[ 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 by David PaulowichLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧ Grand Chess. Christian Freeling's popular large chess variant on 10 by 10 board. Rules and links. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2012-03-19 UTCJason makes some good points concerning 10x10 chess variant design. I prefer placing Cannons on the back ranks, as in Shako and Shatranj Kamil X. Now the White Rooks will either have to share the first rank with the Cannons or position themselves on the second rank. [Subject Thread] [Add Response]David Paulowich wrote on 2012-03-05 UTCClicking on gnohmon in the previous post will take you to Ralph Betza's Google Profile, which shows another 5 posts in October, 2007. Centennial Chess. 10x10 Variant that adds Camels, Stewards, Rotating Spearmen and Murray Lions to the standard mix. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2012-02-07 UTCThis is a very good 10x10 chess variant, ranking perhaps a little below Shako. I must disagree with some of the piece values given, especially in the endgame. I consider a Ferz to be worth at least a quarter of a Rook on 10x10 boards, so the Steward (adding noncapturing Wazir moves) should be worth at least two-fifths of a Rook. Queen=9.1, Rook=5.0, Murray Lion=??, Bishop=3.1, Knight=2.7, Camel=2.5, Steward=??, Pawn=0.9 are consistent with the endgame values I have been using for years. While 'three-leapers' like the Camel appear to perform very well on 10x10 boards, I cannot value this awkward colorbound piece higher than half a Rook. In any variant where they can promote to Queens, five connected Pawns stand a good chance of defeating a lone Rook. See Opulent Lemurian Shatranj for a 10x10 chess variant, which also has a Commoner worth at least 3.1 points on this scale. The Murray Lion is a strange piece which, I believe, shares the Commoner's ability to checkmate a lone King. I value it somewhere between a Bishop and a Rook. King's Court. Variant on 8 by 12 board with Chancellors and Jesters. (12x8, Cells: 96) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2012-02-04 UTCSeven years have passed since the last game of King's Court was played on this site. This large (12x8) chess variant inspired the following set of rules. I never succeeded in inventing a game using these rules and I no longer have the free time to conduct the necessary playtesting. Rule One: Only simple pieces like the Rook, Bishop, and Nightrider have unlimited movement. Rule Two: Compound pieces cannot move more than four squares. For example: a 'Queen' would actually be a Q4, limited to a maximum move of four squares. Rule Three: A compound of three pieces cannot move more than two squares. The Chancellor in King's Court is an example of such a piece. [Subject Thread] [Add Response]David Paulowich wrote on 2012-02-01 UTCThe question of sufficient mating force becomes more complex on larger boards. See the thread 12x12_checkmate for some interesting results obtained by H. G. Muller. In particular, both the Commoner (FW) and the Half-Duck (HFD) may fail to force mate against a lone King on a 16x16 board. A 12x12 board can be 'too large' for the Woody Rook (WD) or even the (WAD) piece. Drunken Nights. A toned down version of the Nutty Knights for Chess with different Armies. