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 EarlierEarliest
Doublewide Chess. A discussion of the variant where two complete chess sets (including two Kings per side) are set up on a doublewide board. (16x8, Cells: 128) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Rodrigo Zanotelli wrote on 2013-03-30 UTC
Why not make a game with 2 separated boards.
One player is white on one board and the other is white on the other board. With that no player will have first-move advantage.

Of course one rule to see who will win need to be decided. If the first one that mate the enemy (on any of the boards) win, being fast at mating would be more important than just mating, this is a not wanted thing.

Maybe do like that. If one guy win on both boards, he win the game. He both players win on one board, they play again.

Anonymous wrote on 2010-04-21 UTC
Maybe, make variant, wich uses sets of diffirent games? For example, 9x23
board, pieces from European, Chinese and Japanese chess: European pawns
have duble step, Chinese pawns gets sideways moves on 5th rank, Chinese
elephants may go to 5th rank, but not further.
Maybe using games with different number of ranks is not good, better to use
games of same number of ranks, for example, European, Thai and Mongolian
chess or Chines and Korean chess or Japanese and Cambodian.

Anonymous wrote on 2010-04-19 UTC
How about game with dame setup, but with 4 players, each controls one 'normal' armie?

George Duke wrote on 2008-01-25 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
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)'.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2006-02-03 UTCGood ★★★★
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?

gnohmon wrote on 2003-06-23 UTC
'What would doublewide hexagonal chess (a la Glinski or McCooey) look
like?
 Or doublewide multiplayer variants?'

I love easy questions. 

1. Doublewide Rectahex. 'Nuff said.

2. Doublewide 'Chess for any number of players'. 

[rim shot] [applause] Thank you very much. Now for my next number, here's
a little ditty I wrote based on David Brin's novel 'the Practise
Effect', called 'How do you get to Carbegie Hall?' [cue music]

Jared McComb wrote on 2003-06-21 UTC
Danadazo is too a chess variant!  I should know, too, because it's mine! 
Look under the 'boards with an unusual shape' section.

What would doublewide hexagonal chess (a la Glinski or McCooey) look like?
 Or doublewide multiplayer variants?

(Am I asking too many questions?  Relative to you, I'm a CV 'n00b'.)

--Jared

gnohmon wrote on 2003-06-20 UTC
Doublewide non-chess-variants? I'm not too familiar with halma or the
other one you mentioned.

I gave up those games long ago when i realized that the tactical element
predominated too much over the strategical. Before then, I was legendary
in 'Lines of Action', a game whose rules I no longer even remember.

I suspect that doublewide ncv is generally uninteresting. In fact, my
opinion is that doublewide chess would be uninteresting without
doubleking, for highly elevated values of 'interesting'.

By that, I mean to say that Ddoublewide with just one King is
automatically and by definition no playtest needed a difficult game and
interesting to play. But so what? There's nothing special there, just
more of the same.

My personal opinion may not be shared by the majority, of course.

Jared McComb wrote on 2003-06-19 UTCGood ★★★★
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

John Lawson wrote on 2003-06-19 UTC
'But how does one win?'

It's like one of those 'co-operative' games where everyone wins or
loses together.

Note also, if you are registered, that you can actually edit comments you
have previously made.

gnohmon wrote on 2003-06-19 UTC
'If it's impossible to do that, how did he do it in the first place?'

What a clever new game you've invented! From now on, all comments must be
added to Doublewide, and then everybody gets to guess what game they
really belong to! But how does one win?

(Pls run over to teeny tiny shogi and give the man the 'excellent' you
accidentally dropped here.)

Jared McComb wrote on 2003-06-18 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
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!

Jianying Ji wrote on 2003-06-18 UTC
Sorry I misposted my last message to the wrong thread.

Double wide xiangqi, ummm, interesting

gnohmon wrote on 2003-06-18 UTC
Oh, well, it was just a guess about the simplification. I guess it was a
wrong guess.

I do not claim to be good in Chinese or Japanese language, I just know
enough to read a xq book or a go book; same as I know enough russian to
read a chess book.

Why is this message in doublewide instead of in xq thread????

Back on topic, Doublewide xq would maybe be interesting with two kings
confined to two Castles; but maybe too strong for the side with
initiative?

