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
Fidchell. A large Great Chess variant with blended historical elements, invented for an RPG. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on 2010-04-30 UTC
Moves of pieces and promotion reminds Shogi...
By the way, i have a question: 'Each player's original King may also make
one Knight move at any time during the game...' -wich knight is meant?
Orthodox knight or Fidchel knight?

Larry Smith wrote on 2008-03-23 UTC
The implementation is now posted at the Zillions site.

There is a small error in the Game Description. I mixed up the Seer and Spellsinger in the portal opening instructions. But the implementation is coded correctly, and will use the appropriate pieces to open their particular portals. I've sent an update, so that will be corrected.

Larry Smith wrote on 2008-03-20 UTC
I have written a Zillions implementation of this game. I was able to include all the conditions, including the mandatory capture of the threatened King and the final checkmate condition.

I did notice a nice stalemate position. If a King which has been captured can only be returned to the field via a threatened piece which is its last option(for example, the Queen), it appears to be stalemate. Since placing the now solitary King on the field at this position would put it in check.

This implementation has been posted to Zillions and should appear at their site this weekend.

David Paulowich wrote on 2007-05-04 UTCGood ★★★★

The Unicorn combines the moves of the Chariot (Rook) and Cannon from Korean Chess. This piece is the same as the Super Rook in Lim Ther Peng's Supremo Superchess.

The Marshal (promoted Knight) has also been called a Buffalo. An interesting collection of chess pieces.

Gary Gygax wrote on 2005-07-14 UTC
Thanks Fergus,

Your answer to that rather pompous post is appreciated. The implication
therein is that an ancient name for an unknown game is somehow
Of course I do noy pretend that the fidchell game presented is anything
a fantasy chess variant supposedly played on a parallel earth.


Fergus Duniho wrote on 2005-07-13 UTC
Did you neglect to read the third paragraph, which acknowledged the existence of the historic Irish game?

Rob Berra wrote on 2005-07-13 UTC
Actually, Fidchell predates Mr. Gygax by a good many centuries. No one today knows the rules of the game, although it is believed that some gameboards have been found for it. This game is Mr. Gygax' invention, and his appropriate of the term for this game is questionable, to say the least.

Gary Gygax wrote on 2002-12-05 UTC

Glenn and I went over the matter, and he is on target.  The opposing king
can be left en prize and must be taken.  The rule works too:)


Robert Shimmin wrote on 2002-12-05 UTC
When I'd read it the first time, my interpretation was that a player could
deliberately place the king in check and force the opponent to capture it,
but that if the opponent checked the king, that check had to be lifted or
the game was lost.  (ie, that placing the king in check was legal as a
deliberate sacrifice, but that if the the opponenet started the check, it
had to be responded to normally.)  This made sense to me because it kept
the king sacrifice (with mandatory capture) open as a tactical option, but
a multi-move mating combination found by the opponent still worked.

But I can definitely see Glenn's interpretation, too.  Would it be rude to
ask the inventor for one final clarification on the issue?

Glenn Overby II wrote on 2002-12-05 UTC
The key in answering Daniel's question is that the King may be left en
prise--you don't have to move out of check.  So any time a King is
'checked' but not 'mated' by traditional rules, that King could be lost by
simply failing/forgetting/declining to protect it.

There are some mild tactical potentials as well, since the capture of a
vulnerable King is mandatory...

Daniel Roth wrote on 2002-12-05 UTC
This sounds a great game to me but I have a question:
The rules states that a check mate in the traditional way is a loss, how
can then a player lose his king without losing the game? It would be nice
to have some examples.

Yours D. Roth

Peter Aronson wrote on 2002-11-12 UTC
Actually the credit for this is all Glenn's -- all I did was ask a question or two (and for that matter, David Howe pushed this a bit too).

Moussambani wrote on 2002-11-09 UTC
Oh, OK. I somehow read one, two <i>or three</i> squares orthogonally...

Glenn Overby II wrote on 2002-11-09 UTC
Thanks for the comments, and the interest.  The Marshal commands only 24
squares...below is a diagram which I hope will come out.

|   | * | * |   |
|   | * |   | * |
|   |   | * | * |
| R |   |   |   |

This shows one-fourth of the Marshal's coverage.  I hope it helps.

Moussambani wrote on 2002-11-09 UTC
This game looks good, but correct me if I'm wrong: the Marshall can command 32 squares.

Gary Gygax wrote on 2002-11-09 UTC
Rating my own design is inappropriate.

I do rate the work done on this website, and in bringing this new variant
to it, as excellent.  Glenn spoted all the errors I had made, did a great
job of fixing them and making the Fidchell chess variant look pretty

Thank you Peter and Glenn!


16 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.