Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

In the section "One Set, Four Boards" the author wrote "Seems like a silly idea, but the small number of pieces means that the game won't take so many moves, and the position of the Kings means that they will never be safe -- and so there will be many short games with exciting attacks.".

To (partially) answer Trae Moore's question, John Williams suggested a 'limited infinite chess' rule HERE in 1997.

Better, perhaps, would be to let the piece, except the knight, stop at the edge, before moving in or out of the territory. Then one needn't bother about move length.
/Mats

I'm suprised that no one else seems to have thought of a variant using an oversized board (say, 16x16, for example), with the normal 16 pieces per side, but limiting the mobility to that of a normal 8x8 board. The initial setup would be like regular chess, in the centermost 64 squares of the large board, leaving the sides and rear of each players pieces exposed, and the same distance apart as in normal chess. However, despite the extra space, each piece would be able to go no farther in any one move that 7 squares in any one direction (or, 8 squares if you count the one it starts on).

The idea is to give the feeling of meeting on an open field of battle. Some other special rules involving pawns may include allowing them to move laterally, or even backwards, etc..., and promotion would take place upon reaching the starting rank of the opposite king. Of course, this concept could easily be extrapolated to include any fairy pieces (which I don't particuarly care for, although some are interesting), and the actual board could be any size. I think maybe a 24x24 board may be a little better than 16x16, but sill with the 'normal' complement of pieces arranged traditionally in the 64 centermost squares.

Thus, with this set up, rooks could open by moving to their open side, or even backwards; or the King could take a step backwards, either straight or diagonally, etc.... The 7 square restriction would allow for a threatened opposite piece to simply move 'out-of-range', even if it is still in the path of an attacking piece. For example, a rook on c2 could check a king on c9, but the king could move out of check by simply moving to c10, and would be safe because the rook could go no farther than c9 in it's next move.

There may be other issues to work out, but I think the concept is not so far-fetched as some other variants on large boards. Enjoy! If anyone actually tries to play this game, send me some feedback please at [email protected]

I didn't say your interpretation was wrong.  I was trying to imply that
the n in funny notation does not really make sense when we apply it to
hippogonal pieces (such as the knight, camel, zebra, etc.) since it does
not intrinsically imply the unblocked path a piece must take.

By 'move' in my previous comment, I meant 'the device by which a single
piece may end the turn on a square different from the one it started on.'

Continuing alphabetically thru the 'Large CVs', informally and
retrospectively, 'Chess on a Really Big Board' is more like Ralph Betza's
changed style by 2001-2004. Gradually Betza becomes equally interested in being
entertaining as CV analysis. Making his game rules, or piece-value
methods, clear was more of a priority in 1970's and 1980's. Never fatuous, Betza's
sarcasm always has a point and this makes another 'fun' Betza 'read'.
However, sorting out the CVs proposed from the irony becomes problematic. 
Is Betza serious or not about a 256-square board? Here he is both serious, and
he is not, about 576 squares in a Chess embodiment.  Somewhat prolix bombast and
in-your-face leave-taking come to mark Betza's last 20-30 CVP pieces(and Comments).