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2012-01-26 UTCRalph Betza wrote about piece values as follows: 'Surprisingly enough, a Commoner (a piece that moves like a King but doesn't have to worry about check) is very weak in the opening, reasonably good in the middlegame, and wins outright against a Knight or Bishop in the endgame. (There are no Commoners in FIDE chess, but the value of the Commoner is some guide to the value of the King). What can you say about the poor Knight? It doesn't get any weaker as the game goes on, it's just that the other pieces get stronger while the Knight stays the same. In fact, it would be reasonable to conclude that the value of the Knight during the opening and middlegame exceeds its conventional value. In fact, that would explain why I have won so many games by allowing my opponent to 'win' a Bishop for a Knight in the early part of the game.' That web page has inspired me to use the Silver General in several chess variants. Also, in a roundabout fashion, to create piece value systems on the 8x8, 10x10, 12x12 boards where the humble Knight is assigned a constant value, while the Rooks and Bishops gain strength on the larger boards. Getting back to the Nutty Nights, their power is greatest in the early stages of the game, but they are extremely clumsy in the endgame. In my experience, the Remarkable Rookies are worth two points more than the FIDE army in the endgame. I am not ready to disagree with Betza's opinion that the NN and RR armies have equal chances of winning: both against each other and against the FF army. [Subject Thread] [Add Response]David Paulowich wrote on 2011-06-30 UTCPasting from the Game Courier Ratings has a lot of new problems this year. Players listed here have played at least five games and are rated 1500 and above. Name Userid GCR Percent GCR1 GCR2 Hexa Sakk bosa60 1761 51.0/057 = 89.47% 1737 1784 Fergus Duniho fergus 1655 27.0/035 = 77.14% 1628 1682 Nicholas Wolff nwolff 1608 10.0/014 = 71.43% 1617 1598 Joe Joyce joejoyce 1600 14.5/022 = 65.91% 1587 1614 Carlos Cetina sissa 1585 46.5/091 = 51.10% 1585 1586 Gary Gifford penswift 1577 5.5/008 = 68.75% 1540 1615 Jose Carrillo j_carrillo_vii 1571 24.5/041 = 59.76% 1556 1585 Uri Bruck bruck 1567 8.0/101 = 72.73% 1590 1544 Armin Liebhart lunaris 1555 14.0/022 = 63.64% 1505 1604 xeongrey xeongrey 1554 4.0/007 = 57.14% 1554 1555 Rob Brown steelhead 1550 4.0/007 = 57.14% 1543 1558 qixel qixel 1533 6.0/010 = 60.00% 1504 1562 jeddak_of_gathol jeddak_of_gathol 1530 3.0/005 = 60.00% 1517 1543 Francois Tremblay francoistremblay 1522 4.0/007 = 57.14% 1536 1507 Phoenix TKar tkr101010 1519 4.0/007 = 57.14% 1476 1561 Greg Strong mageofmaple 1511 8.0/020 = 40.00% 1497 1524 David Paulowich wrote on 2011-04-29 UTCThis thread is calculated from all games played here in the last 365 days. You must play five games (against more than one opponent) to make this list. Name Userid GCR Percent GCR1 GCR2 Hexa Sakk bosa60 1796 113.0/125 = 90.40% 1765 1826 H S petyura 1699 5.0/005 =100.00% 1694 1704 Nicholas Wolff nwolff 1666 9.0/011 = 81.82% 1636 1696 Fergus Duniho fergus 1630 29.0/040 = 72.50% 1604 1657 Jose Carrillo j_carrillo_vii 1609 33.0/051 = 64.71% 1573 1645 Armin Liebhart lunaris 1604 20.0/029 = 68.97% 1568 1639 Carlos Cetina sissa 1599 66.5/126 = 52.78% 1576 1621 Joe Joyce joejoyce 1594 11.0/017 = 64.71% 1574 1614 Rob Brown steelhead 1556 4.0/007 = 57.14% 1553 1559 Stephen Stockman stevestockman 1549 3.0/005 = 60.00% 1574 1523 Gary Gifford penswift 1541 3.5/006 = 58.33% 1516 1566 jeddak_of_gathol jeddak_of_gathol 1535 3.0/005 = 60.00% 1534 1535 Uri Bruck bruck 1533 7.0/011 = 63.64% 1511 1556 xeongrey xeongrey 1524 3.0/006 = 50.00% 1505 1544 Phoenix TKar tkr101010 1523 5.0/009 = 55.56% 1529 1517 qixel qixel 1512 5.0/009 = 55.56% 1496 1527 Scott McGreal agentofchaos 1508 3.0/007 = 42.86% 1462 1554 Vitya Makov makov333 1500 54.5/143 = 38.11% 1445 1555 Shambhala chess. Maybe, it's the misterious first form of chess? Actually, most probably, not. