[ 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 Big Battle. Large (10x10), commercial variant.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2009-06-15 UTCBig Battle Pawn, Soldier, not necessarily weaker than Shogi Lance, one-, two-, or three-steps anywhere any time. They are both pretty strong Pawns. Fisher Kasparov wrote on 2007-11-17 UTCI agree, I my comment had not the most adequate tone too it and for that I´m sorry. And I haven´t tried the variant, because I don´t thing something like 'Big Bat' is worth it. I really think the guy just thought some moves (with no much effort) in order to commercialize something barely similar to chess. Please look at the box art! But you are right, the game might be fun to play. I just completely dislike the huge board and the lack of deep thought put into it. For me, the similar a variant is to chess (but obviously different in some creative ways), the better the variant is! Why? Because chess is just perfect!!! The way all the pieces are related to each other in their moves, and in such a little 8x8 space! Some examples? Maharaja, Chess960, even Capablanca chess which uses a slightly bigger board. In the great original part in those games can just be the different inicial setting! Why I say the guy didn´t put much thought into the game? Play with a 10x10 board chess with your regular moving pieces: it will be boring, completely boring. For instance, take the knight or the pawn. They´ll need ages to be in an interesting position. You don´t need to be a scientist to come to most of the moves the guy uses; you have to move like that to make the game interesting. Research why the pawn can advance two squares in it´s inicial move. Now compare the moves of this game: it´s the same kind of thought. Surely, the game like he presents it, doesn´t exist: what I meant is the general thoughts! There are other things that I can discuss, but just want to give general view of what I meant. Of course, it´s just my opinion and like I said: the game might be good. I, for example, think the guy who created Omega Chess put quite an effort in presenting his variant: it´s more... cohesive! And a lot more like chess (this is also important for me: the variant´s relationship to chess. It has to be related or else you have something more of a different game than of a CHESS variant. For example Arimaa is incredibly creative and shows a lot of thought put behind it, but it´s not a chess variant; you just use chess pieces!). I chose the name of Fisher Kasparov not because I wanted to be original, but because I wanted to pay tribute to these chess masters! Although, writing Fischer without the c was a horrible mistake (I thought he, being from the States, wroted it without it). Admiration and originality are two different things! And finally, my comment wasn´t vulgar! Why was it vulgar? I didn´t use any words that needed any kind of censorship! NOT ONE! It was a little out of line? Yes! But it was not vulgar! Any way, sorry if I offended you. Just keep playing the greatest, most perfect game in the world and it´s millions of variants. Peace! Peter Aronson wrote on 2007-11-12 UTCThere is also some discussion of this variant on the 100 Square Contest Voting Page. Larry Smith wrote on 2007-11-12 UTCGood ★★★★I also thought that the previous comment was unwarranted. Tested the Zillions implementation of this game, and found that it does have some nice play. Those Soldiers can quickly take to the center of the field, so any form of Pawn structure may appear haphazard. But this allows for quick development of the power pieces. Which you need a fair number to pin that King. Three rook-types, instead of two. I do think that the Knight should be allowed its two-step move throughout play, rather than only on the back rank. And that the Soldier's three-step was only available as an initial move, after restricted to two-step. All in all, an interesting game. Senorita Simpatica wrote on 2007-11-11 UTCGood ★★★★A previous individual 'Fisher Kasparov Unverified' gave this game a rating of 'Poor' in his apparent angry and vulgar comment. I see not one fact listed in that comment that should give a conclusion of 'poor' for Big Battle.The individual writes, quote: 'I think this game sucks! It´s not a new game! It´s not even a new variant!' If that is the case, just state this is a remake of game_____________. That way we can see what game you are reffering to as the predecessor game. Just because a game already exists does not mean it is a poor game. However, copying a game without permission and/or proper reference to the original is poor. But that has nothing to do with the actual game. It is interesting that the critic uses the names of Fisher[sic] and Kasparov as his own - hardly original. Those names already exist. The critic goes on blabbing a bunch of comments about non-original and that he apparently is ill. So, what does that have to do with the game? My opinion: It is good to see a 10x10 board with pieces commercially available. The game is certainly playable and demands stretching one's chess logic. Does this game already exist under a different name? I don't know. But there is a Zillions engine for it. The critic did not provide us with the name of the earlier game - or with any useful information. By the way, I think editors should remove or substitute vulgar words like **** and ***** that were used in the previous comment. They are not professional. They are immature and insulting. Chess Variants people (all people) should be above and beyond such immaturity. Fisher Kasparov wrote on 2007-11-10 UTCPoor ★I think this game sucks! It´s not a new game! It´s not even a new variant! It is just chess enlarged to fit a 10x10 size board. There is nothing new in this thing! All the ideas this guy presents are already presented in other variants with the added bonus of being creative. This thing is NOT! The amazon piece exists already in zillion different variants, the doubling of the knight´s move is nothing new, the king´s, queen´s and pawn´s moves are just a result of the enlarged board! This guy must think he is a genius. Give me a break: the 'sol'? I´m going to vomit! Bear wrote on 2005-03-27 UTCGood ★★★★The Prince is not quite an amazon. It is slightly more powerful as it can jump to the entire second radius (the amazon can only jump to half of that (the Knight movement)). I think it has some good ideas but I don't think the box should say 'superceeding chess'. This may be a good sales pitch, however it is too early to make such a wild assumption. Chess is a serious game and Big Bat, whilst perhaps also a serious game, does not promote itself as such. Big Bat promotes itself as 'fabulous fun', for children 110 years old and 'the name of the game' ?!. Whilst chess is fun, it is at first serious. If chess is to be superceeded, it must be done on a serious level. At best this game will provide an alternative in the way goody gum drops ice-cream does to chocolate. Will goody gum drops ever superceed chocolate? I don't think so. Other variants promote themselves as either serious, themed or humorous. I just don't know how to take Big flying marsupial! <p>I commend the author for his obvious passion of both games, new ideas and wish him well in the promotion of his game. <p>Bear George Duke wrote on 2005-01-20 UTCGood ★★★★Never commented, Big Battle at least attempts to solve the spacing problem inherent in 10x10. Here Pawns always have 1, 2, or 3 option if not capturing. Prince is Amazon(Q+N). Queen is enhanced by ability to leap over adjacent piece. Knight may double hop from initial position. King becomes more elusive as 1- or 2-square leaper. Conservatively only seven piece-types: usually 8 or even 9 is ideal when a decimal variant is sought. The extreme power of the new piece-pair Prince is offset by powerful Pawns. Nice try. 8 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.