[ 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 Venomous. New system of chess on 10x10 board with new pieces: the Sorcerer Snake and the even more venomous Sissa. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2009-07-06 UTCGood ★★★★This looks pretty good, but I do not like Ninja Pawns, unlikely ever to have wide appreciation. Interestingly they gain strength in boards' upper half. Sissa goes well with (N+Zebra)-hybrid. Upwards of fifteen CVs in Pritchard's 'ECV' use (N+Z) going back 100 years. They are mostly leapers exclusively. Differently, a couple of them require Knight-space clear, to either stop there or optionally slide one more to Zebra(2,3). These mostly have accompanying (N+Camel) separate piece. So straight two-path is unique and creditable. This Snake(N2,Z2) amounts to Moo (1960s) plus two pathways of Falcon's (1992) six in legitimate tinkering. The companion piece-type Moo + two-path Camel is obvious follow-up, and expect to see it in the spirit of proliferation. In 'ECV' (N+Z) is not the commonest compound, which would be among RN, BN, and RB, but (N+Z) is in the top 50 for frequency; others like K+N,AD,AND,WAD would be a lot higher. Truelove's can validate accuracy of the last sentence. Both (Moo+Zebra) and (Moo+Camel) are logical complements themselves to further Sissa for 10x10 Track II material. Remember Track I and Track II are not value judgments, but I OrthoChess replacements-to-be and II CV art per se. I think this Venomous could be as good as Centennial and number of other 10x10s. If we were ever rating precisely, we need scale 1 to 1000. Then if we get 'goods' as the highest '10x10s' so far, they would cluster like 650, 645, 639, 637, many really close together. I do not think '10x10' is yet ''solved,'' as '8x10' is already solved, until there are one or two that get 900 out of the 1000. As Hutnik says, 2c=2c=2c; or does it really?