The site has moved to a new server, and there are now some issues to fix. Please report anything needing fixing with a comment to the homepage.



The Chess Variant Pages




[ 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

Carrera's Chess. Large chess variant from 17th century Italy. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
George Duke wrote on 2009-10-20 UTC
Occasionally for indifferent and casual viewers the history needs reminding that Carrera's, according to Murray and Gollon and so on, was the inspiration for Bird's and Bird's for Capablanca, and none of them are worth duplicating by some new array anymore, because there is ''Capablanca Random Chess'' by CVPage erstwhile Scharnagl. I cannot think of a worse compound than Rook plus Knight, Carrera Champion. Champion was original in its time, sort of a mild satirical protest 100 years after OrthoChess today was clearly being established paramount. In those days they did not make many CVs. In the 1960s only 40 years ago they did not make many CVs. They had too much sense and made problems of ''fairy'' themes and OrthoChess problems. CVs are a fad since about 1990 or 1995 or arguably another 20 or 30 years before that with the likes of Betza at which time Boyer and Parton still lived. CVPage Trenholme's 10,000 or whatever games, if you can call them that, are probably ten times more than have been played in all 400 years or Carrera-Capablanca. Trenholme should be commended, as for a significant statistical tabulation, with virtually no game annotated or particularly understood. For depth there would have to be following move by move by parties interested. Though Carrera gets credit for Centaur and Champion, I would say what we now call ''CVs'' got started in the 13th century with Grande Acedrex sponsored by King Alphonso, almost another 400 years before Carrera. That is, notwithstanding earlier Persian, Arabian and Indian tweaks and four-way play, that hardly count because of approximation to Shatranj itself.