[ 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 Templar Chess. Features the unorthodox Templar on a board with eight extra squares. (8x10, Cells: 72) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Kevin Pacey wrote on 2018-03-01 UTCGood ★★★★Kind of an interesting variant, with the additional piece type and odd board shape. Kevin Pacey wrote on 2017-12-19 UTCFor what it's worth, Fergus' preset for Templar Chess has pawns of either side promoting only once moving to the ninth (tenth?!) rank, if they are on the middle four files, and promotion to a Templar piece is allowed. George Duke wrote on 2008-11-18 UTCGood ★★★★Great Shatranj makes Betza triples too, but with the Knight instead. Templar Chess (2006), that Joyce analyzes with Great Shatranj and Falcon Chess, has not really Betza triple, because Templar slides to Alfil. Now it starts ''maintaining many of the same opening possibilities as standard Chess.'' So, Alvarez de la Campa intends it as Joyce-invented ''Track One'' consideration. Actually the last year 2014 so far is Great Shatranj, King's Court and Three Player (Zubrin). Templar was back in the second trio for year 2010. Templar is close counterpart of Omega Champion (WAD). However, Templar (DF + slide to A) becoming colourbound, as stated, does not leap to Alfil, as we would expect if really patterning after Omega Champion. George Duke wrote on 2008-05-10 UTCTemplar is Betza triple (Ferz + Dabbabah + Alfil), but not quite because of only sliding to Alfil (3,3). Jeremy Good named the regular one (F+D+A). David Paulowich wrote on 2007-11-22 UTCGood ★★★★On the whole, I prefer the disappearing extra squares in Greg Strong's variants Brouhaha and Hubbub. QUESTION concerning the statement 'All standard chess rules apply except that castling is not allowed.' Does this mean that when a White Pawn reaches rank 8, it can and must promote to any piece of the same color (not a King and not a Pawn)? Same question for when a Black Pawn reaches rank 1. Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on 2007-03-17 UTCI wonder how the game would be like if two half-files were added in the same manner. Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2006-06-19 UTCExcellent ★★★★★i have only just recently played this game, the 'templar' is a great piece, it plays well with the normal chess set-up (adding dabbaba move) the board is great too with the added space at the back. cool game. Gary Gifford wrote on 2006-03-29 UTCThanks for answering the question regarding castling. I agree that castling is not necessary, but allowing it would provide for much greater opening variety, and I think would be a significant improvement. The possibility for opposite side castling and Kingside Pawn Storms vs Queenside Pawn Storms [backed by Rooks and or Templars] would be possible... and very exciting chess, I think. I would have castled Kingside, but with castling not allowed it seems that dropping my King back to the Templar zone is pretty much forced, and that opening variance is therefore limited. I think it would be nice to offer a variant that allows for castling. Over the years you could see which variant was the most preferred. Best regards. Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on 2006-03-29 UTCCastling didn't seem essential for this game since there are squares behind the King for him to move to. Also, if I remember correctly, I tested the game with castling, and play just seemed a bit less dynamic. Gary Gifford wrote on 2006-03-27 UTCI am curious as to why castling is prohibited. Thanks. Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on 2006-03-26 UTCThank you, Peter. I'll send you a game invite. I took a quick look at your game and it looks interesting; have you playtested it? I also noted the coincidence in naming a piece Templar. I'm currently working on a further development of Templar Chess where the Templar can promote, gaining a full Bishop's move. Peter Leyva wrote on 2006-03-26 UTCGood ★★★★Good job Adrian! This is a very nice addition to the chess variants. What do you think of the variant Palace Revolution? I would like to hear your feed on it. As for this game/I look forward to playing a game. Perhaps, I might play one with yourself. Sincerely Pete Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on 2006-02-22 UTCThanks! Looking forward to playing it on Game Courier. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2006-02-18 UTCI got it. It's on a mental todo list. But I first have to create a set with the Templar piece in it. Once that it is done, it will mainly be a simple matter of reusing code already written for Chess. Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on 2006-02-18 UTCYes, Michael Howe is correct about the Templar's movement. I've tried clarifying this in the rules. BTW, Fergus, did you get my e-mail about this game? David Paulowich wrote on 2006-02-18 UTCHERE is the page defining the Bede (moves like a bishop or a dabbabah). Ralph Betza says this piece is roughly equal to a Rook on the standard 8x8 board. Michael Howe [his comment has been deleted] is interpreting your Templar as a Bede which is limited to a maximum movement of two squares. Such a piece should have value approximately halfway between a Bishop and a Rook. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2006-02-17 UTCIf I understand you, the Templar may ride two spaces diagonally as a Bishop, or it may leap two spaces orthogonally. In other words, it combines the moves of a Chinese Chess Elephant and a Dababbah. In case those pieces aren't already known to you, this is to say that it can be blocked diagonally, but it cannot be blocked orthogonally. Is this correct? 17 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.