB)b1.c8-b2.d1 seems to win a Pawn.

Now Black threatens (NB)b1.c8-b1.d6, and unless I've left something hanging Black stands pretty well.

Less tactically intense? Yes, I think; but if you insist on getting into an immediate fight, you can.

In the sample, I insisted on an instant fight, and there was one; but there were fairly few pieces involved, they had room to run away, and the variations that I saw weren't very long or deep (perhaps the things I missed were? More likely they were obvious.)

Did I miss obvious things? Of course. It's a big new chessboard and there's lots of room on it for errors.

## Nine Board Chess

Push 9 boards together in a 3x3 square, symmetrically replicate all the unique pieces from the Four Board Chess lineup, add a W beside the K, two Fs flanking the K ans W, and you have a game.

The choice of the W and F is based on the fact that we have just replicated the strongest pieces from Four Board Chess, and so it seems logical to balance things by adding some really weak pieces.

Their placement is based on the fact that they are useful defensive pieces. If you Castle, you must leave them far behind; if their presence in the center tempts you to keep your King there and get checkmated, that just adds to the fun.

This is probably the biggest game that anybody would ever really think of actually playing.

## Sixty-Four Board Chess

A chessboard of chessboards! You must use very small chessboards and sets, and you must have very long arms. You must also have a long time to play!

I can enjoy this game more by just thinking about it than I could by actually trying to play it...

## Four Board Chess with Different Armies

(Four Board Chess is the only fully-designed N-board game, and so I am using it as the example; you can generalize the following.)

The values of pieces on larger boards have not been studied well enough to allow me to suggest equivalents for the long range pieces in this game.

However, it would certainly be possible for the players to have different short-range pieces; for example, if one player has a pair of N and the other player has a pair of fbNF, it should be an even game.

## Four Board Chess Variants

Taking the above rules as a basis, you could apply the rules of any chess variant and have a game.

It would seem silly to apply rules that make the board seem bigger, such as Cylindrical Chess.

It would seem logical to apply rules that make the game shorter, such as Avalanche Chess.

Perhaps the most logical variant would be Viennese Kriegspiel, a variant in which you set up a screen along the midline, each player makes as many moves as desired, you remove the screen and start playing. For Four Board Viennese Kriegspiel, I'd forbid moving beyond the sixth rank.

Four Board Viennese Kriegspiel makes the game shorter by allowing you to develop your pieces without waiting for the other player to move, but it removes the skill of reacting wisely to what the other player is doing, and it destroys the careful though I put into the initial setup of pieces.

Four Board Sighted Viennese Kriegspiel is Viennese Kriegspiel without the screen. You see what your opponent is doing, and can rearrange your pieces, but you both play the opening moves without waiting for each other to move, or worrying about who makes more moves than the other. Use a time limit to prevent infinite rearrangement.

Four Board Sighted Viennese Kriegspiel is basically how they used to start the game in Shatranj. Perhaps the retronym "Sighted Viennese Kriegspiel" is a neologism.

Perhaps the best set of variant rules to use on this big board is Momentum Chess; but I plan a special and separate article on a big-board form of Momentum Chess, with the board size, setup, and all rules specially crafted to make a perfect game.

## Four Board Shatranj

In order to have a game that is even less tactical, one could eliminate the strongest pieces. Replace the Bishops with Alfils, replace the Queen with a Ferz, use a NA instead of the Archbishop, and, oh, something or other instead of the Chancellor. How about an RA or RF?

Now the RA or RF, the Rose, and the NLJ are the strongest pieces.

This is probably fun to play if you like Shatranj (I like Shatranj).

Four Board Momentum Shatranj is guaranteed to be a great game, suitable for email play.

## Coming Soon: Four Board Great Chess

Four Board Chess is rather chesslike. There are several pieces other than the Rose that need big boards, but I have not used them.

Four Board Great Chess should have a row of Pawns on the third rank, and roughly 24 pieces in the two rows behind them (you have some empty spaces in the starting position).

It would be easy to put together a bunch of pieces meeting this description, but to make a well-designed Four Board Great Chess is another story: that requires quite a bit of effort.

## Coming Soon: Four Board Great Shatranj

Great Shatranj should have weaker pieces than Great Chess.

#### Other Links In these Pages

This is a Mailme. ﻿