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2011-04-27 UTCGreg Strong asks: '... did the king really move and then move back to its starting square and thus lose the right to castle?' That has created confusion in the past. Go to Tim Krabbe's website and click on the [Greatest number of castlings] for an official game where White castled twice: 10.O-O and 33.O-O-O. Most computer databases will cut off this game record before the second (illegal) castling. Ideal Values and Practical Values (part 3). More on the value of Chess pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2011-04-18 UTCRalph Betza wrote: 'The Chancellor is roughly equivalent to the Queen even though the ideal value of N is presumably less than Bishop: the Bishop is colorbound and its practical value is ever so slightly more than a Knight, combining it with R removes the colorboundness, and therefore is a classical case of 'combining pieces to mask their weaknesses and thus allow their practical values to be fully expressed'; and therefore one might expect the Q to be worth notably more than the Chancellor.' 'One hypothesis about why the Chancellor does so well is that the R has a weakness that is masked when N is added to form Chancellor. This weakness would be its relative slowness and difficulty of development, and perhaps its lack of forwardness (it has only one forwards direction).' P=100, N=300, B=300, R=500, C=850, Q=900 are my preferred values on 8x8 boards. Sometimes I like to say that the value of a Bishop is 5/8 times that of a Rook on any square board, which would bump the Bishop up to 312.5 points here (an insignificant change, which does not affect my strategy when playing FIDE chess). Back in the 1990s I used to debate the relative values of Queen and Chancellor with Betza. Years later I came up with a way to compare these two pieces indirectly, by introducing some new pieces. The 'Elephant' moves like a Ferz or an Alfil, and is worth 50 points less than a Bishop (I believe Joe Joyce agrees with me on that). The 'Grand Rook' moves like a Rook or an Elephant, and is worth 50 points less than a Queen (I am casting my solitary vote for that value). The Grand Rook and the Chancellor are similar enough in design that I would expect them to have the same value on any square board. Chess with Different Armies. Betza's classic variant where white and black play with different sets of pieces. (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2011-03-05 UTCSome (tiny) steps have been taken towards CwDA opening theory. The page quoted below also has a link to a mini-tournament of CwDA games. 'The Paulowich Plan for playing with the Remarkable Rookies is very interesting. My own first attempts at playing this army involved taking a cramped closed central position and suffering for a long while before winning; my second idea was to do a Halfduck Dance, which may work even though it goes against the general principle of developing weaker pieces first. Pushing the b-Pawn so the WD can sit behind it is an interesting and creative idea; but in Paulowich-Aronson I'd instinctively prefer 3...a5-a4. (My instinct could be wrong, of