Game Reviews (and other rated comments on Game pages)

Very similar to Wagner Chess: https://github.com/brianthetall/wagnerChess

This is an excellent chess variant, and is one of my favorites. I think it plays better than either of the games from which it is derived. The starting position is carefully considered, allowing a wide variety of different openings.

The rook should still be worth slightly more than the bishop on this board but it is very close. I performed the mobility calculation. With a 30% board occcupancy, the rook's average mobility is 9.8 whereas the bishop's is 9.2. And the mobility of the rook increases faster than that of the bishop as the board clears out.

The design of this game makes no sense to me. The Rook is upgraded to a Dragon King. The Knight is upgraded all the way to an Amazon. The Queen is upgraded to the most powerful piece I have ever heard of. But the poor Bishop is downgraded to a Wazir - a piece that moves only one step horizontally or vertically. One problem is that the board has so much power that it will be a tactical smash-fest. Another problem is that the Wazirs will never move. I cannot imagine any circumstance in which a player would waste a move on them, except possibly to get them out of the way to allow castling, and probably not even then. With all the nightriders, castling will likely be impossible anyway.

I once had a CV of my invention (Wide Chess) gently criticized for my adding to the standard chess army of each side (on a 12x8 board) 4 pawns, plus two pairs of leapers that were somewhat similar to each other, in that they both had an alfil movement as part of their powers. Namely, it was thought said leapers weren't divergent enough from each other.

In the case of (10x8) Royal Court, a pair of leapers plus 2 pawns is added to the army of each side. The leapers have the same movement powers as knights, plus they can also move like a man (often called the Centaur compound). So, I can see how this addition of leapers to the standard chess army might be gently criticized, too (at least they are very powerful leapers, which might relieve any perception of slight redundancy).

Recently I had a couple of ideas of my own about adding pair(s) of fairly knight-like minor pieces to the FIDE army, although I may have rejected these ideas too quickly, partly due to the previous critique (of my Wide Chess). Namely the ideas involved adding either a pair of fibnifs and/or a pair of horse(mao)-wazir compound pieces (depending on the board size I would use). Besides Wide Chess not yet proving popular on Game Courier, I'd add another inhibition I have is that I've seen very few examples on this website of the FIDE army plus pair(s) of pieces added to them, where the pair(s) were not strikingly divergent in some way from other piece type(s) used in the chosen armies. Indeed, Wide Chess and Royal Court are more or less the only counter-examples I've noticed.

https://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/fibnif.html

https://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/mao.html

This is a fantastic game and one that I regularly enjoy playing both with friends or on my own. When playing on my own I change clothes after each move, speak in a different accent and have a different personality/backstory to give the appearance of separate players. Anyway I digress, a fantastic game, enjoy.

very interesting have noticed this when i was collating material on renaissance chess some time ago , didn't realise there's an actual different version of chess, thank you for the page Renaissance Chess

I like very much short-ranges games, even with not very strong pieces, and this game falls into this category. Here the piece set (only of max 2-square range) is logical and works well, and the presence of 4 Kings, of which one must be checkmated (with the consequence of a unstoppable fork on several Kings being a checkmate), is here to help the outcome of the game. However, even with the 4 Kings, the game seems to take a very long time to finish; the two games in this website that had been led to a conclusion took 85 and (for the game that ended with checkmate) more than 110 turns, which seems too much for a game of that type. And I am a little bit sceptical concerning the mating potential: when most pieces have been exchanged, the four Kings can more easily prevent the Pawns to promote.

One solution would have been stronger 2-square range pieces, in a game closer to a short-range version of Sac Chess, with a KNAD being the strongest piece (or at least Centaurs, or KADs). The presence of the KNAD, able to force checkmate without assistance, would obviously make the game faster and more decisive, but in the same time maybe less balanced and tactically interesting. (In Metamachy, the power of the KNAD/Lion is well balanced by powerful long-range pieces.) And I wouldn’t suggest a change in the piece set of this game; it works well as it is, and a like it.

Another idea is making a game with 2 moves per turn. With the same pieces and victory condition, not only this would make the game shorter, but also the attacks more dangerous and less easy to counter (and the possibility of double check with two pieces). This solution seems to me more interesting, while keeping the character and the concept of the game, than to have stronger pieces.

This looks like an amazing game! It combines shogi drops with a beautifully simple setup and set of pieces.

Reading the rules makes me want to play it; and also to design something similar, but it seems impossible to make anything quite as elegant as this.

Metamachy is fun. The historical pieces are all interesting to play with, and the fast pawns keep the game from slowing down too much.

Really? Insufficient material? What if the opponent has insufficient material?

This looks fun

This is a very good game. Everything fits together well. The random setup provides variety without being completely chaotic. The brouhaha squares are a great way to add more pieces without making the board so big it feels empty. The promotion rule encourages more variety in promotion, which is something I look for particularly; and I like the auxiliary pieces used here. The Mameluk especially is fun.

