Game Reviews (and other rated comments on Game pages)

I generally like variants that have themes of some sort. This one also is a 12x12 variant, with a lot of pieces, that still seems quite playable.

Some pretty strong and interesting pieces in this variant, which helps on its large board.

edit: Here's 2 large CVs that also use wizards:

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

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

A fine 10x10 Shatranj style variant to add to the others on CVP.

Interesting extra pieces and pawn movement rules here.

Interesting use of the BN piece type combo in a variant.

A cool variant with the sort of themes Fergus has used in several of his variants.

I wish I still had the old 3D set I had long ago that would have allowed me to play this variant over-the-board. Before my old set broke when packing it, I had no rules for playing it!

This cool variant plays well once one gets used to it.

A variant that well serves the inventor's aim of a western chess style version of Chu Shogi.

It's surprising how much action can be squeezed in on such a small board variant.

Some cool Shatranj style pieces here, on the classic 8x8 board.

This 2 piece type variant seems rather simple, deceptively so, and yet there is so much room for strategy and tactics.

Another cool concept by Fergus, this time in the field of shogi variants.

I like that the pieces, including the Januses, can hope to usually develop smoothly in this variant, nice for a 10x8 board.

There's a reason this regional game has lasted for so long. Perhaps it's even a Classic by CVP standards.

This variant is almost guaranteed to produce a hard struggle. Those bodyguard pieces are tough to work around!

This game is really sweet for a quite large (12x12) variant, and as advertised it has a small learning curve. Lots of fun!

A historic and very playable variant. What's not to love?

This variant is clearly one of the more original chess variants, and which has been around for quite a while.

This game plays especially well with its 3-mover variant rules.

Another nice Shatranj variant from Joe, this time on 10x8.

I'd tentatively estimate the piece values as P=1; N=3.38(=3.5 approx.); E=Y=2.695(=2.75 approx.); Guard(approx.=K's fighting value)=3.2; HP=MI=7.075(=7 approx.); R=5.5.

Shatranj meets a 10x10 board in style!

Here's a 10x10 Shatranj-style variant with 4 Kings per side:

4 Kings Quasi-Shatranj

A fine variation on the idea of Grand Chess.

An interesting concept for a variant! On a Canadian chess message board a long time ago, someone asked if there could possibly be a variant with quite a number of impassable squares here and there in the middle of the board, and I assumed the idea infeasible, not imagining that a player might be able to move said obstacles around!

An interesting concept to extend Alice Chess' idea. I'm inclined to think (but lack the mathematical skill to prove) that the connection between the three boards is a 4D one in disguise - bishops, if they were present, can travel paths one board at a time back onto their original starting board, arriving there on square(s) (e.g. their exact start point) that they wouldn't be able to reach if the variant was truly 3D (like Raumschach is).

In interesting variant that has a board geometry somewhat like that of Circular Chess.

A great historic variant. Games may last a large number of moves, but the slow pace may prove heavenly for some players.

A big board game where the inventor doubles-down on the 6 chess piece types, but the fast pawns rule adds an interesting twist to speed things up a bit.

Though this variant may never be as popular as its close cousin (and better known variant) Crazyhouse, it is equally excellent on its own merits.

You've just got to love a variant that's really big, even if you don't want to play it much. Now that there's a rules-enforcing preset courtesy of Nick, the chance of playing game(s) of it went up for me.

You've just got to love a variant that's really big, even if you don't want to play it much. Now that there's a rules-enforcing preset courtesy of Nick, the chance of playing game(s) of it went up for me.

A poorish game by modern standards, especially due to the alfil pieces, but modern chess is indebted to this historic early version of it.

Here's a 10x10 Shatranj-style variant with 4 Kings per side:

4 Kings Quasi-Shatranj

A poorish game by modern standards, especially due to the alfil pieces, but modern chess is indebted to this historic early version of it.

This looks like a really interesting game. The movement rules certainly speed up play on a large board.

Several interesting piece types in this game. Can well-played games of it be reasonably short on average? Time will tell, but I suspect most such games won't go past 100 full moves, good for such a large board.

A fresh idea for a variant that at first made me wonder if the game was truly playable. The answer is a resounding yes!

A cool idea for a variant. It takes some time to discover various strategies that can be employed by the players with the stated rules.

