[ 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 ]Rated Comments for a Single ItemEarlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later Chaturanga 4-84. An Updating of Chaturanga for Four Players with modern pieces and an 84-square board. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2002-04-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Very nice game. It is highly playable. Very enjoyable. The double teams interact in a cooperative way. The board is interesting to play on, especially with the center squares which change your piece types. Although the game harkens back to Chaturanga, even the 4-player version of Chaturanga, and other 4-player games, there is a lot on ingenuity here. The idea of changing piece type in the center adds some of the ancient flavor too. The double team environment in-itself adds a new element in many ways. The rules are simple to grasp. Traditional chess moves are used, along with the ancient moves in the center. The center, of course, alludes to the traditional struggle in chess to capture the center. The game is very nice. By that I mean that it is graceful and evocative. Nice game. Try it! gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I have no idea whether or not it's really playable, but judging purely by the text, the number of ingredients in the recipes, and the quality and amount of spices, I would have to guess that this is a very fine piece of work. Applause. Charles Gilman wrote on 2003-12-07 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Rook behaviour on the Old Squares does look odd at first, but it is consistent with Bishops - although on that basis a variant where Queens leave those squares as Alibabas would also have some validity. The King swap helps by unbinding Bishops and also explains how Red Pawns could theoretically end up on cells a6-9 - although it would still be unlikely! Incidentally does 'adjacent' here mean just orthogonally or does it include diagonally? A version with bidding would certainly be an interesting development, particularly as ten-piece armies could be represented by subsets of card suits (though with different correspondences to my Pawnless Fivequarters - see http://www.chessvariants.com/multiplayer.dir/fivequarters.html). King and Queen are obvious but Jack=Rook, Ten=Bishop, Nine=Knight would have a kind of double logic. Jack and Rook both end in K, Nine and Knight sound alike except at the end, and because the Jack is also called a Knave the Ten has often been nicknamed Fool - literal translation of the Bishop's French name. 3 comments displayedEarlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ LaterPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.