Single Comment

'GHI,LargeCVm': Gess would have to be played, which this cross-thread avoids. Is Gess generalized chess? Ten-year-old article and only 4 Comments. One-piece type is not unprecedented: witness Battle-Chieftain Chess. Sub-cross-thread of 'pieces occupying more than one square' applies to Gess: Gigachess, Giant-King, and Cobra have 2- or 4-square occupancy variously. Gess' 'mega-piece' occupies 9 squares but works differently. There is no piece unless only one side's stones are in a 3x3(See rules). Number of 'pieces'('mega-' and stone alike) will keep changing as configurations of stones change and stones remove. (Perimeter stones within a 3x3 determine directions allowable, as it explain well.) Not appealing that the array is not compelling: it seems any number of alternative starting set-ups and stones could work, such as varying the six 'outlier' stones. Also, no particular inevitability in '1-,2-, or 3-' step, when say omitting '3-step' would not hurt anything. Notice each side starts with one ring and better keep at least one ring, or lose. So, making more rings is part of strategy, but it never says this: a player is supposed to get into the intellection and figure some things out. Though an individual move can be visualized, that is just one move. It is uncertain whether Gess would play really tactically or just afford some claim for such in hindsight for whoever removes the other's ring(s). At least there is no flaw of a draw because somebody is bound to lose rings. Would this 'Go-Chess' hybrid-form Gess be partly 'guess'-work? Or commonly take an hour to find the best move?