[edit: My tentative estimates for the piece values are as follows: Capturing pieces: P=2; B=3; N=3.5; R=4 and Q=6 (same values as I gave for in Crazyhouse); Non-capturing pieces: P=1.25; B=1.5; N=1.75; R=2 and Q=3 (computed using x0.5 penalty for non-capturing movements - note a pawn is thus slightly less affected in its value decrease).]

This game kind of reminds me of the even more non-violent principle that inspired Fergus Duniho's Clockwork Orange Chess.

The apothecary games may have a somewhat steep learning curve, but it seems it's well worth the trouble, based on my limited experience.

The apothecary games may have a somewhat steep learning curve, but it seems it's well worth the trouble, based on my limited experience.

This seems like a great game, where the action might normally develop slower than in Cavalier Chess, but it's worth it.

Here's another variant that includes Nightriders on a large board:

https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/wide-nightrider-chess

Interesting game. In my limited experience with it the knightriders seem rather dangerous pieces. I'm not sure I like the detailed promotion rules, but maybe it's a matter of taste.

Here's an experimental 10x8 CV that uses unusual type of 'pawns' also:

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

Another cool idea by Fergus.

Cool concept!

This game reminds me of an old chessboard puzzle involving the placing of a number of queens, to solve a certain task, but of course Amazons is something even more complex, in that it is a full-fledged game. It also seems almost simple at first sight, deceptively so.

Higher dimensional chess variants are often noble experiments that never seem destined to gain much popularity. On its own merits this 3D one looks noble enough, in attempting to tame the chance of the players facing a large number of candidate moves at each stage of a game, in regard to their calculations. Is a 4D version of Shatranj in the works, or out there somwhere? That might be nifty to see, too. [edit: I'd forgot about the 4D Shatranj-like variant Chess on Two Boards by the same inventor, though it's stated on that game's page that it is a 'broken' game.]

This is a cool game to play, though I myself had some slight difficulty with possible ambiguity to the wording of certain rules, as put forward on this page. One case I solved by looking at an earlier comment about this page that George made, in reply to someone's question about a rule. Other than that, the different colouring scheme of various ranks, and the purpose to that, is one nifty aspect of this game.

This hexagonal variant looks intriguing, and I'm a bit surprised that so far it has received no tests on Game Courier (presumably it did by now on ZoG). The pattern of the board (vertical hex alignment, rather than horizontal) and the peculiar way the pawns move might prove a refreshing change from McCooey's or Glinski's variants. My biggest concern is that a well played game might take a relatively large of moves on average.

edit: when in doubt, see this page's Grand Hexachess link for a different wording of rules that are clearly meant to be the same.

Just a small update on the post by Jaymes. Taking the picture shown in the article for the starting position, the left hand side is the Queens side and the right hand side is the Kings side. The Kings and Queens should be on the movable levels next to the Rooks (or Castles). The back rank on the top and bottom levels should have the Knights at each side with the two Bishops on the centre ranks. At least, this is the setup shown in the pamphlet I got with my official Star Trek Tridimensional Chess Set almost 30 years ago.

Shatranj is a cool variant mainly for its historic value, IMO. It's awkward, weak ferz and (especially) alfil (or elephant) pieces make it somewhat frustrating to play for many a modern player, again IMO. The present variant, Shatranji, removes some of this frustration, as dropping either of these weak pieces after they are captured allows the (now not necessarily permanent) binding of them to become less of an issue. However I find the elephant piece still awkward to use, while it is still on the board, in Shatranji, owing to its double binding. I'm wondering if a 'Modern Shatranji' version of Joe Joyce's Modern Shatranj variant (i.e. crossing it with Chessgi-like drops), with Joe's use of guards and modern elephants, rather than ferz' and alfils, might prove at least as good in practice as Shatranji.

[edit: Here's my tentative estimates of the piece values for this variant: E=2.06; P=2; F=2.25; N=3.5; R=4.]

This looks like a cool variant! It's too bad that I find the existing preset for it to be unsatisfying.

Is this a retail game, or a home variant?

An excellent concept!

Inspired by it, I can suggest many Chess With Different Armies-like variants that, to my taste, might be especially interesting to try out sometime:

That would be with the Different Armies idea used to make any number of versions of the following variants 1) 9x8 Symmetric Chess; 2) 10x8 Janus or Capablanca Chess; 3) any number of 10x10 variants, such as Grand or Sac Chess; 4) 4x16 or 5x16 Circular Chess variants; 5) Glinski's, Symmetric Glinski's, McCooeye's or Hexajedrez (91 cell Hexagonal Chess variants); 6) 4-Way Chess; 7) Crazyhouse, Chessgi or Hostage Chess; 8) Pocket Mutation Chess; 9) Backlash; 10) Marsailles or Progression Chess.

