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 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

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 UTC
Will 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 UTC
He 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 displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.