I think I might slightly prefer the Modern Apothecary game, for it's Dragon and Griffin, which to me are more interesting than the Chancellor and Archbishop, but I like the Siege Elephant and Mameluk as auxiliaries, so it's hard to choose one game over the other. I don't know if I'd agree with the statement that the Joker can't defend well. It seems to me that it's ability to mimic an attacker's move makes it particularly good at defending and more difficult to use aggressively. I'm not great at chess (in any form), though, so I could be wrong about that.

I'm interested to see what the next games in this series will be like!

The table in the center of this page has several mistakes in the description column

I dig this board. I tried writing a Zillions of Games .zrt for Masonic Chess last night.  I think it's about finished, but I can't seem to get through debugging to try it out.  Anyone here still messing with Zillions .zrt files?

I'm pleased to see this game! One correction : it is a trigonal, not hexaxonal, chess variant. The cells are triangles, not hexagons.

That said, I think this is an excellent contribution to the much under-explored trigonal tiling. Apart from a couple of games contributed by Graeme Neatham and Christian Freeling, along with a couple of my own, I think this is a little-used tiling which has lots of interesting possibilities for play.

Here's an animation of the game:

https://lichess.org/study/WjUgZzpG

I like black's idea on the final move (Rh2! hoping to provoke Kg1), however white called the bluff.

An interesting and very playable game. The figures are divergent pieces moving as the nominal piece and capturing as Querquisites.

I have, as per Freeling’s comment, made a number of variants to Congo to address the issues brought up:

• To address the fact Congo looks drawish, I have adopted the “Ko Rule” in my variant: Someone who repeats a previous position in a game loses. This eliminates draws.
• To address the issue with river drownings making attacks harder, I have made the A, B, F, and G files of the rivers have “islands”: While the crocodile can move like normal on these squares, other pieces will not drown.
• I have made the pawns stronger: A pawn can not retreat until it is promoted on the 7th rank; on the other hand, pawns across the river can now move and capture sideways. A promoted pawn is more powerful: It can move or capture to any space one or two squares away (like Chess, a promoted pawn should win unless it can be recaptured quickly)
• I have made the elephants able to move forward like a Shogi Lance. They can also only move backwards one square.
• I have changed the opening setup from GMELECZ to ZCELECZ, removing the Monkey and Giraffe, and having a second Zebra (Knight) and Crocodile. This way, the game can be played with an ordinary chess board and pieces.

In my Zillions-vs-Zillions testing, the games are never draws, and Black wins more often once we give Zillions 30 or more seconds to think through a move.

My changes can be seen here: https://github.com/samboy/ChessVariantResearch

Look in the folder “Congo”. Full rules for this variant, along with multiple possible opening setups, is here:

https://github.com/samboy/ChessVariantResearch/blob/master/Congo/EBW-1.md

Out of respect for the copyright included with the Zillions implementation of Congo, I am not distributing a modified version of the Congo zrf. Instead, I am distributing the original version, along with a Linux/Cygwin script to change Congo to have another .zrf with the modified rules. I have also made from scratch board artwork representing the new river with islands.

(Admin: This is Sam Trenholme. If you have a chance, please update my email address to be “pbm” in the domain “samiam.org” so I can reset my password).

You only need to checkmate/fork one King. In the standard-Rules version. Game play tends to be the same length as regular-chess.

Its one of the least complicated 3D-Games. Simply set-up 2-sets of chess-men.

The hardest part to explain is why its frowned upon to go on side-ways diagonals (in 3D) or that knights should not go in L-shapes without advancing or retreating from the opponent. I say frowned-upon, because of course you can change to non-standard rules. But you may find the game much longer, and knights to be as powerful as queens. Stalemates to be more attainable...

Fun idea! Might I suggest the name ChiMPs?

I wish this game were more popular. It seems like an excellent design. The piece selection seems strange at first but after thinking about it I can see the beauty of it.

I imagine the aanca could have originated as an enhanced ferz, to go with the bigger board. Then the knights could have become unicorns by gaining a diagonal slide after their leap to complement the aanca. The crocodile is a fairly obvious addition. The giraffe and Lion both make knight-like leaps, suitable for the large board, and the Lion includes and extra 3,0 leap which removes it's color binding and forms a nice looking pattern.

The result of all that is eight pieces with a nice range of power and an aesthetically consistent set of moves. There are all of the 2,1 3,1 and 3,2 leaping moves, the rook and bishop moves, and bent rook and bishop moves (unicorn and aanca). The leaping pieces are differentiated in power by some of them having additional movements, but they don't ever feel like arbitrary combinations.

The initial setup is also elegant. The Pawns start as far apart as they do on the 8x8 board, and the pieces are all on the back rank. The promotion rule fits well with this setup and is another great innovation.

I think the main weak points, if there are any, would be the pawns and the king's leap. It seems unlikely that the king would benefit much from a 2 square leap on such a big board with so much empty space; and perhaps modern pawns would be better. But overall this variant appears to be carefully designed.

I like this, it brings out a rural realm to the game. Well done!