I have sampled a few games of hiashatar on an 8x10 board and have concluded that it results in much too constricted positions, even if pieces come into contact sooner and the balance of open squares and number of pieces matches chess.  I have seen hia chess on CVP and would like to know if others have experience of the hia on a smaller board and have evaluated its suitability for a board of fewer ranks.  I used to think hiashatar seemed too large, but now I am unsure.  I would welcome opinions or accounts of player experiences.

This was the first chess variant I'd ever heard of, way back in elementary school around 1970. After trying it a few times I disliked a game that would rely heavily on giving away stuff to the opponent in order to win. Looking at the variant's webpage nowadays, I can see this variant has depth, in spite of my still not liking it much as far as the thought of playing it myself. The extensive opening theory that apparently one needs to know to survive (in any sense) against strong losing chess players looks daunting, and I'm a bit disappointed that the traditional and obvious chess centre pawn moves 1.e4 and 1.d4 are thought to lose for White in this variant. So, not my cup of tea (at least at present) but I can see how this variant and its basic concept might attract many other people to it.

A cool looking game!

I'm now wondering if it's feasible to even do a non-rules enforcing preset for 2 player Bughouse on Game Courier (i.e. it would be two players controlling an army on each of two boards within a diagram, but only one clock per player unlike over the board bughouse even when played by two), as the two sides would each have a White and a Black army in front of them on their left or right side respectively. [edit: perhaps merely being restricted to just one clock per side would make such a bughouse variant preset on Game Courier unworkable, as a player might just move on one board only, when in trouble on the other board.]

IMO One of the better contemporary variants out there, featuring a great mashup of fairy pieces old and new. Where s-chess allows for a far more sly strategy concerning the pieces in hand, musketeer chess respects the integrity of chess’ perfect information by having players pre-determine their drops. My only critique would be my concern towards the inevitability of the piece roster expanding. Will the future second and third series pieces be welcomed updates, or will they sour the game as it stands? I can’t really say. As a commercial variant though, it is fair to say that musketeer chess, and the ‘Modern Chess Variants’ project in general, is highly ambitious.

I was approached by Dr. Haddad to write an introductory article to musketeer chess. It details my experiences and developed theories playing the game, plus some basic endgames and even an interview with the creator himself. Check it out, if you’d like! https://www.chess.com/blog/Ebinola/an-introduction-to-musketeer-chess 

How can an opponent intercept a pass? Is a pass considered a move so that the other player gets a move to try to intercept? Or does the puck move at a limited speed? 

A variant with an interesting mix of past and present. It seems possible and desirable for White's (or sometimes Black's) central pawns to strive to both advance to the squares on the fourth rank relatively early in many cases, much as in chess. To me that's a healthy sign for a two army square or rectangular board variant with an even number of both files and ranks, as far as the richness and logic of the opening phase of a typical game of it might go.

As far as this variant's 12x8 board goes, in the old days such would be fine in someone's home on a table, but nowadays if it were to be played over-the-board in a tournament hall (as in a chess tournament) its being 12 squares wide would naturally count against it as far as having physical boards with squares (and thus pieces) that weren't somewhat small in size (otherwise the boards would often take up too much room on a table in a tournament hall). Luckily this isn't much of a consideration for internet contests involving a variant with this one's otherwise unwieldy board shape. Another concern would be that the game might take too many moves to play on average, say compared to chess, but I'd suppose it wouldn't be as bad as in the case of the original 12x8 Courier Chess variant, with its relative lack of more powerful piece types such as the modern queen.

Here's 3 different 12x8 CVs with a quirk or two:

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

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

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

www.naviadratp.net no longer working

Dr Muller, you mention the bare king rule as used by the Nihon Chu Shogi Renmei, but I have to wonder if your computer analysis has revealed what pieces singly or in combination are sufficient to force or at least deliver checkmate on a bare king in chu shogi.

Excellent concept, as somewhat borrowed from the original French variant. I'd suggest an alternative deck of cards, the same except for more child-friendly illustrations, might be used be used for when a child(ren) is playing the game.

