[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Thank you, George for the contructive criticism of Field chess. I did like the the concept of the 8 archer-pawns to a side and shortening the board to 8x10 grid. It seemed to give the game of chess just a slight change of pace, which is what some people are looking for in this new era. Unfortunately, my late co-inventor and I were in disagreement over that matter. So, we settle on what you just critiqued. Perhaps, I'll submit a varinat of field chess in that fashion and see how our peers might respond to it. Sincerely Pete Leyva
'DEF,LargeCV': Written up admittedly as sort of exercise, Field Chess is a good enough practice. Archers are strong Pawns though not of Cannon Pawn value, because Archers are 'progressive' going forward only. They go straight forward 1 or 2 whether capturing or not, or one diagonal only to capture. It looks to be important to get B and N through to start picking off what amounts to 16 pawns, worth thinking about; which would work better with additional back rank piece (Falcon would be perfect there). Or, a good embodiment is just Archer-Pawns numbering 8 and no Orthodox Pawns on the elongated board.
Why doesn't the inventor of this variant sell this game as a two for one deal with our popular version? It would be a great a mix for the chess world.
4 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Archer Pawns are not rifle piece at all and do capture by displacement. The board is unusually aligned for new type Archer.