Having implemented this variant in Ai Ai and having played it a bunch of times, I really enjoy this game. Being a large Shogi fanatic, the higher piece density of Yangsi doesn't bother me in the slightest :)

For me this game is an improvement on something like Sac Chess, as the pieces in Yangsi are more interesting to use. In fact I was inspired by this game to make what I called 'Heavy Shako', an extension of Shako that fills in all the gaps in the back rank with other pieces used in the larger variants by Jean-Louis Cazaux. The original concept was much improved by some excellent advice from Jean-Louis, and the resulting game has been a lot of fun.

I'd enjoy seeing an extension of Yangsi to 12x12 with a high-density setup, too.

I have played this game extensively in the Ai Ai software package since adding it, and I feel it may be the best iteration so far of Jean-Louis Cazaux's series of 12x12 variants. The piece density and variety generate very interesting interactions on the board. The various Pawn- and Pawn-like pieces in the 3rd/4th ranks create a nice sense of progression, leading the board to gradually open up and allow more powerful pieces to enter the fray.

In a sense, the game reminds me slightly of a Chess equivalent to Dai Dai Shogi, which has a long opening phase that gradually expands into a delightfully complex middlegame. As a fanatic for large Shogi I consider this a plus :)

In any case, I highly recommend this game for fans of larger variants. In the future I hope Maasai might generate some similar developments of Gigachess and Terachess as well. I have experimented a bit myself with adding the two ranks of mixed Pawns to those games and the results were quite enjoyable.

A very well thought and pleasing out blend of a Capablanca's Chess and Shogi. I am curious about the rule against having identical promoted pieces other than promoted Pawns. I consider it a small wart on a otherwise perfect design.

I like the Stars, they present a naturally digestible identity, in keeping with the elementary makeup of Classical pieces. I would have invented a more relatable name for them, perhaps 'Sheriffs' or, something you know, that has a real life character, but nevertheless I praise you for their design.

Nice work.

I've only played this once, but it feels right somehow. The hexagonal board, oriented horizontally like this, gives a distinct chess experience that square boards generally lack. It feels more natural than square shogi to me.

I came on this page by accident. After so many years, the name of this game is still wrong. It is Doushouqi, not Shou Dou Qi at all. And the comment about jaguar for leopard is absolutely right. The solution to avoid a L is to call this piece a Panther, panther or leopard is the same animal.

This seems like a nice variant. I especially like the 32221111Q movement of the pawns. The falcons/bison are also fun to play with, their long leaps make for nice tactics.

Pretty much the only thing I'd change is that castling leaves the King too close to the middle. Instead, I would make it so that castling results in the King and the Rook swapping places (White king can go to b1 or i1, black king can go to b10 or i10; rook always goes to the f file) as this gets the King 1 space away from the corner. This would also fix one of the gripes I have with regular chess: queenside castling is usually terrible. Opposite side castling often leads to fun games, so making it happen more often seems like it would be desirable. Also, it would allow players to castle by moving the Rook first, as the ambiguity between O-O and Rg1 is removed.

This is an interesting and logical approach to tackling how to have a double-move variant addresses pesky rules like check and en passant.  They always require special-case rules to address, and how it is addressed here "feels" right to me.  Marseillais Chess handles the check thing fine, but falls down on how en passant is handled.  You seem to have neatly solved that, too.  I also like how you are limited to one capture per move and cannot move the same piece twice.  This also helps to preserve the strategical similarity to orthodox chess. I guess Marseillais is more of a "let's make double moves and we'll end up with an interesting but totally different game."  Originally, it wasn't even "balanced" (white started with two moves.)  This is an ambitious attempt to add the property of double moves games being "balanced" while changing as little else about the game as possible.

Extra Move Chess also provides similar benefits.  You can make a second move, but don't have to, as long as it doesn't capture or move a piece that just moved.  If you make a second move, it can be a two-space pawn move (which a first move can't, except for white's first move of the game.)  This also neatly solves check and en passant.

I'd like to add this to ChessV.  I think it's doable but I need to think some things through.  The thing I see that most concerns me is this:

Each position created by a two move turn is included in the count toward a draw by threefold repetition, or toward a draw by the Fifty move rule (or the Seventy-five move rule)

If I understand this, it would be difficult to implement and doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Are you saying that any move in a single move turn or responsive move turn should not count towards the 50-move rule, nor should they be counted toward any potential repetition?

This is a great concept for an army! I like how the Vouivre encourages tactical play with its forking capabilities and ability to do nasty smothered mates, while the Geese are more focused on strategic pawn play in the endgame; similar to how the tactical Knights and the strategic Rooks provide a variety of viable playstyles in the Fabulous FIDEs.

In your opening line, 2.Vg5 doesn't work because of Qxg5.

PS: If you're willing to upload this army to ChessCraft, I'd be happy to playtest them alongside my own Starbound Sliders.

Edit: Upon closer inspection, this army is actually very weak.