Jianying Ji wrote on 2003-06-15 UTC
I don't think the 'great' simplification has too much to do with it. And the simplification is not really done at a specific point of time, but more as a process that culminated with a standardized list in the 90s. AFAIK. (the list was necessary after people start to over-simplify characters, in a kind of slang) Moreover the number of characters didn't really reduce. I think the sets produced in the 80s that I have seen is the same as gnohmon described. I think the xiangi associations in china may be able to resolve our quandries, so if any member is reading please send a link.

gnohmon wrote on 2003-06-15 UTC
So many comments for such a simple game!

Yes, the point is that doubleking is interesting and doublewide is
interesting, but the combination of the two is doubly interesting. 

Doubleking is especially interesting with the wide, not square, board.

Doublewide is especially interesting when doubleking lowers the average
number of moves per game.

John Lawson wrote on 2003-06-12 UTC
David,
I think you missed part of Ralph's point.  Doublechess is a good game and
fun to play, but I think Ralph was interested not only in the effects of
the double-size board, which applies equally to both games, but also in
the effect having two kings to defend and attack has on the play, when
losing either (not both) ends the game.
Furthermore, in any contest between equal players, I would bet on the
Doublechess army, simply because it has an extra Queen, and only only one
King to defend.

David Short wrote on 2003-06-12 UTC
I have a flair for being overly dramatic or to exaggerate things
sometimes.
Actually it will prove nothing. What it will achieve is to show an 
aesthetic preferrence for one side vs. the other. Which side can
co-ordinate their pieces better? So far zillions isn't doing a very
good job with the black side. I think I need a human opponent.
I'm still solicitting opponents for an email game of
Doublechess vs. Doublewide Chess. Email me at [email protected]

Ben Good wrote on 2003-06-12 UTC
>>>Well I intend to answer the question once and for all of which is a
better game, Doublechess or Doublewide chess, by having zillions of games
play it as a game of chess between different armies.

i don't understand what this proves.

David Short wrote on 2003-06-11 UTC
Well I intend to answer the question once and for all of which
is a better game, Doublechess or Doublewide chess, by having
zillions of games play it as a game of chess between different
armies. What is especially nice that I noticed is that when
I loaded up Doublechess on Zillions of Games and changed the
black position to what you see below, and did a test sample game
by selecting both white and black so that I could move the pieces
for both sides, I noticed that it did allow both kings to play
either O-O or O-O-O with the rooks on their sides of the board 
as you would imagine they could, while still also allowing white
to castle in the ways that the rules of Doublechess allow.
In Doublechess vs. Doublewide chess, white has an extra queen
but white also has the responsibility of capturing one of black's
kings first and then checkmating the other one to win the game,
whereas black only needs to checkmate white's lone king. I will
playtest several games and then later post the moves here.
Oh and obviously I will take the white side and let zillions 
play black. If anyone would like to volunteer to take the side
of the black pieces in an email game in the setup below
please contact me at [email protected] 



      a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h   i   j   k   l   m   n   o   p
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 
  8 |*R*|*N*|*B*|*Q*|*K*|*B*|*N*|*R*|*R*|*N*|*B*|*Q*|*K*|*B*|*N*|*R*|  8
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 
  7 |*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|*P*|  7
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
  6 |   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|  6
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
  5 |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |  5
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
  4 |   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|  4
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
  3 |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |  3
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
  2 | P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:|  2
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 
  1 |:R:| N |:B:| Q |:R:| N |:B:| Q |:K:| B |:N:| R |:Q:| B |:N:| R |  1
    +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 
      a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h   i   j   k   l   m   n   o   p

Ben Good wrote on 2003-06-10 UTC
i will be impressed when somebody invents 'doublewide tai shogi'

John Lawson wrote on 2003-06-10 UTC
As long as we're combining variants, how about Doublewide Optima-Abecedarian Big Slanted Sideways Escalator Chess? 10.5 x 21 square board, and more different pieces than stars in the sky!

Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2003-06-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
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.

John Lawson wrote on 2003-06-09 UTC
There was something like this in Verney's 'Chess Eccentricities', but I remember it as a four player game, and cannot remember if only one King needed to be mated, or both, since I haven't seen the book in over 30 years.

Robert Shimmin wrote on 2003-06-09 UTC
The oldest '2 kings, mate either to win' variant I know of is a V.R. Parton creation whose back line is RNBQKKQBNR, with the usual line of pawns in front of that. I don't recall whether it was played on a 10x10 or an 8x10 board.

25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.