This variant is berserkly sharp, as befitting of the name, and a stronger player could easily suffer an upset loss if he is at all having an off day. The rectangular, rather than square, board cannot be helped, but it is clearly justified.

My tentative estimates for the piece values of this variant would be: P=1; B=3; N=3.5; R=5.5; Q=9.5 and the fighting value of K=3 approximately (though naturally it cannot be traded).

The interesting bishop's conversion rule makes this variant tricky to handle in the opening stages. On a 9x8 board, bishops are only clearly slightly better than knights, the development of which can also be tricky to decide on. The extra queen per side make this a variant rich in possibilities.

My tentative estimates for the piece values of this variant would be: P=1; N=3.5 approx.; B=3.75; R=5.5; Q=10.25 and the fighting value of K=3.5 approximately (though naturally it cannot be traded). Note that a N has slightly less excellent central squares on an empty 9x8 board compared to on a 10x8 board (in Capablanca Chess I rate also rate a N as worth 3.5 approx., but actually a little less than on 9x8 when not rounding to the nearest 0.25), but the 9x8 board being somewhat smaller seems to at the least offset this IMHO, as a N can have a slightly easier time getting from one extreme flank to the other.

Excellent concept. One can quibble about the class certain pieces ought to be in, and the extra basic rules are slightly complex, but cool variant.

My tentative estimates for the piece values of this variant are: Class 1: P=1; Class 2: N=3.5, B=3.5; Class 3: R=5.5, NN=5.75, SB=6; Class 4: C=7.5, SR=8; Class 5: Q=10, M=10, SC=10, CC=10.25; Class 6: MM=12.25, SM=12.5, SCC=12.75; Class 7: A=14.5, SMM=14.75; Class 8: AA=16.75. Note that I tend to agree with various world class chess players who historically gave the fighting value of K=4 for on an 8x8 board. I also tend to agree with chess authorities who in the past valued a B microscopically better than a N on average, so perhaps a better value for a N (or the N component portion of any of the appropriate compound pieces listed above) might be, say, 3.49, to reflect this belief, though I prefer not to use ugly fractions when thinking of most piece exchange value calculations that might arise.

Cool variant. The extra basic rules are slightly complex, but still, cool variant.

It may be worth giving here the relative piece values for Crazyhouse that I once saw on someone's blog; these values just might actually be of use in assessing the [tactical] usefulness of pieces in games of Hostage Chess, in a general way, too: P=2; B=3; N=3.5; R=4; Q=6.

Two queen per side makes for a rich variant, though perhaps my bias as an orthodox chess player goes against it (in that game a king starts with one queen, or wife, though it's possible he may become a bigamist later in the game). My more real concern with this variant is that after a very early bishop's conversion by White, both Black pawns that are guarded in the setup only by the rooks can come under a double attack.

For Black to defend or counterattack against this possibility (also a similar story for White, if he starts less aggressively [perhaps]) seems to limit his choice of responses for tactical reasons (i.e. to avoid losing at least a pawn for more or less nothing, perhaps), and that may make the opening possibilities in the early stages less rich, at least for Black.

However, Shogi suffers from a certain lack of variety in the early stages, as far as the best moves go, and yet it is a classic. All in all, I think Hexajedrez promises to be a successful variant, if it were tested more, by skilled players especially. I certainly like that there are significantly more pawns in this variant than in McCooey's Hexagonal Chess (actually the same number as in Glinski's Hexagonal Chess, which uses different pawn rules).

For what it's worth, decades ago I saw the following piece values for Glinski's, which ought to also be applicable to this variant (as well as McCooey's): P=1; B=3; N=4; R=5; Q=9. I would add that I tentatively estimate the fighting value of K=4 approximately (though naturally it cannot be traded).

In spite of what I see as the drawbacks of this variant (bishops clearly stronger than knights, marshalls able to be traded quickly if developed symmetrically, complex pawn promotion rules that I don't quite like), the game uses a square (rather than rectangular) board and there are no unprotected pawns in the setup, which are arguably improvements over Capablanca chess (although that game's setup allows for smothered and back rank mates, arguably good features to have). The fact that the rooks protect each other, so that there is no need for castling, is both a plus and a minus in my view (as is the fact the player's armies ranks have many empty squares in the setup - otherwise there could be 30 pieces per side, perhaps, as I tried in my own Sac Chess variant, which is a lot of pieces).

