The site has moved to a new server, and there are now some issues to fix. Please report anything needing fixing with a comment to the homepage.

The Chess Variant Pages

[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
Mega-Chess. A chess game where each piece is a chess game! (8x8x64, Cells: 4096) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on 2010-09-12 UTCBelowAverage ★★
Unfortunately, Mega-Chess gives too much of an advantage to a player who is even slightly more experienced. Look at it this way: If you win 45% of the time against your opponent and lose 55% of the time, for normal chess, that's not bad (ignoring draws, you'd win 9 of 20 games and lose 11). But because you essentially play 33 games of chess in Mega-Chess, on average, you will be down 3 mega-pieces per game. Even assuming you play better on your queen-board, say, than a pawn-board, you'll still be down at least 3 pawns (about a Bishop). So, at best, you'll be giving Bishop odds to an opponent who is about the same strength as you, maybe a little stronger.

George Duke wrote on 2008-09-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
4096 Cells. MegaChess ''uses pieces which are themselves games of chess.'' Offhand, you're frequently not moving pieces around but, in effect, games around; and that's exactly what the middle decade of CVPage came to be about. A turn in MegaChess is a move on any, stress any, eight of the Chessboards. This is incomplete analysis, instead just to provide Joyce's thread of beyond Huge CVs known material. Previously, there have been definitions for Large as only 72-84 squares, ''Very Large'' up to 100, Extremely Large still about 110-144, and other categories upwards. The ranges defined, that can easily be relocated, stopped with 256 squares or cells.

Sam Trenholme wrote on 2006-03-06 UTC
I think this is a brilliant idea, but one that works better with Go (or, even, a Go variant) or Hex than it does with Chess. Of course, the corresponding Hex/Go variant, in order to be playable by mere humans, will need to be quite small with a low level of recursion.

- Sam

Anonymous wrote on 2005-11-19 UTCGood ★★★★
This is a good idea and could be used for any chess variant as well as for some other board games.

L. Lynn Smith wrote on 2003-12-19 UTC
And I understand that 'neutral' Mega-pieces cannot attack or be
 But the potential threat would need to be recognized.  An opponent is
likely to leave their Mega-King under potential threat and so might make
Mega-moves to either block or escape such.

I can see how the decision to make those eight normal moves or a
could make for some nice conflicts.  Attempting to diminish an
potential Mega-pieces, or attempting to maintain one's Mega-pieces.

All in all, an interesting large variant.  I would attempt a PBM game
a willing opponent in order to playtest this game.  But I'm afraid the
experiment may last a few years. :-)

L. Lynn Smith wrote on 2003-12-19 UTC
If a player merely has the choice of making eight normal moves OR making a
single Mega-move, and the goal is checkmating the Mega-King, what
encourages a player to not just make Mega-moves?  If the player just
Mega-moves, the opponent would be at a disadvantage unless they reply

A logical rule would be that each player would make a single normal move
on eight of the Mega-piece boards AND a single Mega-move.  The resulting
conditions of the smaller games would definitely effect the larger.

Just a thought.

6 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.