• Ouroboros: 2x5pts Although the Ouroboros is about Rook strength, it's the only one that's as strong as its claimed to be.
• Roc: 2x3pts+0.5pts colorbound pair bonus The Roc is colorbound and has limited range, making it weak and finnicky even by minor piece standards. Complicated maneuvres are less viable when the board is full of pawns, which further highlights the Roc's difficulty in movement. It is definitely not as strong as a Rook, though its ability to reach 12 squares means it may be slightly stronger than a Knight.
• Flying Goose: 2x1.5pts The Flying Goose has very little value, and also gives the Beautiful Beasts the very annoying trait that they can't castle without moving one of the three Pawns that will be in front of the King (unless they castle queenside and mave the a pawn). Granted, the Flying Goose is little more than a slightly stronger pawn anyway, but still.
• Vouvire: 9pts The Vouvire is reasonably strong for a Queen equivalent and it's great for tactical play, the problem is that there's nothing to play tactically against. Knights are fun to use because they're the weakest piece in the army (so when they fork something, you're in business!) while the Vouvire is the strongest piece so it can't fork anything that's protected. Also, it can't go to any of the 8 adjacent squares, which makes maneuvering on a crowded board surprisingly difficult.
• Total: 28.5pts CwDA armies typically range from 31.5 (Fabulous FIDEs) to 33.5 (Nutty Knights) with more complicated armies needing more value.

This appears to be a fine variant, in spite of the 2 unprotected pawns per side in the setup (that kind of helps make up for the 6 ranks distance between the initial pawn ranks, actually).

@ Greg:

Hi. One player mentioned to me that this preset doesn't seem to work perfectly. Namely only two-square K move to castle either side (i.e. not three-square K move to the queenside) has been allowed by it. Also, capturing by en passant isn't always allowed, I guess meaning if a 3-step pawn move is made by the opponent. Has this preset been tested for either of those possible problems? If not, please fix if you can, at your leisure.

K

The quality of the page has not been improved in more than one year. If everyone is happy with that, fine.

I've played the heck out of this via Ai Ai, and I absolutely adore this game. I prefer the greater piece density and the more interesting piece mix here to those of Grand Chess. The resulting play is interesting and nuanced both tactically and strategically. In my opinion Opulent Chess is one of the finest 10x10 variants.

My one complaint is the presence of Pawn promotion by replacement, but that's not particular to this game, I just dislike it everywhere. Promoting stuff is fun and interesting, so I prefer just being able to promote to any piece without restriction. After all I'm a Shogi player, and what can I say, we like promoting stuff! I also dislike some of the weird effects the rule can produce in rare circumstances, but that's more of an aesthetic objection. I do like the extended promotion zone though.

On the whole, a delightful game. Strongly recommended to anyone with an interest in decimal variants.

I've been playing a lot of this game recently (via Ai Ai), partly for my own enjoyment and partly as inspiration for my own 16x16 experiments. There are relatively few modern Chess variants played on 16x16, and for me, this game is the best example thus far.

The variety of pieces presented here is at first intimidating, but one soon realises there is a logic to everything presented here, and shortly thereafter you'll find the piece movements become natural. The balance of the initial position is excellent, with every piece finding its way into the fight without too much awkward development. Games are long -- against AI at 2 minutes/move my games take at least 400 plies, with my longest so far at 695 -- but as a large Shogi variant fanatic this doesn't bother me at all. Throughout those long games one will find drama, excitement, and plentiful opportunities for subtlety and subterfuge.

If I were very picky, I might say that I'd like to see the Rook + Camel/Bishop + Camel compounds in here, which I find really fun on a large board. Also the basic leapers -- Camel, Giraffe, Knight -- feel less impactful in a game this size. Having said that, everything works well together, and I enjoy this game tremendously.

But why the limitation to set up queen and archbishop on different coloured squares, when they can change the square colour by moving like rook resp. knight?

What If They Castle Do they Tell you?

Is there any .ZRF file for this game?

great article , this is definitely one of the best for young chess players to read and learn strategy.  If you intend on writing more similar content on this site be sure to check out our page with more inspiration for future posts

great article, this is definitely one of the easiest strategies for young chess players to skim through and learn. Might also interest for more Superhero Chess Sets see this page [spam url deleted].

The Wolf is ranked higher (stronger) than the Dog.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/鬥獸棋

象>獅>虎>豹>狼>狗>貓>鼠

Elephant > Lion > Tiger > Leopard (Panther) > Wolf > Dog > Cat > Rat

I played this since childhood. This is the proper ranking of the animals.

The confusion about Dog > Wolf happened because on some of the cheap chess pieces, the wood carving of the Dog and the Wolf are almost identical.

The Heroine and Popess piece types in this variant arguably (nicely) complete the combination of compound pieces I used in my own (earlier) 10x10 Sac Chess variant.

On the topic of piece names, I've noticed that in some languages the name for a chess rook translates to ship (or to boat, also). Thus 'Admiral' (or my choice of 'Sailor', in Sac Chess) gets bonus points as a choice of name, perhaps (for the piece type in question, a promoted rook in shogi), i.e. a person who uses a watercraft's power.

Maybe there's a slightly related argument that a real-life knight, in the past, is a person who uses a horse (arguably knight is a more elevated title than horseman, which would also work).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_(chess)#Name_translations

I think one thing the author may do until when and if this variant gets formally published here is to make a Zillions of Games implementation of it, then send an email to Ed van Zon to get the implementation published. There can be a long delay before a submission and its publication here, but Ed’s pretty good about publishing a submission within a week of its submission.

