[ 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 Time Traveler's Chess. Chess pieces may travel backwards in time.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2012-02-17 UTCsorry, this is the best link. http://www.wgosa.org/ttchs.htm Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2012-01-30 UTCAround a year ago i posted .. aww this external link now doesn't work, i wanted to just look again at the rules of this game, is Danny Purvis still around, or, omg, is this game 'lost in time'? Well i found the page, and forgot to post. Anyone who has not read this description of this game should have a look, it is amazing. Here is the link .. http://www.wgosa.org/ttchsrules.htm Could an editor please fix the link given on this page, thanks! oh this link is to do with the game also http://www.wgosa.org/ttchsglos.htm Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2011-01-15 UTCaww this external link now doesn't work, i wanted to just look again at the rules of this game, is Danny Purvis still around, or, omg, is this game 'lost in time'? horst wrote on 2009-05-11 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I really like the idea of the game. I think it is very thought-through and revolutionary. I only think that the definition of check and checkmate should be altered, so grammatical incorrectness is prevented as is King-capture in western chess. i.e.: A player is in check if he is under one-move-threat of having no (travelled)king while his opponent has a resoluted position. A player is also in check if he is under one-move-threat of having a grammatically incorrect position. If the one-move-threat is not answerable, the player is also in checkmate and looses the game. This definition provides final positions that are always grammatically correct. In my opinion this rule would be more chess-like. What do you think? Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2006-09-22 UTCExcellent ★★★★★this game is so bent i can't understand it at all, but it reads extremely interesting, to say the least .. check out here, direct link to game explanation - http://www.geocities.com/chessdp/ttchsrules.htm now how bizzare is this explanation of the game! How can i rate a game i can't understand, pfft, it is so easy :)) :-) wrote on 2002-12-01 UTCGood ★★★★this chess variant is very good,yet very puzzling! If you could, you would've gotten more color-type armies to make the game even MORE puzzling (just a suggestion) P.S.create a sequel to this chess variant! Jianying Ji wrote on 2002-11-28 UTCExcellent ★★★★★very interesting and provocative. Though a more extended write up is welcome 7 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.