course.)' -- gnohmon [9 Oct 2001]. I found this comment by looking at a nonindexed page on this site: Recent Ratings and Comments, which actually covers old comments from [27 May 2001] to [31 Mar 2002]. This list is also available in another format: alphabetic by variant name, where you can more easily find the 1st Email Championship Chess w... comments. NOTE: the page name on the left links to the main page, while the three blue dots on the extreme right link to the comments. [Subject Thread] [Add Response]David Paulowich wrote on 2011-03-01 UTCThis thread is calculated from all games played here in the last 365 days. You must play five games (against more than one opponent) to make this list. Name Userid GCR Percent GCR1 GCR2 Hexa Sakk bosa60 1807 135.0/149 = 90.60% 1777 1837 H S petyura 1706 7.0/007 =100.00% 1719 1692 Armin Liebhart lunaris 1623 24.0/033 = 72.73% 1590 1657 Nicholas Wolff nwolff 1623 4.0/005 = 80.00% 1618 1627 Jose Carrillo j_carrillo_vii 1618 38.5/058 = 66.38% 1586 1651 Carlos Cetina sissa 1597 80.0/154 = 51.95% 1573 1622 Neil Spargo spargo 1597 4.0/005 = 80.00% 1582 1611 Joe Joyce joejoyce 1594 11.5/017 = 67.65% 1568 1621 pallab basu pallab 1584 4.0/005 = 80.00% 1537 1630 Fergus Duniho fergus 1574 17.5/027 = 64.81% 1538 1611 Nicholas Wolff maeko 1561 3.0/005 = 60.00% 1520 1601 Uri Bruck bruck 1549 7.0/011 = 63.64% 1525 1573 Stephen Stockman stevestockman 1546 3.0/005 = 60.00% 1574 1519 Rob Brown steelhead 1539 3.0/006 = 50.00% 1533 1544 jeddak_of_gathol jeddak_of_gathol 1532 3.0/005 = 60.00% 1534 1531 David Levins midrael 1521 4.0/007 = 57.14% 1521 1521 qixel qixel 1511 5.0/009 = 55.56% 1506 1517 Scott McGreal agentofchaos 1507 3.0/007 = 42.86% 1470 1545 Vitya Makov makov333 1498 74.5/190 = 39.21% 1438 1557 David Paulowich wrote on 2010-12-31 UTCThis thread is calculated from all games played here in the last 365 days. You must play five games (against more than one opponent) to make this list. Name Userid GCR Percent GCR1 GCR2 Hexa Sakk bosa60 1820 133.5/145 = 92.07% 1790 1850 H S petyura 1721 12.0/012 =100.00% 1736 1707 Jose Carrillo j_carrillo_vii 1651 49.0/070 = 70.00% 1631 1671 pallab basu pallab 1620 9.0/010 = 90.00% 1580 1660 Carlos Cetina sissa 1612 91.5/171 = 53.51% 1601 1622 Armin Liebhart lunaris 1604 26.5/039 = 67.95% 1558 1649 Neil Spargo spargo 1599 4.0/005 = 80.00% 1590 1607 Fergus Duniho fergus 1588 23.5/037 = 63.51% 1535 1641 Joe Joyce joejoyce 1586 14.0/022 = 63.64% 1554 1619 Stephen Stockman stevestockman 1550 3.0/005 = 60.00% 1577 1523 qixel qixel 1536 5.0/008 = 62.50% 1520 1553 jeddak_of_gathol jeddak_of_gathol 1536 3.0/005 = 60.00% 1534 1539 Boyko Ahtarov zdra4 1532 9.0/018 = 50.00% 1566 1498 Nicholas Wolff maeko 1526 8.5/016 = 53.12% 1489 1562 Uri Bruck bruck 1524 6.0/010 = 60.00% 1507 1540 Thomas McElmurry crazytom 1514 8.5/018 = 47.22% 1499 1529 Phoenix TKar tkr101010 1503 4.0/007 = 57.14% 1528 1478 Vitya Makov makov333 1501 107.5/259 = 41.51% 1419 1583 David Paulowich wrote on 2010-10-30 UTCThis thread is calculated from all games played here in the last 365 days. You must play five games (against more than one opponent) to make this list. Name Userid GCR Percent GCR1 GCR2 Hexa Sakk bosa60 1823 120.5/130 = 92.69% 1790 1855 H S petyura 1732 12.0/012 =100.00% 1750 1714 Jose Carrillo j_carrillo_vii 1675 68.0/091 = 74.73% 1693 1656 pallab basu pallab 1636 9.0/010 = 90.00% 1599 1672 Joe Joyce joejoyce 1625 18.0/026 = 69.23% 1606 1643 David Paulowich david_64 1616 5.0/006 = 83.33% 1597 1634 Neil