[ 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 Prince. 8x8x8 3-D variant with new pieces. (8x8x8, Cells: 512) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Gilman wrote on 2004-05-16 UTCSorry that I cannot be more encouraging, but much offline analysis has convinced me that this variant adds little to the existing range of 3d variants. The best that I can say is that it could be played with two FIDE sets of each of four sizes (or 2 of 4 novelty styles, or 4 of 2 if directional) with some Kings marked. The mixture of pieces is too complex. Even MY arrays don't exceed 16 piece types (Leapale) to your 23! The established 3 simple, 3 double, and optional 1 triple combination works well with the right pieces (Rook, Bishop, and one other) but serving up 3 doses in 1 variant is rather OTT. Taking the three groups in turn, the radial linepiece group is standard enough, in the most complex Bonnart 3d variant as well as in most of mine. The oblique leaper group surely has the same memorability problems as Michael Howe highlights on my large 2d variant Great Herd; even the Bonnart variant sticks to 3 simple ones and their triple compound. Planar pieces not unlike Chris Witham's make sense on so large a 3d board, but they do overshadow, to the point of questioning the need to retain, the radial ones. Then there is the assymmetry of the array. The choice between symmetry by rotation or by reflection is an aesthetic one (Alberto Monteiro inspired me to modify my original idea for Tunnelchess from the former to the latter) but this variant seems to dither between them. Given that only 5 types of piece are colourbound it hardly seems necessary.