[ 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 Mapped Chess . Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Stephane Burkhart wrote on 2016-03-07 UTCTo avoid direct 3D attacks from long-range pieces at first move, instead of introducing passive or new active pawns (which may complicate the game uselessly), I propose to force long-range Pieces to do at least one "normal" move before doing an extra 3D-like move. I'll probably introduce this as a new variant in the future. You can have a feeling of what it brings looking at the reduction game of "Mapped Chess" to one board called "3to2" I recall the main interest of "Mapped Chess": the overall relative forces of Pieces are very similar to the ones in standard Chess game, but adding 3D effects. This would bring a wealth of new situations, and new strategies. Joe Joyce wrote on 2009-05-08 UTCHi, Stephane. You are quite right about the Variant Chess issue number, it is 54. And now let me correct a slight misapprehension of yours. It is generally the game's designer who makes the offer to swap games. For example, I might play Mapped Chess with you if you played my game Hyperchess with me at the same time. On the other hand, if you got someone to take your place, I'd play both games with them. Larry Smith wrote on 2009-05-08 UTCI used 'active' Pawns on both levels. Of course, this did get a little tedious during opening development. But here's an idea(not mine). Dan Beyer created an interesting 3D Pawn which extended through the levels of the field, occupying the cells above and below it. The same might be done on this field. The two Pawns which occupy the same positions on each level would move as a unit to the same destination cell of each level. But would be captured as individuals. This would mean that as a unit they would simply move as Mad Queen Pawns, but when one was captured the other is now free to exercise its 3D pattern in this game. When capturing as a unit, only one of these two moving Pawns need take an opponent. Needless to say that if a friendly piece occupies the similar target cell of the other level such a capture would not be permitted. This would speed up the opening while allowing a sufficient 'barricade' against the advancing opponent. And if the two Pawns were able to maintain their unit upon promotion, the player could gain two seperate power pieces. Thus assuring the players of necessary material in the endgame. Of course, if a single Pawn moves to a similar cell on one level as another friendly Pawn on the other they would then be considered a unit and be moved as such from that point. Just a thought. stephane burkhart wrote on 2009-05-08 UTCHello again to Joe, looking back to your comments, I think you made a mistake regarding the Variant Chess issue the Game was reviewed in: it is vol7 issue 54 Regards, SB stephane burkhart wrote on 2009-05-08 UTCThank you both Joe and Larry for the explanations (i'm impressed by Larry's french !) and please don't hesitate to swap this game with other people to get feedback. Larry, you didn't have to code the protection pawns variant as it was already available in the game variants. In my implementation, the main difference is that these extra pawns have just the possibility to block, not to move nor capture, in order to respect the overall power of pawns on the 128 squares. Regarding black power pieces, you're allowed to put them on the first or the second board, it makes only a slight difference An important rule that I didn't insist enough upon, is that 'real Pawns' are blocked in their movement each time any of a square-to-move is occupied (there are basically 3 squares, 1 on the first board, and 2 on the second one). This leads to the 'same' positional sensation as in orthodox chess, which I was looking for. Larry Smith wrote on 2009-05-07 UTCOkay, I've run a few games. Just a few knee-jerk reactions. ;-) I like the zig-zag moves. They can just be a little tough to visualize while playing. At this point I do not know how to make this easier. Familiarity should solve it. I'm not happy with the fact that power pieces(in the standard array) are able to threaten several Pawns initially. This can restrict the opening potential, which should be as high as possible to assure a large variety of games. I actually coded a variant with an additional row of (active)Pawns on second field, and moved Black's power pieces to the second field. As stated in the rules, these extra Pawns block the initial assault by their own power pieces, forcing the player to develop to bring most into play. These extra (active)Pawns can get a little crowded at first but they do offer a high potential of promotion which will increase the opportunity for checkmating the opponent. And they can be effective during play by restricting those zig-zag moves. Larry Smith wrote on 2009-05-07 UTCVous jouez deux jeux, le vôtre et votre adversaire. Joe Joyce wrote on 2009-05-06 UTCOne swaps games by playing 2 games at once with another player, one game that each player chooses. stephane burkhart wrote on 2009-05-06 UTCThank you both for prompt response and concern ! What does it mean here to swap games ? Don't forget I'm a poor frenchy guy... Joe Joyce wrote on 2009-05-06 UTCHey, Stephane, saw this game reviewed in Variant Chess #59. John Beasley, the editor, certainly seemed to like the game. You have the same problem with this that any higher-than-2D game has, namely, people are quite reluctant to play them. Now, several people onsite have higher-D games sitting around unplayed. And at least one person has asked me about running a 3D+ tournament. So there is interest in 3D+ games. You might make an offer to swap games; this often works, and has gotten a number of games played and recognized as good games that might otherwise never have gotten played. Larry Smith wrote on 2009-05-06 UTCI actually downloaded this implementation this morning. Just haven't gotten around to trying it out. It appears to be an interesting 3D Chess variant. I look forward to playing the game. stephane burkhart wrote on 2009-05-05 UTCI'm sad no one ever tried this Game :-( I'm convinced it is worth learning, evenso it take some efforts to catch the rules. Two demonstration games are available on the other entry, and I'm ready to send you more... The Inventor/Author 12 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.