My tentative estimates for the piece values in this variant would be: P=1; N=3; B=3.5; R=5.5; C=7.5; M=9.5; Q=10 and the fighting value of the K=2.5 approximately (though naturally it cannot be traded). Note that I rate a N significantly lower on a 10x10 board than on a 8x8, 9x8 or 10x8 board (where I estimate N roughly=3.5 in all cases) as the many extra excellent central squares available to a N on a 10x10 board are IMHO way more than offset by the rather large size of the board, which makes it harder for a N to cross from one side of the board to the opposite one. Also note that on the four board sizes I've mentioned, I've kept R=5.5 as a constant value, changing the value of a B as I felt appropriate for a particular board size(s), in relation to the value of a R.

Here's an early CV invention of mine, a modified version of Grand Chess, which some may or may not like due to the positioning of the bishops in the setup, alone:

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/chess-1010

A popular variant on Game Courier currently, Cetran 2 has an interesting combination of pieces in whatever starting position is selected (by man and/or machine), many of them powerful, with the superb Sissa piece undoubtedly being the star of the show.

My tentative values for the pieces in this variant would be: P=1; N=3.5; R=5.5; DH=6; A=8; C=10; Q=10; S=10.33 approximately and the fighting value of K=4 (though naturally it cannot be traded), as given by a number of world class chess players historically, re: chess itself.

In spite of what I see as the drawbacks of this variant (unprotected pawn for each side in setup, rectangular board [though allowing smothered and back rank mates still], bishops clearly stronger than knights, the fact the chancellors might be developed symmetrically and traded in short order sometimes), this was a good try historically to cut down on draws and opening theory.

On this particular variant's board dimensions of 10x8, as compared to 8x8, IMHO the archbishops would seem to come closer in value to chancellors (though not queens), though I personally have lingering doubts about archbishops being quite as good by comparison on 8x8 or 10x10 boards, any computer studies aside. IMHO, the bishop component of an archbishop would seem to have a number of extra potential good squares near the centre (or in range of the enemy camp) on a 10x8 board, without the rook component of a chancellor benefitting as much as often in return (unlike would be the case on a 10x10 board). On a 10x8 board the knight component of an archbishop would seem to have a number of extra potential good squares near the centre (or the enemy camp) for local scope, balancing the benefit received by the rook component of a queen on such an empty larger board than 8x8.

My tentative estimates for the piece values in this variant would be: P=1; N=3.5 approx.; B=3.75; R=5.5; A=8.25; C=10; Q=10.25 and the fighting value of the K=3.2 (though it naturally cannot be traded).

edit: Here's a 10x8 CV that uses 2 powerful and unusual pieces, besides the chess army and Berolina pawns:

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/gamma2-chess

Also, here's a 10x8 variant that uses Frogs besides the chess army:

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

A link to a published preset for a circular Capablanca Chess style variant:

Circular Capa Chess

I like the concept of multi-player chess variants (or ones in which two players each control more than one army, which is how this game is currently played on Game Courier), and perhaps there ought to be more of these. The problem of how to handle the surviving pieces of an army whose king has been captured (if not mated) may be a bit tricky to do in a reasonable way (i.e. in order to make it worthwhile for good players continuing to play out such a game further, at least at times). I think this particular variant seems to solve that problem well enough - if nothing else the variant is well tested and continues to be played, I gather!

My tentative estimates for the piece values in this variant would be: P=1; N=2.5; B=3.25; R=5.75; Q=10 and the fighting value of a K=1.6 (if the first of one team's kings is captured, ostensibly winning an exchange value of 1.6, add to this exchange value a periodically recalculated bonus of [sum of the value of the pieces and pawns in the remainder of that king's army, for as long as any of it remains on the board]x0.8 for virtually immobilizing the remainder of that army, with full value awarded for any virtually immobilized pieces that are subsequently captured); note that naturally the second of a team's kings cannot be allowed to be captured without the loss of the game.

I rate Berolina Chess as below Excellent since I somewhat dislike that pawns open files so easily, and that they can more easily become passed (plus Berolina pawns continually force the mind of an orthodox chess player to adjust at every stage of his calculations). The pawn structures that often result, in spite of not being clearly weak, also look ugly to the orthodox mind. On the bright side, such features (the merits of which can be debated) do attract a lot of variant players due to their novelty, in fundamentally shifting away from the foundation of standard pawns that is retained in so many variants.