The hard part is taking all these rules and converting them in to Zillions’ quirky language. I enjoy doing it myself; it converts rules in to unambiguous machine-readable rules, and it allows people to play the variant themselves.

I would also change the name of the summoned pieces in to something like, oh, Dragon Horse and Dragon King, the Anglicized form of these pieces’ names in Shogi. I like the summoning tactic, but it’s an open question whether having it makes the White advantage overwhelming. People seem to enjoy Crazyhouse a lot over at Lichess, so I think this summoning mechanic can be very usable.

(I should also point out that Betza called what is the Jester here the “Waffle”)

i think so

Just over twenty years after the initial publication of this page, the first ever computer implementation of Nemoroth is live, complete with a basic alpha-beta pruning AI. You can play in your browser at this link: https://azgoroth.itch.io/nemoroth

The only thing I haven't implemented is the Go Away push order, which I've been putting off due to how laborious the UI considerations are. As a placeholder, Go Away pushes are clockwise from top.

I originally wrote this implementation in TypeScript, but the AI was too slow and I ported it over to C++ using WebAssembly. I plan on open sourcing it eventually once I have more opportunities to clean up the code. This is one of the most difficult software projects I have ever worked on; I have known about Nemoroth since around 2013 but was not a strong enough of a programmer to pull it off until now.

I found a number of ambiguities in these rules, which I have tried my best to address reasonably on the linked page. Some have been covered in this comments section, some not (for example, if a Wounded Fiend leaves an already ichorated square, does the ichor stack to 11+ plies or max out at 10?).

The AI is surprisingly dangerous. It mobilizes the Ghast immediately and WILL advance it to d4/d5 if you let it, usually costing you the game. I have managed to beat it a few times, but it's tough as nails for how crude the programming is. Beware!

Ralph, if you're out there, thanks for this amazing variant. I tried to email you to get permission to make this but alas, I never heard back.

Marsellais chess has a rule where each player moves 2 pieces in the same turn. Castling is considered a single move. All other castling rules apply.

I like the idea of making an army using various combinations of a few building blocks, though I do have two critiques.

1: Balance. A combination piece is usually wirth more than the sum of its parts (eg: a Queen is worth more than a Rook and a Bishop; a Mann is worth more than a Wazir and a Ferz) which means an army with A+B+C=7.75 is likely to be completely overpowered. For example, look at army 1:
BNW=10, NW=5.25, BW=5.25, W=1.25, B=3.25, N=3.25, BN=8.75 (total: 37).
This is over a full Rook stronger than the regular chess army.

The more equal the components are, the more powerful they are when they work together. For example, army 2 (where one component has most of the value) is only about 2 pawns stronger than the regular chess army. So, armies with wildly unequal component strengths will need to have stronger components than more egalitarian armies to compensate for this.

2: The components should be versatile enough to be fun to play with on their own. For example, an Alfil can only reach 1/8 of the board which is un-fun to play (both with and against). One solution to this would be 'ABCD' chess, with 4 components arranged like this:

By adding an extra component, one can eliminate the need for components to survive on their own, and can make weak components without having to worry about un-fun Alfil play.

Should play well, it's nice to see you didn't 'overpower' it.

Hi Gerd, hope your fine and well. I'm sure you haven't upset or hurt anyone!! I understand what you said, and it is extremely interesting idea indeed how you describe your game about the board etc.

I don't want to go on about the pawns, but still, I have to say, the game would maintain your 'theme' even if the pawns remained pawns. However, the game as you have it must have a unique feel and play to it!

Would be fun to see the game in action.

Inspiring game, yet it seems the action may take a while to get going

I don't yet get how to mobilize in the opening smoothly when playing this CV, at least when I tried to do so in my first game (with White, no less). After I moved the pawn in front of my king two squares, for example, I wanted to develop my knights to my fourth rank, towards the centre, in natural fashion. Yet that would allow Black to develop his deves (camels) similarly, and then to take my knight(s) almost at will - perhaps clearly at least a slightly worse exchange for me, since my pawn structure might be compromised without sufficent compensation when I recapture, and by my valuations (though tentative) a Kt is worth more than a camel on 10x10 (maybe even by as much as a pawn).

As my game (with arx) went on, I found my gold and silver had a hard time being deployed usefully for quite some time - an issue since they can get in the way of other pieces. I also had mobilization issues with at least one of two of my bishops, especially concerning if assuming castling is desirable in general. The assassins I had a hard time valuing, but guessed one could be worth as much as a queen. Maybe the inventor intended that mobilization be slow in playing this CV, I don't know.

@arx: I've sent you a personal invite to a Sac Chess rematch, in case you missed it, and wish to play.

The premise for tri dimensional chess set's presence on federation star ships was to teach three dimensional combat tactics, which is something the Bartmess and Meder rules patently fail to do, by blocking circumventing moves.
The rules presented here, on chess variants, are not complete and lack rules for castling but also advocate inverted attack boards, which, if nothing else, are highly impractical.
Not only were the World Tri Dimensional Chess Federation rules written by a fighter pilot, to teach three dimensional aerial combat, which is more in keeping with the original theme, they also start the king and queen in the centre files and provide the most reasonable method for castling, as the attached images demonstrate.

