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
Fractal Chess. Missing description (2x(8x8), Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
George Duke wrote on 2007-10-22 UTCGood ★★★★
Stephane Burkhart, who posts Mapped Chess this week, made the last Comment in his own Fractal Chess from 2006: ''In reading the ECV by Pritchard, I found a similar (but not reducible to game to mine) called 'Sub-Chess' by Chabotaryov in 1988. So I must give him the origine of the concept.'' In turn, Mapped Chess and Fractal Chess have their comparabilities for follow-up Comment. Nowadays only a year later, the prolificists (not referring to Burkhart's 5 games at all of course nor singling any one out) do not simply thank for the information about a related (earlier) form. Not having researched their topic, they increasingly are defensive or annoyed about comparable prior art called to attention. People have been at this for at least 1500 years, and madly for ten years(25 years counting Betza), so Burkhart's is a good reaction, loosely ''How interesting great minds can think alike'' in praise(respect) for the priority. Cleverly here in going from larger to smaller scale a la Fractal, same-side opposite-colour Bishops can end on same colour. ''See the consequences at smaller scale.'' Ingenious and maybe at first opaque in the detail requiring another Comment along with the Mapped one. These CVs in style are not far removed from Ralph Betza and J. P. Neto and David Howe in mixing the abstact with the specific embodiment.

st�phane burkhart wrote on 2007-05-07 UTC
In reading the 'encyclopedia of chess variants' by Pritchard, I found a similar (but not reducible to) game to mine called 'Sub-Chess' by Chebotaryov in 1988. His board contains a subset of 8x8 half-squares in the 4x4 larger middle squares, where pieces may move alternatively on both. So I must give him the origine of the concept.

stéphane burkhart wrote on 2006-09-23 UTC
The ZOG file is available right now as a new game on
I hope it will be soon available on these pages too as a separate item.

stéphane burkhart wrote on 2006-09-21 UTC

Jeremy, I'm afraid I can't post the url for technical reasons. I hope you'll be kind to wait for the ZOG I sent to be published on these pages. Anyway, thanks for the appreciation that far

Jeremy Good wrote on 2006-09-18 UTC
Hi, Stephane. Exciting idea here. We've been having a bit of trouble sometimes uploading some things, especially zrf files. Could you please post the url for your zrf file here meanwhile? I would appreciate that.

Larry Smith wrote on 2006-09-17 UTC
From what I can figure, it appears that the 4x4 field is tied to the 8x8
field by its single cell to a 2x2 group on the latter. So that the a1 cell
on the 4x4 field is tied to the a1, a2, b1, and b2 cells of the 8x8 field.

So a piece on the a1 cell of the 4x4 field would be able to move to an
empty cell on either a1, a2, b1 or b2 of the 8x8 field; and a piece on a1,
a2, b1 or b2 of the 8x8 field is able to move to an empty cell on a1 of the
4x4 field. This is why a bishop is able to break its diagonal pattern.

The wording of the rules is a little hazy. Would not pawn promotion be
allowed only on the 8x8 field?

stephane burkhart wrote on 2006-09-17 UTC
You'll soon get the ZOG file available, so that you could figure out what it's all about. In some loose sense, the game would have a fractal dimension, not an integer one ! The second board does have 4x4 squares, each pointing to 4 sub-squares on the other board. Does this make it a 4D like game ? As you pointed out, it's not Alice Chess related as you're not compelled to switch to the other board. I just wanted to allow larger movement on the larger board to be mapped to the smaller scale board. I will consider the games you listed (sphinx, hyperchess,...) with attention. You'll be perhaps interested by my 8x8x8 'cross3D chess' game, and the mapped version on two boards which I called 'mapped chess'.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2006-09-17 UTC
This seems very interesting but I don't see exactly how it works. Is it
really a 3D game played on 2 boards, like Alice Chess, except changing
boards is voluntary, or is it something else? The description indicates it
easily could fall into that controversial area of '4D' games, as it seems
you describe a variant played on 2 totally different 2D boards, with free
movement between them. Or even 1 standard 2D board, and 1 maybe
3D-mimicing smaller board. The 16 square 4x4 board does have 2x2
'subsets' of squares within each square, if I've read everything right,
or does it? Depending on the exact movement rules, the game/board you
describe could act as a 3D, 4D, or even 5D playing surface. 
Personally, I hope you are doing a 'higher-dimensional' game, and would
refer you to Parton's Sphinx Chess, Aikin's Chesseract and my own
Hyperchess for 3 similar '4D' treatments. I would strongly recommend
looking at LL Smith's and Dan Troyka's 4D, 5D, and 6D games, which
illustrate rather nicely the use of higher space dimensions in chess, even
though some see them all as convoluted examples of 3D. Welcome to the

Andy wrote on 2006-09-17 UTC
I don't get it. Geometry and rules need to be more clearly explained, with examples.

9 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.