As for chess, my estimates for the piece values would be: P=1; N=3.49; B=3.5; R=5.5; Q=10 and a fighting value of K=4 (though naturally it cannot be traded).

Here's an experiment 10x8 CV that uses Berolina Pawns also:

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/gamma2-chess

I want to play with someone! :) 

One of the few examples of variants that are actually better than the original. 

Some people take a normal chess game, add a piece that combines the abilities of a knight and a Bishop, and already call it a new variant. This game, however, is a complete reinvention of its ancient predecessor. Many additional rules have made this game much more enjoyable, and have given it a completely new feeling. It actually feels really realistic; you can almost see the formations of hoplites rolling onto each other, pushing each other back, and finally forcing the losing party to retreat. But be careful not to advance too far, otherwise it might happen that a few swift skirmishers come charging from the other side of the board and fall into the flanks of your formations. And isolated soldiers have to take great care that they don't get simply overwhelmed and crushed in between their enemies. 

This is not just some of those minor variations. This game is just as elaborate, just as complex, and just as much fun as original  chess itself. Try it at least twice and see. 

I'm not sure if it exists already as a modest proposal, but I like the creativity of the promotion rule (and simplicity of the general idea).  Trying to "aim" pawns toward the central files for a queen sounds interesting.  My only concern would be if an obvious advantage for either side occurs due to some open files very early on in the game.

Hi.

I always enjoy new chess variants (especially as, as a composer, I've been occasionally making compositions with some feeric conditions, mostly for SPGs), so as soon as I read something about switch side chain chess on chessbase site, I DLed the android app to test it :). Here are my thoughts so far :

It's definitely original and one can clearly see the interest for AI given, even though chain detection is very easy to code, evaluating the positions is probably much more difficult to code with that possibility to switch sides (although it's obvious that when one side has the possibility to create a chain, it's a tremendous advantage - and white definitely seems to have a big edge with the current rules).

About the feeling and enjoyment of playing this :it reminds a lot of loser's chess (giveaway chess). Despite the fact that loser's chess is at the contrary veryyy AI friendly (don't know if some coders bothered solving it, but it's probably possible). You can lose extremely fast in the opening, but it is somewhat interesting to see how to play around these fast losses.

About the usefulness for chess composition : can be interesting for SPGs (shortest proof games) and retro analysis for sure. Not so much for mates/helped mates/inversed mates etc since chains require the presence of too much material.

About the software : wondered who you asked to code this.. It's passably aesthetic and the UI is ok, but the AI is inexistent.. I ve never seen it ever do a switch, and obviously not work around them either. And even when playing normal chess he is atrocious. That's the main reason for my average evaluation.

About possible changes to prevent very quick games, and give it a feel closer to chess rather than loser's chess : limiting the number of successive switches depending on the move you're at seems unnecessarily complicated. You could for instance consider a chain that involves a pawn still on its starting square as non valid. That would be a big change for sure, but keep it simple and interesting.

 

To finish, my fastest game so far against that weak program, as black :

1.e3 b6

2.Qf3 Bb7

3.Qxb7?! c6

4.Qxa8?? Qc8 (SB)

5.Qxb8 Kd8 (SW) (SB)

6.Ba6 d6 (SW) (SB)

7.Qxc8#

 

Chess 2 is a fantastic variant that really goes off the deep end in how it changes chess yet still retains that familiar chess feel. It's a great shame that it virtually has no playerbase. It pushes chess to a more gamer and esports oriented audience, in my opinion. Some have complained about the midline rule and duelling mechanics ruining classic chess endgames and adding an unwanted element of chance respectively - I say that on the other hand, midline makes endgames more exciting as moving your king to the midline is the endgame, and makes the king's activity in the game much more apparent; likewise, duelling is what keeps the balance of Chess 2 intact. The armies are supposed to be strong and weak against other armies, that way a metagame eventually forms.

