[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Single Comment Big Battle. Large (10x10), commercial variant.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Fisher Kasparov wrote on 2007-11-17 UTCI agree, I my comment had not the most adequate tone too it and for that I´m sorry. And I haven´t tried the variant, because I don´t thing something like 'Big Bat' is worth it. I really think the guy just thought some moves (with no much effort) in order to commercialize something barely similar to chess. Please look at the box art! But you are right, the game might be fun to play. I just completely dislike the huge board and the lack of deep thought put into it. For me, the similar a variant is to chess (but obviously different in some creative ways), the better the variant is! Why? Because chess is just perfect!!! The way all the pieces are related to each other in their moves, and in such a little 8x8 space! Some examples? Maharaja, Chess960, even Capablanca chess which uses a slightly bigger board. In the great original part in those games can just be the different inicial setting! Why I say the guy didn´t put much thought into the game? Play with a 10x10 board chess with your regular moving pieces: it will be boring, completely boring. For instance, take the knight or the pawn. They´ll need ages to be in an interesting position. You don´t need to be a scientist to come to most of the moves the guy uses; you have to move like that to make the game interesting. Research why the pawn can advance two squares in it´s inicial move. Now compare the moves of this game: it´s the same kind of thought. Surely, the game like he presents it, doesn´t exist: what I meant is the general thoughts! There are other things that I can discuss, but just want to give general view of what I meant. Of course, it´s just my opinion and like I said: the game might be good. I, for example, think the guy who created Omega Chess put quite an effort in presenting his variant: it´s more... cohesive! And a lot more like chess (this is also important for me: the variant´s relationship to chess. It has to be related or else you have something more of a different game than of a CHESS variant. For example Arimaa is incredibly creative and shows a lot of thought put behind it, but it´s not a chess variant; you just use chess pieces!). I chose the name of Fisher Kasparov not because I wanted to be original, but because I wanted to pay tribute to these chess masters! Although, writing Fischer without the c was a horrible mistake (I thought he, being from the States, wroted it without it). Admiration and originality are two different things! And finally, my comment wasn´t vulgar! Why was it vulgar? I didn´t use any words that needed any kind of censorship! NOT ONE! It was a little out of line? Yes! But it was not vulgar! Any way, sorry if I offended you. Just keep playing the greatest, most perfect game in the world and it´s millions of variants. Peace!