King's side castling


Queen's side castling

This is a great idea with those switches. Together with the twisting of the files it makes a very interesting board and game. The switches give instantly the game a dynamic tension which is enjoyable. And a very sophisticated solution that 2 squares together constitute 1 field on which there can only be 1 piece. There is no mentioning of pawn move/capture (maybe it could be helpful), but it must be implied that 'normal' forward movement and diagonal capturing are in place, that will often be first 'battle' around the switches.

What is better than 2 switches? That has to be 4 switches! The inventor, Gerd Degens, has also such a game, Chess69, which can be viewed through the link at the top, or for CVP members through the link in the comments. I will try to make a comment about it later. But I can only recommend to the editors that this game also is published properly. It is even more interesting because here the ranks are also twisted, very delightful for us fans of 'unusually shaped boards'. It already has a old post from 2003 here on CVP with a broken link in the Alphabetical Index and the Topic Index, so that will have to be displaced.

I like the idea of this, although it seems possibly over-complicated with the momentum rules.

One remark: can you watch Magician’s moves and make diagonal-based motion. And small Shielder’s regulation of replacing rules, but it’s not required for now.

Yeah, thank you very much!

Points are accumulating. I’ve written this in the page.

Sorry, but yellow X-es are captures!

I have an idea: you can turn Ox’s face to left in Stone Garden, as it was in my drawings, and make it different from Horizons. About Index it’s same. Please.

No, it’s not easy win, black can easily block the path of check by 1.…Be7 or 1.…Qe7 after 1.Qe2

So it’s not required to add interactive diagram for THIS variant. But if it will be in online chess resource, thank you.

Are there no promotions in this version? Where is the prince and adventitious king?

Edited. Can you publish it please?

I like the idea, but perhaps a flaw in the game would be the unprotected pawn on a7. After 1 f4 Black has few defensive options and one would never arrive at "double king-pawn openings" since after 1...f5 2 Bxa7 already would drop and exchange in addition to the pawn. Maybe as in Schoolbook chess the Chancellor and Queen need to be out on the flank and the Archbishop deployed to the center.

Fixed,

I cannot love Courier-Spiel, but I (heart) Shako.

Revising my [2006-08-12] comment:
Unicorn=10, Queen=10, Chancellor=9, Rook=5.5, Lion=5. Bishop=3.5, Knight=3, Elephant=2.75, Pawn=1 
are endgame piece values (for Shako and Unicorn Great Chess) which preserve some formulas I firmly believe in, namely Q+P = R+R and Q = R+B+P and R+P = B+N. The Cannon should be worth 4 Pawns at the start of the game, but decline to half the value of a Rook in the early endgame (2.75 Pawns). I consider short range pieces to have more value than Antoine Fourrière gives them in his Comment. Even the lowly Ferz should be worth 1.5 Pawns on a 10x10 board.

I'm not quite sure whether I want to rate this Good or Excellent so I'll go with the higher rating. This is a great way to enhance weaker pieces without making them too strong. An interesting variation of this idea might be to have all the pieces except the king and queen start without their non-capturing king moves and gain them by promoting on the last two ranks.

Similar to Courier-Spiel, the game adds modern Bishops and improves the Elephants (called Couriers here). Switching the Bishops and Couriers in the initial setup will improve this game. While the b-file and h-file Pawns are now undefended, they are also no longer threatened by hostile Bishops. Jumping the Courier c1-c3 will help to shield the Pawn on (b2).

Some time before 1992, Paul V. Byway included the Ferz in Modern Courier Chess, placing RNCBFQKFBCNR on a 12x8 board. Ken Franklin also placed Alibabas in Leap Chess on 44 squares.

Back in [2018-03-04] Kevin Pacey mentioned "the pleasing possibilities of smothered ... mates".  My 12x12 variant Rose Chess XII has 96 empty squares, with ten Pawns each on the 4th and 9th ranks.  But Black can deliver a smothering mate with a circular Nightrider on the second move of the game.  A position so amusing that it earned a diagram at the top of the rules page.

"This rule gets rid of zugzwang." 
 
More than sixty years ago I learned how to use zugzwang to win with King and Rook against the lone King. So how does Tony Berard deal with this problem? 
 
"The rooks, bishops, and knights now also move and capture like a king." 
 
Sixteen years ago I commented on Ultra Chess (by Ruggero Micheletto).  Here is a question for both authors.  Is the endgame King and Rook versus King and Knight even more likely to lead to a draw in your chess variants?

Here is a Fairy-Stockfish variant file that I made for the variant. Despite the E and Elephant symbol, these pieces are still princes (princE). It might not be 100% accurate, but this should be incredibly similar to the actual variant, as there are essentially no differences between promoting the princes to kings to win (by getting them directly to the last rank) or merely getting the princes to the end of the board (the last rank) to win. This variant also has defined castling rules.