Sirlin's site has since moved domains, and as a result the print-and-play version of the game has been obfuscated. However, I'd like to leave a link to a new version of the print and play that is still being updated:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9qCB9zFQM1neHVMY3pUanh5eXc

And for one without backgrounds: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9qCB9zFQM1nOUcxLXVydWI4d3c

The text has been for the most part lifted from the old print and play, but there's a number of new things that I've added, such as:

• Updated diagrams - makes memorising the movements of the pieces a little less confusing;
• Rules for OTB play - just basic stuff for tournament play;
• CHESS 2 NOTATION. No form of algebraic notation has been configured for Chess 2, until now. I've devised (what I believe to be) the simplest and most effective way to record Chess 2 games while still respecting the integrity of regular chess notation.
• Multiple conversations that I had between various frequent players and beta testers.

For anyone who blows on by this page, I hope you'll take a look at it (if you're interested). If you're wanting to give feedback, you can always find me on chess.com or on lichess.

This looks like an interesting game, and I like many aspects of it - including its large size, good blend of traditional and new pieces, and clean crisp graphics. They work together well to create an interesting and appealing game.

I was wondering what it would take to play this engine-vs-engine.

The first thing I noticed is that CVPs page on ChessV brings up an error. Is this related to the recent server move?

I've also read that ChessV has a scripting option, which might allow custom variants to be entered and played. Is this game (Chess and a half) within the possibility to enter as a script? I've never tried anything like that, but I'm always willing to try new things.

Lastly, I know that custom variants can be entered to Fairy-Max. Does anyone know off-hand if this variant is within the size limit of Fairy-Max?

With a little bit of work, I MIGHT be able to get an engine-vs-engine game going of this variant. That would be really awesome. Why play myself, if I can let an engine do the work???

That makes sense, very interesting.  It would require some pretty deep thinking, even for just the next move or two, if all three of those pieces are interacting.  I'll have to try this sometime.

I'm facing a problem: I want to open a game in which it is my move. Immediately I get an error saying I can't drop a pawn on a file where I already have a pawn.

Yes, I do already know that I can't drop a pawn on a file where I already have a pawn. Especially when I haven't even made any move.

Excellent idea! There is also one kind of royal pieces. I'm talking about Pielgrym from Monkey King Chess. It moves like king, but cannot capture. I think it has the power of royal wazir ))) truly, it has no power because cannot capture), but has much more mobility than wazir. When I made Maorider King, I was inspired by this piece.

I've heard of non-edge variants of chess, but I hadn't read this specific page until just recently.  The game seems interesting and might eliminate the usual "going for the center in the opening" strategy.  Still, I can't help but wonder if the king might be tough to mate if there are no right and left edges.  Can a knight, bishop and king mate the lone opponent king?

Maybe they should make a restriction on the king - he is restricted to the usual board edges perhaps?

Merging Chinese chess with Western chess was a very ambitious thing to do (altering two orthodox traditions) but I think you've succeeded! I like how you took the plain round disks and replaced them with chess pieces that are easier to discrimate. Good work on this interesting variant!
 

Are you talking about victory by "allowing" perpetual flight of the opponent's final Queen? That is not the same as eliminating or subjugating a royal piece, which is the real object of a Chess variant. If it was necessary for that to be ruled a victory condition due to the mix of piece types in play, then the game is not really perfect.

Besides this, when any piece may ultimately ascend to royalty, the paradox is then whether the piece type named as "royal" is "really royal". The problem with naming a game which throws up this paradox as a "Chess variant" is that it then has no real royal piece, and Chess is defined as having a set of piece types which are royal and another set which, and any promotion to royalty must be a privileged promotion open only to certain piece types. Once again, if you were so strict about what the rules were to be like that you made yourself need to do this, then the game is not really perfect.

In summary, the game, although interesting, is not really perfect nor really a Chess variant.

Wow, this game is quite a gem.  The piece combinations are perfect - some long range, some short range, but nothing too over powered.  It tends to be a slower paced game (our game was 70+ moves), but it adds a lot of depth.  

Two different types of pawns and 3 promotion potentials, with a possibility of getting a second king.  The kings, are also valuable pieces in the fight.  Possibly the strongest piece in the game if you can keep them out of check.  Recruiting is a very unique style of play, providing strategy that I haven't seen before.  In my opinion, by far better than the pocketing method of Shogi.

Another aspect that I found great was due to the smaller number of pawns, your "line" was maintained by your minor pieces.  Every move and every capture was meaningful in this way.  It felt like an actual battle instead of a game.  Very much so one of the best games I've ever played.

I definitely favorited this one.

I really like the mix of pieces added to the game.  The setup positioning of the Lions brings them right into the game early and the Unicorn is a very instrumental piece to the game.  It is very challenging to use and to guard against.

