[ 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 Full Double Chess. 32 pieces each, including all combinations of the basic Chess pieces, on a 16x8 square board. (16x8, Cells: 128) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Gilman wrote on 2004-01-09 UTCGood ★★★★One aspect of playability is that a set can easily be assembled from two sets distinguishable by size by the following rules (2 commonest names shown for non-FIDE pieces): Pawns, Kings, Queens, all small pieces = face value; large Rooks = Chancellor/Marshal; large Bishops = Archbishop/Cardinal; large Knights = Ace/Amazon. gnohmon wrote on 2002-04-18 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Perhaps Tutti Frutti Chess could be considered a Half Board version of Double Chess, because it uses all possible combinations of the basic pieces on an 8x8 board. However, Double Chess has the interesting thought of having two Kings, which seems to be an excellent inspiration for making sense of such a wide board. Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2002-04-18 UTCGood ★★★★Interesting game. The wide board creates both tactical and strategic situations that are 'regional'. The doubled King adds a certain element of interest. The strong pieces promote tactics. However, they do not overwhelm the game because the large board still allows for strategic maneuvers. <p> I'm sure interesting sub-variants could be created with different setups or different mix of pieces. One possible issue, though, is that the overall evolution of the game may move more quickly than players are able to develop their pieces, thus leading to a certain amount of attrition-type of play, more tactics and less strategy. But I am not sure that this overwhelms the game. It seems playable. Regarding some of the debate about faerie pieces versus traditional pieces, I personally tend to design games with traditional pieces because usually I am more interested in the game system than the pieces themselves. However, I have played many variants with interesting faerie pieces. The movement of the pieces is an appealing element in itself. In this game they work quite well. And, actually, the mix here is not all that exotic-- as variants go. Check-out Mulligan-Stew Chess <a href="../42.dir/mulligan-stew.html">Mulligan Stew Chess</a> for an example of faerie pieces gone a-muck, but in a very playable and interesting game--with double Kings, by the way! David Short wrote on 2002-04-18 UTCGood ★★★★Tony, what you say about the added or diminished relative scopes of the knights and bishops in double-board variants is true, just as it is in larger variants to begin with (the knight is an extremely weak piece in 10 by 10 variants) but the beauty of a game like my Doublechess variant which I invented is that the knights still have their roles to play. Like I said before, pieces on each half of the board tend to engage each other at the same rate they do in regular chess. Pawns challenge each other, knights move up to the third (or sixth rank, for black) rank to attack enemy pawns, files open up for rooks and queens, diagonals open up for bishops and queens. I think one point that needs to be made here is that in Full Double Chess, stronger pieces are used, and that's fine, if you are a player who likes new fangled pieces that can do neat little tricks and jump through hoops. My Doublechess is more traditional, uses only orthodox pieces and has the look and feel of traditional regular chess. So whether a game like my Doublechess or the new Full Double Chess appeals to someone is going to be a matter of personal taste, I guess. p.s. I would still like to encourage people to add comments below to my Doublechess variant, for which I began a discussion. Anonymous wrote on 2002-04-17 UTCWill there be a Half Board version of this game coming out soon? (I just like the thought of a Half Double Chess.) :-) Tony Paletta wrote on 2002-04-17 UTCHe probably got the idea from all the 'Double Chess' variants that have popped up in the past 100 years. Basically, though, few of the double-wide 'real' chess games play like chess for club-strength (Class C and Up) chessplayers. Standard Knights play a reduced role on larger boards (for example, 7 moves to move between end files) and standard Bishops also lose some of their lateral value. Adding power pieces is one way to compensate (whether 3 Qs, RN, BN, whatever) but that tends to reduce minor pieces to sacrificial fodder. Fans of more subtle play are likely to be disappointed. I actually like the 'mate two Kings' idea in Sirotkin's game somewhat better, as it compensates somewhat for the stronger forces and reigns in the value of the initiative a bit (sacs that may win one K must be balanced against a material disadvantage in pursing the other). David Short wrote on 2002-04-17 UTCGood ★★★★Gee, now I wonder where he could have gotten the idea for this game, huh? Well, you know what they say, 'immitation is the sincerest form of flattery' so I guess I should be honored, eh? To anyone who is not overly familiar with this web site I suggest you scroll down on this comments page and click on the link for Double Chess below or find it in the alphabetical index (the one with my name next to it). Anyone can create a variant on a 16 by 8 board but it's not going to have the same 'feel' of regular chess like my variant Doublechess does. I have always felt that games with two kings are flawed. Chess should be single-minded. Checkmate one king, period! 7 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.