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
More10. Chessvariant on a board with 10 squares. (2x5, Cells: 10) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2005-03-07 UTC
Three times repetition adds a non-trivial management of the ends, but I must admit it is a complex rule in the sense it is almost impossible remember all the positions that have been in the game, you must annotate them!. I have thought a more ellegant rule, but it destroys the difficulty of many ends in this game. has anyone a good idea?. This was only an experimental game, to see the factibility of a game in a board of ten squares that were not stupid. This game is far from being trivial, but the rule of three times repetition for a lose is, undoubtely, not-ellegant. It does not appear in MORE28 or MORE35 (Soon in scene)

Mason Green wrote on 2005-03-07 UTCGood ★★★★
This is probably one of the best games that could be made on a 2*5 board.
Another idea would be to allow pieces to use the line intersections as
well as the squares, and transfer between them somehow. There are 18 line
intersections, however...and 28 cells doesn't sound very good for the

I do have one complaint, though--it has to do with the 'repetition'
rule. I generally don't like this rule, and here's why. Keeping track of
ALL the positions that have been used up so far is very time-consuming in a
real life game (though thankfully not in a computer match), because you
have to write down everything as you go along. That's why I don't like
Philosopher's Chess very much, even though it won a contest. It's not
that bad with more10, which probably will be fairly short, but I still
prefer games without repetition rules.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2005-02-27 UTC
I agree with Peter, this game is more a curiosity than a great success. The main reason for such a game in miniature was a challenge, the construction of a playable game in ten squares. MORE10 can`t compete against good decimal variants in the same terms, of course (have you seen the list?... And it is going to grow). I`ll add another entry soon, maybe in one or two weeks, a decimal game that I consider more competitive than MORE10. Wait, see, enjoy it if you feel it good... and judge.

Peter Aronson wrote on 2005-02-26 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I'm not entirely sure this is a successful game, but I'm not sure anything much better could be done on such a small board, and this is a very creditable attempt. I like the extra branching added by the piece changing on movement.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2005-02-26 UTC
MORE10 is based on an old unpublished game I made, called MORE, but the rules and piece movements have changed a lot, in the new game I used directions inspired in the Gold movement, as pointed out by Charles. This game works better in moderately bigger boards, but not as big as 8x8. In 4x7 or 5x7 it is fine, selecting a good initial setup. I used 2x5 as an attempt to see if it should be possible construct a playable Chess game in minuscle dimensions, so little as ten squares, for the contest. My first tests withe the old MORE was unsuccessful, the game ended all the time in 6 to 8 moves with a White victory, it was a headache find a good selection of rules and movements. I think this game is not trivial, but it would be possible, using extensive computer experiments, find the best squence of moves, because the dimensions can make it factible. Nevertheless, I have played some test games, and I was somewhat surprised by a MORE10 test game in which there were around 70 moves to finish. This game never ends in draw, due the rules. Is this game a White victory?.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2005-02-26 UTCGood ★★★★
This is certainly an interesting use of the 'Gold' directions, with the shortage of files leaving some intriguing unanswered questions about the sideways and diagonal moves.

Doug Chatham wrote on 2005-02-25 UTC
A game on a board this small deserves the shortest possible name. I suggest IO :-)

7 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.