[ 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 Achernar. ACHERNAR is a mix of the game ALTAIR and Western Chess. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2010-03-02 UTCTo Russian Flowerman, Altair has tri-colours just before Achernar, both by Venezuelan Lavieri. Altair is much better CV. But there is trade-off that Achernar is more conventional for conventional minds. Altair is hard and for math types, though I disagree with Winther that Bifurcators are for nerds, and there needs be paragraph rejustifying Bifurcators in all their clarity as #1 Next Chess thus far. (Actually Flowerman's and my comment both duplicate Lavieri's last comment. Just click ''all comments.'') Flowerman wrote on 2010-03-02 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Good! What is the first game with three-colored board with H- and CH-movement? Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2004-12-09 UTCGeorge, very thanks for your comments and observations. About Achernar, yes, it is in essence a 3-D game, but its presentation is 2-D. It was born inspired on Altair. Altair is more complex, Achernar uses like-Chess pieces and it is not the case with Altair, but the game play seems to be better in Altair. Achernar may be in evolution to a 3-D version (Achernar-3D or Achernar-II ?), particularily I think I´m going to diminish a bit the power of one or two pieces (Bishop is one of them, of course), augment the capabilities of promoted Soldiers (Grand-Soldiers) because some ends are very slow and there is not incentive enough for promotion, and it is very possible that some rules are going to be modified or added specially for dimensional perspective in a better way, I´m going to think on it seriously, trying to offer a good product, if I can do that. Maxima?, well, I have thought a lot in this game, and I don´t think it needs much more revision, it is nice as it is, and many of the possible modifications I have experimentally tried have not been convincent in any way, it is not easy find new improvements without the loss of personality of the game or a loss in the game play quality. Actually, The game play is notoriously balanced, attack and defense are in equilibrium, there is more clarity in the game play than in Ultima, and I have played a few good games in the last times in which I have seen all, from deep positional concepts to beautiful sacrifices. I agree with you in the fact there are one or a couple of rules (or piece movements, as the King) that may seem a bit excentrical, but nothing is out of place, I spent many months designing and testing this game before releasing it, and you must be sure, I was careful in all aspects. Thanks again, I´ll try to use your kind observations on Achernar .(II? 3D?). George Duke wrote on 2004-12-09 UTCGood ★★★★Achernar's pieces can conditionally switch to squares in a different rank at option, in lieu of a move. Would not that kernel of an idea be better embodied in a 3-D version? Relying on adjacency, variously defined, 3-D Chesses more or less try to extend 2-D notions(motions) to 3-D. Instead, think of a piece's moving to, say, the perimeter of a 2-D board, then being able to 'advance' to overlaying or underlying game board(s) (3-D levels) to a number of squares a la Achernar. Achernar certainly has unrealized potential if the too-numerous piece enhancements were scaled back. Hypothetical three-dimensional Chesses, relying on positional as opposed to motional criteria, would retroactively broadly include the fifty-year-old Alice Chess (though not 100-year-old Kriegspiel)too as notionally 3-D. 4 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.