[chessii:janus]
startFen = rnbeqkebnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNBEQKEBNR w KQkq - 0 1
customPiece1 = e:WF
pieceToCharTable = PNBRQ............E...Kpnbrq............e...k
castlingKingsideFile = i
castlingQueensideFile = c
whiteFlag = *8
blackFlag = *1
flagPiece = e
maxFile = 10
archbishop = -
promotionPieceTypes = rnbq

This is meant to be used with https://fairyground.vercel.app/, and should be pasted into a file called variants.ini, before loading the variants.ini file into the website.

Hi, David! Glad to see you back! This is a nice helpmate and looks like an interesting 'little' game to play - all that power in the corners and a weak center, on a small board! The central rook is a rare feature, or was, a decade or two ago. Who's used it besides Ralph, you, and me, any idea? I don't remember it in even any semi-popular game onsite aside from what you and Ralph have done.

I played this on brainking.com many times and it is fun, even if the outcome is more dependent on luck than on skill.

This is a nice game. It seems to have a theme of rook + weaker piece compounds. I wonder why the board isn't 15x10 to make room for another knight, and have a nice 3:2 shape like Courier Chess. An alternative enhancement would be a pair of camels on d1 and k1 and a camel-rook on i1. That would make more sense of the 10 rank board.

Spartan Chess has the Warlord and the General, together worth approximately three Rooks. These are solid performers that have been used in many variants. Worth noting that pieces like the Lieutenant with additional noncapturing moves are rare. My Shatranj Kamil (64) has Elephants with noncapturing Dabbabah leaps and ArchMage Chess by Cyrus Arturas has the Prince, a Commoner with noncapturing R2 moves (no mention of Dabbabah leaps). In the diagram below, a Warlord pins a Rook against the White King - winning the piece and the game.

WHITE TO MOVE AND LOSE

Nice mixture of pieces in this variant!

edit: Also, this CV reminds me a little of Opulent Chess:

https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/opulent-chess

edit2: Two CVs that might have been inspired by TenCubed Chess (but weren't):

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/soho-chess

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/wide-soho-chess

I fixed it, it's your turn. There is no castling here;)

I'm a bit surprised this variant hasn't been played much so far on GC. If people think there's too much power in the setup, maybe by switching the FIDE army of each side onto their 2nd ranks, directly behind their pawns, that then could help the game unfold a bit more slowly, if that's desired.

I fixed things about horse promotions, but quality of pieces’ images on the submission’s diagram is amazing in the worst sense of it.

I think that’s bug

Nice idea!

A cute and cool variant!

As far as I can see there is no rule that forbids moving the King back to the place where it came from (at least, when the King move wasn't motivated by escaping check). So a situation can occur where the two players just move the King between two squares in an endless loop and the game makes no progress.

Note that in the setup of shogi (a Classic game) none of the knights there can move, either.

Thank you. So I missed out one thing.

It was in the rules but wasn’t in the pieces desc. Read about King, you’ll find.

Sort of Almost Chess - with a White Chancellor and a Black Queen - is kind of the best chess game ever invented on less than 81 squares. Skipping the usual long speech about making opening books obsolete and adding new tactics, I will simply state that the dreaded First Move Advantage is completely cancelled. Possibly "more than cancelled" - computer testing may prove interesting.

In the near future I will be promoting this variant to join the list of Featured Games. Maybe we could give Sort Of Almost Chess a more interesting name, like Carrera's Revenge?

Thanks, can you publish it please?

Great idea to replace the Ferz with the Gryphon! This piece rarely gets a chance to dominate an "old fashioned game". The "Griffon" is actually one of the weaker pieces in Mark Hedden's Ganymede Chess . I offer some piece values for the 12x8 board, chosen primarily for simplicity:

Pawn = 1, Woody Rook (WD) = 3, Knight = 3, Elephant (FA) = 3.25, Courier = 3.50, Man (FW) = 3.50, Rook = 5.50 and Gryphon = 8 points.

Incidentally I value the Queen at ten points, the same as R+B+P. Ralph Betza once calculated the Gryphon's worth by multiplying the value of a Rook by 1.46 in Bent Riders circa 2002.

Have we missed the fiftieth anniverary of Modern Courier Chess? The rules page for Reformed Courier-Spiel (2011) contains the sentence: "With this design, Begnis also intended to improve Modern Courier Chess invented by FIDE Master Paul V. Byway in 1972."

On his own website, Clément Begnis writes: "In this respect, I need to mention here that at first (in the 1970's), Byway had made an attempt to modernize the Courier game with more powerful extra pieces."

On his own website, John Savard writes: "Attempts have been made to modernize the game, one in 1824 and one in 1971. The one in 1971, Modern Courier Chess, changed the moves of several of the pieces. Even that of 1824 by Albers made a number of changes, although it was less radical."

The current address is: Modern Courier Chess. Meanwhile, the year when Byway finished creating his game remains a mystery. VARIANT CHESS No. 8 does contain the following game from the previous year - with the letters "F" and "C" standing for Ferz and Courier (Alibaba).