Neither my opponent nor myself made any moves with the Queen nor the Chancellor, which seem like very important pieces to use.  I am not sure if that is a regular occurance or not.  

The board is large, but not too large - big enough to encourage use of the Unicorn.

Yes Charles, I think it would be fine to drop this (he asks advice on this in red). "sidewaysmost, 'Halfcamel', 'skewed Dabbabah', 'Colourbound analogue' and 'river-straddling zigzag' are turgid and off-putting without any of Ralph's deadend tongue in cheek. However other CVs that get deleted also lose the scathing review.

I requested a game of this because I was very intrigued by the mix of pieces, though I think the game was shorted by it's need for rule clarifications.

A few things that I found only through research:
- The movement of the Nahbi.  The diagonal movements of the Nahbi do not change direction.  Thus, a Nahbi moves two spaces diagonally in the same direction, then one square in any orthogonal direction, in that order.
- Castling.  The correlation to FIDE chess is that it moves 2 squares left or right, not that the king ends in the same board position as in FIDE.  This was verified by downloading an external program (Zillions of Games) and loading the rules the inventor programmed.  

Once I found out how the Nahbi moved, I quite enjoyed the piece.  The non capturing move increases the mobility, while limiting it to being a sliding piece (instead of jumping) ensured that it wasn't too powerful.  I'd love to see it in other variants.

The Archer is a very good defensive unit and I feel is quite enough of a force to protect the king.  The Alfil, however, was useless.  In a 36 move game, neither players moved their Alfils and only one played a role in piece protection.  Limiting them to one side of the equator gives it 7 squares to protect, making them MUCH weaker than a pawn that has already crossed the equator.  Had the game continued, I would have been happy to exchange both of mine for a crossed pawn each.  If the piece is necessary to the game, I'd recommend removing the limit of remaining on one side of the equator only.

I did like the limit on the queen crossing the equator.  Seemed very fitting to make it a "short range" piece.

First, I wanted to say that my opponent handily outclassed me in our game.  I felt like every move of mine was a blunder. 

Aside from that heavy loss, I found the game very enjoyable.  I was definitely out of my element in this type of game, but the types of pieces really complimented each other and I see why this game gets a lot of correspondence and OTB traction.

Player must keep a Ring of 3x3 made from the stones, and to win is to destroy opponent last Ring.  Stones move in 3x3s. This appeared first in Spektrum der Wissenschaft.

 A square that a main Middle board piece sits on has corresponding square in Above and Below boards. These locations (departure square) 'influence' whether a move can be considered or not. To make the move, it also must be legal within the Middle board. Sometimes the Above or Below two piece-types move their one- or two-square way, and other times they duplicate a Middle board movement. Rules may very well be interpretable (including moving opponent's piece) in all cases.

Pawns do not promote. The Pawns reaching promotion zone cause other pieces to promote and the Pawn leaves the board. The four-square occupation of King requires all four attacked for mate.

Squares increase in power.  Each time a piece leaves it, it leaves a trace, so a square can eventually confer Amazon power even to lowly Pawn when he arrives.

Another advanced pawn starting formation.

The first move has to be illegal, so Black Pawn cannot on the first move take a White Pawn that has moved 1 P-a2.  Since it is legal move for Black, he cannot do so on move 1.

Here is the only 3-handed circular chess so far.

Swap Chess allows serial swapping as a move along subsequent lines of attack.  Swap Chess has never been put up in Game Courier like Switching Chess.

Another close (but not exact) match is the Eohippos (German Urpferdchen) from 10 directional chess (see http://www.chessvariants.com/contests/10/10_directional.html ). It moves and captures the same way, not in a pawnish style.

The Knight-Fers compound (NF) is also often seen under many different names, my favourite name is Dullahan (a male counterpart to a Banshee, featured under this name in the "Fearful Fairies" http://www.chessvariants.com/invention/fearful-fairies – other names include "prince" (problemist usage) or "Priest" (Scirocco, http://www.chessvariants.com/invention/scirocco )).

The Squire Knight is a definitely a Rook-class piece with 4 new capturing moves and 2 new non-capturing moves. Experience shows that additional capturing moves are worth more than additional non-capturing moves. The Squire Knight has 12 targets to aim at ... quite impressive.

I am pretty sure that Squire Knight makes an enjoyable and easy-to-learn chess variant.