[ 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 JT KLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧ Full Cavalry. Rooks are replaced by Lancers and castling is still legal.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]JT K wrote on 2020-09-11 UTCMakes sense, and thank you for the compliment. I figure it would be more approachable and manageable for ChessV than 8-Piece Chess (despite my personal love of the latter). JT K wrote on 2020-09-11 UTCAwesome, thanks Greg! On a related note, do you have any plans for ChessV updates? It'd be cool to see how the engine handles Full Cavalry. Hope all is well. Home page of The Chess Variant Pages. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]JT K wrote on 2020-09-10 UTCGreg, is Full Cavalry okay? I know there's a "Cavalry Chess" but I thought that Full Cavalry seemed unique enough and appropriate for what it is. Let me know, thanks! Review of Submissions[Subject Thread] [Add Response]JT K wrote on 2020-09-09 UTCWho is currently reviewing new submissions? I'm just calling attention to the variant Full Cavalry I created recently. UserID on CV site[Subject Thread] [Add Response]JT K wrote on 2020-02-25 UTCHi Fergus, can I get it changed to ChessVariantDemos? (assuming all the info and variant pages I've written remain) JT K wrote on 2020-02-22 UTCAnyone know who can help me create a new UserID for this account? Not just name change... A modest proposal about pawns[Subject Thread] [Add Response]JT K wrote on 2019-10-19 UTCMaybe 1. a5 would be a hassle for Black to deal with in 8x8, but... maybe Black can aim for the center as a response. JT K wrote on 2019-10-19 UTCToday I was thinking about large board variants and their typical "two step" pawn-at-any-time option and "three step pawns" and I thought of a possible idea for pawn movement in general, for ALL board sizes, even 8x8 or smaller. The main idea is a way of speeding up the game and giving pawns just a bit more power at the right time, while keeping some restraints. So here it is: what's to stop us from playing with pawns that can slide straight forward as far as they want? They still capture only one square diagonally. My added rule is this: ANY piece or pawn can capture en passant at any square that it just moved through. 1. e5 looks too powerful for White as a first move, but what about 1. .... d4 as a response? If e x d6 e.p. then Qxd6. Black isn't hopeless here. Admitedly I haven't studied it much or played it, but let's discuss! 8-Piece Chess. (Queen's Army chess, all 8 Back Rank Pieces different).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]JT K wrote on 2019-09-20 UTCNice one Ben, exactly right. In addition: Pushing the King to d5 also works, but my original idea- just like your line of thinking, was "return to the square it just left" like in my checkmate example in the Pieces section. Even though it can do a lot, I'm pretty sure the sentry is still just a bit weaker than a bishop (and that's how I wanted it), for example if the sentry were a pinned piece here, it can't perform the final mate move, while a bishop already has it mated. Advantages and disadvantages is what I was going for. JT K wrote on 2019-09-19 UTCYou’re asking the admin team for Spoiler text as a feature? Or did you want me to simply post the sequence for now? JT K wrote on 2019-09-17 UTCBen, if you liked the sentry example, here's another one, a bit trickier. White to move and mate in 5: JT K wrote on 2019-09-16 UTCA quick puzzle based on this variant, with Black's pawns moving up the board - playing from the bottom (using abstract pieces as this is from Tabletopia) Anyone insterested in playing a game, we can arrange a time/date to play live online. JT K wrote on 2019-08-06 UTCNew fairness-based rule to the Randomized version of this game: in the opening setup, the sentry must reside on the c, d, e, or f files. Turnover. Three ring sizes fit into each other, combining and splitting into different pieces, sometimes taking over your opponent's.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]JT K wrote on 2019-06-19 UTCI'm intrigued and it looks cool, but confused by the knight being a bishop + pawn. I suppose so many things are breaking apart and coming back together that its value doesn't have to always match the sum of its parts. Maybe the knights are used at opportunistic times only? Shout out to Furgus Duniho for the very similar Fusion Chess, but I'll grant that this adds pawns into the mix (and I love how the openings play out), and I also like the visual simplicity of literally adding the rings together. 8-Piece Chess. (Queen's Army chess, all 8 Back Rank Pieces different).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]JT K wrote on 2019-06-14 UTCerik I'll look into creating one. I'm admittedly not too familiar with Game Courier. At the moment, for online playing I've been using a "sandbox" environment without rule enforcement. I'd be happy to work something out so we can play a game (or if necessary, even using a video stream of the board, with moves entered in the chat box or something). If you find anyone on your end interested in playing over the board, I'd love to know how the game went (try to record it!) JT K wrote on 2019-06-14 UTCRules have been updated to include revised abilities on the sentry piece. It will add a more unique feel to the game than the original sentry (which was too ineffective in closed positions- even moreso than a bishop). JT K wrote on 2019-04-12 UTCA puzzle: Black to move and save the game for a forced draw: 0000000100000000[Subject Thread] [Add Response]JT K wrote on 2019-03-08 UTCI will add that I like the 8 stone chess idea. Maybe the 8 stones (or however many you use) can be the job of the teammates. One person gets the pieces, the other gets the stones. JT K wrote on 2019-03-08 UTCI think it's cool that you want to make it more female-friendly, but I'm not sure that the name change and having teammates sit across from each other is necessarily enough (or apparent enough to cater to female players). Nevertheless I do still like those two ideas. It's a nice combo of "lady" and "bughouse." I'm not too concerned about specific time controls as much as move order rules. I'm not sure what other bughouse variants there are, but my understanding of the present form is that two games are running on their own time, and each player just suddenly receives the captured pieces from their partner's game, available to drop. Without a specific move order it's a lot of wild and crazy luck and/or waiting strategies (unless I'm missing something about the normal bughouse rules). JT K wrote on 2019-03-08 UTCAurelian, I always thought that bughouse was usually considered a "wild and crazy" mostly blitz-timed game - the sort of thing people don't analyze but just enjoy watching in action. Are you trying to develop a more formal turn-based version of bughouse? Personally I was never a huge fan of it because of the uncertainty of talking rules, the timing of the exchanges, etc. but will enthusiastically discuss these things if you're trying to create a more standardized version of bughouse that people could actually go back and analyze. What do you mean by ladybug? Is that a current variant or you're just talking about what it could be called? 8-Piece Chess. (Queen's Army chess, all 8 Back Rank Pieces different).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]JT K wrote on 2019-03-04 UTC(video provided was from an outdated ruleset) JT K wrote on 2019-02-18 UTC(video provided was from an outdated ruleset) JT K wrote on 2019-02-14 UTC(video provided was from an outdated ruleset) JT K wrote on 2019-02-11 UTCFor any questions, contact [email protected] or post here. JT K wrote on 2019-02-04 UTC(video provided was from an outdated ruleset) 25 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.