[Game 4]  R. Talbot - P. V. Byway, 10 xii 1991 
1.f4 f5 2.a4 c5 3.Ra3 Cc6 4.g4 fxg4 5.Rg3 h5 6.i4 
Ch6 7.e3 g5 8.ixh5 gxf4 9.Rxg4+ Fg7 10.Qj5+ i6 
11.hxi6 Ni7 12.Qi5 Ng6 13.Qxk7 Rj8 
[Diagram uses elephants for couriers] 
rn1bfqk1br2pp1pp1f2pQp2e3neP5p9P4pR9P8PPP3P1PPP1NEBF1KFBENR 
14.Rxg6 Bxg6 15.i7 Ri8 16.Qxj7 Fe6 (courier leap) 17 .Ch3 
Ke8 (two-move privilege) 18.Nj3 16 19.Ni5 Bxk2 
(suicidal) 20.Rk1 Bi4 21.Rk8 Resigns. (1-0).

This is a great idea. The bombs add enough chaos to make the game feel very different, but not too much.

I read on the wiki talk page for Tenjiku about the idea that jumping generals could have been intended to do more than just jump-capture.

The start position shows the generals in front of the Fire Demons, both straight ahead and diagonally. There is no opportunity for jumping generals to capture Fire Demons in the start position, which is intentional.

It doesn't seem right that there is so much protection for Fire Demons, yet in some versions of the game, the King could be threatened and captured without even being able to evade the attack, as it's boxed in.

(In fact, the Bishop General could just mate the opponent's King on the first move if there were no restrictions on jumping.)

If the generals could jump whenever they wanted as far as they liked, the game would become even more tactically sharp than it already is. However, it doesn't break the game.

The Great General can't jump two squares diagonally to threaten one of the Fire Demons as the Rook General would capture it.

The best the Bishop Generals can do is to manoeuvre and attack a Horned Falcon or Soaring Eagle.

The idea that jumping generals could capture all of the opposing pieces they jumped over in one turn is plausible. I don't know if the game would break, but the inventor(s) of Tenjiku weren't sentimental about pieces — allowing Fire Demons to punch large holes into positions — so having more pieces do the same seems logical.

The Great General could just capture the Vice General; Free Eagle; Queen; Drunk Elephant; and a Pawn on the first move (with check). This doesn't seem intentional.

One of the Bishop Generals could move to the edge of the board and threaten to capture a Soaring Eagle; Water Buffalo; Phoenix; Drunk Elephant; and a Pawn. The Soaring Eagle can leap out of the way, though.

Otherwise, everything is sufficiently well defended that jumping generals couldn't capture a total of anything worth more than themselves, as they are even stronger than their current form.

That could be why Fire Demons are so powerful — with burning and sliding and an area move — because they would be ecliped otherwise by the jumping generals.

The board size (16×16) and large number of pieces that do very little makes more sense if there were even more crazy pieces. The game might devolve into a capture-fest, but that might have been the intention.

Whoever had the imagination to create this game has to be admired. I consider this to be the most ambitious of all the historical variants as its construction is so delicately balanced, even with the ambiguity in the rules themselves.

OK I've edited that

Very nice touchup of the page. You might have mentioned that in problems, there is more than one way to use the cylinder concept. The one here described is chess on a horizontal cylinder, which is the only form that is playable as a game. Other forms have appeared in problems: the vertical cylinder with the first and last ranks connected and the anchor ring both basically both a vertical and horizontal cylinder simultaneously. In the latter case, a1 is connected to both a8 and h1 (and in some version h8 as well, if you really want to go crazy). With rooks and queens instantly attacking each other and the kings in mutual check, we'd need special rules to play this, but a KBB vs K ending on such a board can be analyzed, as well as more complex problems.

Thank you by this advice.

(BTW if you want, I can request a Shako tournament with you someday. Site is Pychess (chess variants site written in Python), to play it, you have to create lichess.org (chess site with millions of players and open source code) account)

The program is dead again .

M. Badii - J. Stranjakovitch, Paris 1989 reached the position in the diagram below after

1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 3.f4 Bb7 4.Bd3 f5 5.exf5 Bxg2 6.Qh5+ g6 7.fxg6 Bg7 8.gxh7+ Kf8

The game continued 9.hxg8=Q+ Kxg8 10.Qe2 Bxh1 with a win by White after 24 moves.

I see no reason for rules that may prevent early pawn promotions in Grand Chess. Most of us want games that are more interesting, not less. And after all, there is no limit to the number of promoted pawns on the board in Shatranj.

[EDIT] I should have specified the rules that I was objecting to:

"5. A Pawn can promote only to a friendly piece that has been captured, and for which it is exchanged."

"6. If no friendly piece has been captured, then a Pawn may not move beyond the 9th rank."

1. h3 g5 2. Kh2 Ll6 3.Ki3 Qj4 is a very foolish mate. If the type font is confusing, Black's second move is "ell-ell-six".

While the stated NBRQ values are suitable for a 10x10 board, the Bishop simply cannot attack as many squares on a 12x8 board. Bishop = 3.50 and Queen = 10 seem more appropriate for this game. I reserve judgement on the Elephants for the time being - currently working on a new game with "Wafflephants" on 12 columns.