[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Rated Comments for a Single Item
This is very similar to Milennium Chess, a commercial variant played on a 15x8 board with only one Rook in the middle of the lineup. I've played it and found it good, and have communicated with the author (whose name I've forgotten). He said he had tried 16x8 with two Rooks in the middle but felt that the two Rooks in the center of the board were too powerful. Re: Nightriders, it occurs to me you could also create a piece that you might call an Asterisk, which can move as a Nightrider left and right (that is, 2 steps along the rank and 1 step along the file, but not vice versa), or a Rook along the files: so it would have six lines of motion.
David Short wrote on Mon, Jun 9, 2003 02:16 AM UTC:Poor ★My invention Doublechess http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/doubleboard.html is better than this. I dislike variants with two kings. Chess should be single minded. Checkmate one king to win the game. In Doublechess I replaced the second king with a third queen. There is an imbalance with the Doublechess game you showed (I am not quite clear on whether the game you are commenting on in the link where you say 'for example, this' and show a link on 'this' but the game shown in that link has an imbalance the bishops are on the same diagonal with an enemy queen, my Doublechess all the bishops are on diagonals with enemy bishops) also a game that is almost identical to that one on a 15 by 8 board with one of the rooks removed and the center rook being able to castle with either king is a commercially marketted game called Millenium Chess and is sold by the United States Chess Federation. It has never been published on this site because it is a commercially produced game.) Anyway my Doublechess is the best 16 by 8 game around, why try to tinker with perfection?? ;-)
Excellent idea. The strategic issues regarding where to commit one's pieces will be more significant. Regional battles will be more common. Mobility will be more important. I also like Mike Howe's suggestion about different army powers depending on the board--this harmonizes nicely with the double-board theme. The doublewide idea can be applied to many Chess variants. How about double-wide Rococo, for example! Triple-wide? could be interesting, but the game might devolve into a central battle with reserves on the wings.
If it's impossible to do that, how did he do it in the first place? It must not be impossible, or at least not to Europeans. Would someone please ZRFolize this? --Jared (EDIT) This should be under the Gufuushogi link! Oops!
Wow! I've been called clever by the immortal variantist himself! *blush* But in this game, you win if you know the correct game, of course! Just like those stupid radio trivia thingies -- it's based on the honor system, but you get brownie points for being the first to call in. Also, in an attempt to be on-topic, how would you have doublewide games that don't have a 'home-row' type setup? Like Halma or Danadazo, for instance. --Jared
Another obvious extension is to have a second join at the other Rook files to give a wraparound variant. This would give an extra symmetry in that any two pieces of the same traditional location (e.g. both Queen Knights, both King Rook Pawns) would be affected in exactly the same way. Has anyone ever done such a variant?
On 8x16 there are 19 bounces possible at most, overlaying the Billiards Mutator for Bishop and Queen. Place Bishop at c2 for convenience and assume no obstruction. c2-b1-Bounce to a2-Bounce to b3-c4-d5-e6-f7-g8-Bounce to h7-i6-j5-k4-l3-m2-n1-Bounce to o2-p3-Bounce to o4-n5-m6-l7-k8-Bounce to j7-i6-h5-g4-f3-e2-d1-Bounce to c2-b3-a4-Bounce to b5-c6-d7-e8-Bounce to f7-g6-h5-i4-j3-k2-l1-Bounce to m2-n3-o4-p5-Bounce to o6-n7-m8-Bounce to l7-k6-j5-i4-h2-g2-f1-Bounce to e2-d3-c4-b5-a6-Bounce to b7-c8-Bounce to d7-e6-f5-g4-h3-i2-j1-Bounce to k2-l3-m4-n5-o6-p7-Bounce to o8-Bounce to n7-m6-l5-k4-j3-i2-h1-Bounce to g2-f3-e4-d5-c6-b7-a8. It means a Bishop on c2 can reach a8 in one move, but not very directly. Billiards 'Bishop c2-Bishop-a8' requires the above 19 bounces. Whereas, Elbow Bishop 'c2-a8' is accomplished c2-d3-e4-(90 degrees)d5-c6-b7-a8 in the one change of direction, a pretty direct route. In sum, 6x8 has 7 bounces, 8x8 4 bounces, 8x10 7 bounces, 8x12 13 bounces, 8x14 15 bounces, 8x16 19 bounces. What is the formulaic pattern? '8x14' requires starting at g2 for best result (Hey, Geometria). There the bounces occur successively after g2 starting square at f1, a6, c8, j1, n5, k8, d1, a4, e8, l1, n3, i8, b1, a2, g8, and not possible anymore at arrival square n1. If the Bishop starts on m8 in 8x14, the number of squares actually traversed in that full route, extended back to m8 for maximization, is 77. Shorthand for this size 8x14 might be 'Bishop m8-n1(77 times one-stepping)'.
8 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I have to try this game! A couple of observations, based on logic alone: Castling your Kings toward the center might allow the defense, in some situations, to use alternation ('inside lines') to good effect, thus freeing more forces for a counterattack. All the better if this strategy were unanticipated. Regarding different armies, each player could use the same pair of armies, but there is the choice of like opposite like, or like opposite unlike. That could become interesting if the two armies were of very different strengths on a 16x8 board, and like was not opposite like.