Spargo spargo 1608 4.0/005 = 80.00% 1597 1619 Carlos Cetina sissa 1607 104.5/193 = 54.15% 1605 1608 Fergus Duniho fergus 1598 32.5/051 = 63.73% 1588 1607 Armin Liebhart lunaris 1590 27.5/045 = 61.11% 1577 1602 Vitya Makov makov 1578 4.5/006 = 75.00% 1589 1567 Stephen Stockman stevestockman 1551 3.0/005 = 60.00% 1580 1522 qixel qixel 1542 4.0/006 = 66.67% 1557 1528 Boyko Ahtarov zdra4 1534 13.0/027 = 48.15% 1554 1514 Phoenix TKar tkr101010 1532 4.0/006 = 66.67% 1562 1503 Uri Bruck bruck 1523 4.0/008 = 50.00% 1484 1562 Thomas McElmurry crazytom 1520 8.5/018 = 47.22% 1557 1482 Vitya Makov makov333 1510 133.0/301 = 44.19% 1443 1578 Eni Li enili 1504 10.5/038 = 27.63% 1494 1513 David Paulowich wrote on 2010-08-29 UTCThis thread is calculated from all games played here in the last 365 days. You must play against more than one opponent to make this list. Name Userid GCR Percent GCR1 GCR2 Hexa Sakk bosa60 1817 104.5/113 = 92.48% 1797 1837 H S petyura 1729 12.0/012 =100.00% 1744 1714 Jose Carrillo j_carrillo_vii 1663 75.0/102 = 73.53% 1653 1674 Andreas Kaufmann andreas 1643 5.0/005 =100.00% 1634 1652 pallab basu pallab 1630 9.0/010 = 90.00% 1588 1672 Vitya Makov makov 1609 6.5/008 = 81.25% 1622 1596 Joe Joyce joejoyce 1590 18.0/027 = 66.67% 1568 1612 Carlos Cetina sissa 1587 112.0/199 = 56.28% 1584 1590 Fergus Duniho fergus 1584 31.5/050 = 63.00% 1565 1604 David Paulowich david_64 1571 5.0/007 = 71.43% 1577 1564 Armin Liebhart lunaris 1564 30.5/053 = 57.55% 1534 1593 Scott McGreal agentofchaos 1563 4.0/006 = 66.67% 1563 1563 Phoenix TKar tkr101010 1535 4.0/006 = 66.67% 1560 1510 Bogot Bogot olbog 1517 3.0/005 = 60.00% 1476 1557 Thomas McElmurry crazytom 1514 8.5/018 = 47.22% 1544 1484 Gary Gifford penswift 1510 3.5/008 = 43.75% 1504 1516 Vitya Makov makov333 1506 153.0/338 = 45.27% 1458 1553 Boyko Ahtarov zdra4 1503 13.0/027 = 48.15% 1512 1494 Eni Li enili 1501 4.0/022 = 18.18% 1498 1503 Stephen Stockman stevestockman 1497 2.0/005 = 40.00% 1544 1450 Game Courier Tournament #4: An Introductory Semi-Potluck. A tournament to feature games good for introducing people to Chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2010-08-15 UTCRunning Tournament Filter: gamecourier4 will assign ratings and further demonstrate Carlos Cetina's accomplishment here. Congratulations! I may not have time to play many games on this site, but I am planning to post a few Game Courier presets (that I have already promised). Name Userid GCR Percent GCR1 GCR2 Carlos Cetina sissa 1728 16.5/18 = 91.67% 1710 1746 Jose Carrillo j_carrillo_vii 1604 12.0/18 = 66.67% 1586 1622 Vitya Makov makov333 1590 11.0/18 = 61.11% 1580 1599 Armin Liebhart lunaris 1562 11.5/18 = 63.89% 1529 1594 Fergus Duniho fergus 1533 10.0/18 = 55.56% 1521 1545 Thomas McElmurry crazytom 1500 8.5/18 = 47.22% 1492 1507 Joe Joyce joejoyce 1467 2.5/06 = 41.67% 1469 1465 Sam Trenholme sam_trenholme 1383 1.0/06 = 16.67% 1389 1378 je ju jejujeju 1310 3.0/18 = 16.67% 1286 1334 Nicholas Wolff nickwolffrated 1306 2.0/18 = 11.11% 1284 1329 Stallmate Chess. Both players win or both players loose. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2010-08-12 UTCSamuel Loyd demonstrated a 12-move stalemate in 1906. The following game was played in a junior championship tournament in Sweden. [Event 'SWE-chJ'] [Site 'Borlange'] [Date '1995.??.??'] [Round '8'] [White 'Upmark, Johan'] [Black 'Johansson, Robin'] [Result '1/2-1/2'] 1. c4 h5 2. h4 a5 3. Qa4 Ra6 4. Qxa5 Rah6 5. Qxc7 f6 6. Qxd7+ Kf7 7. Qxb7 Qd3 8. Qxb8 Qh7 9. Qxc8 Kg6 10. Qe6 1/2-1/2 Knightmate. Win by mating the knight. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2010-08-09 UTCThis table of piece values states that the endgame value of a COMMONER is halfway between a Knight and a Rook in FIDE Chess. Betza once pointed out that replacing the White Knights with Commoners in the initial setup can lead to a difficult game, while replacing the White Bishops with Commoners allows the White pieces to develop more quickly. Ralph Betza also says on this web page: 'Surprisingly enough, a Commoner (a piece that moves like a King but doesn't have to worry about check) is very weak in the opening, reasonably good in the middlegame, and wins outright against a Knight or Bishop in the endgame. (There are no Commoners in FIDE chess, but the value of the Commoner is some guide to the value of the King).' My [2006-01-10] comment here shows that Royal Knight and Commoner can sometimes checkmate a Royal Knight. This example also works with FIDE Knight and King against a Royal Knight. [Subject Thread] [Add Response]David Paulowich wrote on 2010-07-27 UTCCheckers (draughts) is popular on 10x10 boards in much of Europe. In Quebec it is played on both 10x10 and 12x12 boards. See the 10x10 Boards thread for more information. [Subject Thread] [Add Response]David Paulowich wrote on 2010-07-18 UTCDaniil: this EXTERNAL LINK leads to a list of games created by W. D. Troyka, including 6D Chess, with a 2x2x2x2x2x2 board. L. L. Smith invented an interesting 4x4x4 variant called Chess Cubed, with all the pieces moving one step only. His 'Knights' are single step Unicorns. I am thinking about creating a preset for this game, but changing the initial setup to: White pieces on the lowest level (same as Raumschach). Raumschach. The classical variant of three-dimensional chess: 5 by 5 by 5. (5x5x5, Cells: 125) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2010-07-18 UTCATTENTION: the following diagram and rules are (c) 2004 Jim Aikin and are taken from his webpage Five Up. Note: Jim's 5x5x5 variant sets up the White pieces on the top two levels, thus requiring the White Pawns to move downwards. Apart from this change, his pawn movement rules are the same as those stated in my comment ten days earlier. Figure 6. The white pawn shown here, which is advancing toward the A5 row, can make capturing moves to the cells marked 'x' and non-capturing moves to the cells marked '+'. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5 |_|_|_|_|_| 5 |_|_|_|_|_| 5 |_|_|_|_|_| 5 |_|_|_|_|_| 5 |_|_|_|_|_| 4 |_|_|_|_|_| 4 |_|x|_|_|_| 4 |x|+|x|_|_| 4 |_|_|_|_|_| 4 |_|_|_|_|_| 3 |_|_|_|_|_| 3 |x|+|x|_|_| 3 |_|P|_|_|_| 3 |_|_|_|_|_| 3 |_|_|_|_|_| 2 |_|_|_|_|_| 2 |_|_|_|_|_| 2 |_|_|_|_|_| 2 |_|_|_|_|_| 2 |_|_|_|_|_| 1 |_|_|_|_|_| 1 |_|_|_|_|_| 1 |_|_|_|_|_| 1 |_|_|_|_|_| 1 |_|_|_|_|_| A a b c d e B a b c d e C a b c d e D a b c d e E a b c d e [Subject Thread] [Add Response]David Paulowich wrote on 2010-07-15 UTCRoyal Exclusion Zone Here is a new approach to the Slippery King problem on 6x6x6 boards, somewhat inspired by the rules of Chinese Chess. Both checkmate and stalemate count as wins. Let the King move in six directions like a Wazir, but forbid all other Kings from entering any of the 26 adjacent cells. This choice of words will also exclude a 'friendly' King in a four player game. level 1 - level 2 - level 3 - level 4 - level 5 - level 6 * R * | * * * | * * * 6 * * * | * * * | * * * 5 * * * | * * * | * * * 4 * k * | * * * | * * * 3 * * * | * * * | K * * 2 * * * | * * * | * * * 1 a b c d e f - a b c d e f - a b c d e f WIN IN FIVE: 1.Rook 1d6-1d4 King 1c3-1b3 2.Rook 1d4-1c4 King 1b3-1b2 3.Rook 1c4-1c3 King 1b2-1b1 4.Rook 1c3-1c2 King 1b1-1a1 5.Rook 1c2-1b2 STALEMATE David Paulowich wrote on 2010-07-15 UTCJoe Joyce started this thread by commenting: 'What happens is that the game becomes chaotic; players have no way to forecast the state of the board even a few turns in advance because there are so many possible moves.' Another complex shortrange piece is the Hippogriff, which can leap (1,1,2) to 24 different cells in the 6x6x6 variant Monster 3D Chess. SOME NOTES ON LARGE VARIANTS: my ideas for a 6x6x6 variant started with comments in the old 3-D Chess thread. Placing 16 White Pawns on the second level and 16 to 20 other White Pieces on the first level results in 64 to 72 pieces on 216 cells, which seems like a reasonable 3D density. Dai Shogi appears to have 130 pieces on 225 squares. Joe Joyce once put 64 pieces on the 256 cells of a sort of 4-D game. 'Edge effects cripple diagonal pieces, reducing the number of cells they can reach compared to starting in the center, but don't affect orthogonal pieces at all in that way.' writes Joe on April 5. Even on a 6x6x6 board, with 152 'edge cells' and 64 'interior cells', the Unicorn remains a weak piece, worth perhaps 40 percent of a Knight. I now prefer giving each army four Unicorns, serving as expendable units, similar to the Alfils in Shatranj. 3D-chess FAQ file. Information on the classic 5x5x5 three dimensional chess game. (5x5x5, Cells: 125) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2010-07-09 UTCThe colorbound piece mentioned in yesterday's comment is also called a HIPPOGRIFF in the 6x6x6 variant Monster 3D Chess. Smith says that it 'leaps to the opposite corner of a 2x2x3 area'. Raumschach. The classical variant of three-dimensional chess: 5 by 5 by 5. (5x5x5, Cells: 125) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David Paulowich wrote on 2010-07-08 UTCATTENTION: the 3-D CHESS FAQ FILE contradicts this Raumschach page with the following information: 'Pawns promote on the back rank of the opponent's end-level. White Pawns promote on the fifth rank of Level E; Black Pawns promote on the first rank of Level A. Dickins notes that in capturing Pawns must move toward their promotion rank. The '3-D' application of this rule means that a White Pawn on Cc3 can capture on Cb4 or Cd4 (like regular chess) or on Db3, Dd3, or Dc4, but not Db2. (Db2 is upward but backwards -- toward White's back rank instead of toward Black's back rank.)' NOTE: I have a text-file copy of Bruce Balden's two newsgroup posts on October 8, 1990. I believe that he has accidentally reversed the pawn promotion zones and that the rules originally given on this page are also mistaken. Here is one reason for believing so. Everyone agrees that a pawn on level 'C' must either remain on that level or move to an adjacent level: 'D' for a White Pawn or 'B' for a Black Pawn. But this means that a pawn on level 'C' will never promote (according to Bruce Balden). So I accept David Moeser's pawn promotion zones (the starting squares of your opponent's King, Knights, Rooks) as stated in the 3-D CHESS FAQ FILE. ALSO: my Raumschach Revised preset has the correct alternation of colors on a (slightly wider) Raumschach board. The initial setup and co-ordinate system match the game information page. 25 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.