[ 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 UTCMoves 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 UTCThe 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 UTCI 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 UTCThanks Fergus, Your answer to that rather pompous post is appreciated. The implication therein is that an ancient name for an unknown game is somehow sacrosanct. Of course I do noy pretend that the fidchell game presented is anything but a fantasy chess variant supposedly played on a parallel earth. Ciao, Gary Fergus Duniho wrote on 2005-07-13 UTCDid you neglect to read the third paragraph, which acknowledged the existence of the historic Irish game? Rob Berra wrote on 2005-07-13 UTCActually, 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 UTCRobert, 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:) Cheers, Gary Robert Shimmin wrote on 2002-12-05 UTCWhen 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 UTCThe 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 UTCThis 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 UTCActually 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 UTCOh, OK. I somehow read one, two <i>or three</i> squares orthogonally... Glenn Overby II wrote on 2002-11-09 UTCThanks 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 UTCThis game looks good, but correct me if I'm wrong: the Marshall can command 32 squares. Gary Gygax wrote on 2002-11-09 UTCRating 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 here. Thank you Peter and Glenn! Cheers, Gary 16 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.