[ 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 Quadlevel 3D Chess. Four level 3d chess. (4x(4x8), Cells: 128) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] RobertKoernkeJr wrote on Fri, Mar 24 10:21 PM UTC in reply to Charles Gilman from Sun Feb 16 2003 11:30 AM:Bishops are not weak after all. After many years of studying this game. And we assumed the Bishops to be weak because of them moving only 4-squares. You'll find in the end, that trading off your Knights for Bishops do not gain you much. robert koernke wrote on Thu, Mar 18, 2021 08:17 PM UTC in reply to Charles Gilman from Sun Feb 16 2003 11:30 AM:Excellent ★★★★★You only need to checkmate/fork one King. In the standard-Rules version. Game play tends to be the same length as regular-chess. Its one of the least complicated 3D-Games. Simply set-up 2-sets of chess-men. The hardest part to explain is why its frowned upon to go on side-ways diagonals (in 3D) or that knights should not go in L-shapes without advancing or retreating from the opponent. I say frowned-upon, because of course you can change to non-standard rules. But you may find the game much longer, and knights to be as powerful as queens. Stalemates to be more attainable... Charles Gilman wrote on Sat, Apr 19, 2003 06:57 AM UTC:Poor ★Having read Tim ÒLena's pages I notice that there is after all a case for having two Kings. However he uses them to overcome the perennial 3d problem of checkmate being difficult, by requiring only that one of two pieces be checkmated. Paradoxically that makes the use of two Kings here even more absurd! If checkmating one King is hard enough, how easy is checkmating two? Charles Gilman wrote on Sun, Feb 16, 2003 11:30 AM UTC:While this overcomes the unequal-number-of-squares problem of Raumschach, the Change in Distance rule makes for very weak bishops, as they are already weakened by the shortness of the diagonals. The two kings also seem an unnecessary complication. I prefer Alberto Monteiro's version (last before A in 3-d index). Further thoughts on chess on this kind of board may be found on my comments on that. 4 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.