The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search




[ 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 ]

Rated Comments for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2001-01-04
 By M. K. Morrison. Big BattleBROKEN LINK!. Large (10x10), commercial variant.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Larry Smith wrote on 2007-11-12 UTCGood ★★★★
I also thought that the previous comment was unwarranted.

Tested the Zillions implementation of this game, and found that it does have some nice play. Those Soldiers can quickly take to the center of the field, so any form of Pawn structure may appear haphazard.

But this allows for quick development of the power pieces. Which you need a fair number to pin that King. Three rook-types, instead of two.

I do think that the Knight should be allowed its two-step move throughout play, rather than only on the back rank. And that the Soldier's three-step was only available as an initial move, after restricted to two-step.

All in all, an interesting game.

Senorita Simpatica wrote on 2007-11-11 UTCGood ★★★★
A previous individual 'Fisher Kasparov Unverified' gave this game a rating of 'Poor' in his apparent angry and vulgar comment. I see not one fact listed in that comment that should give a conclusion of 'poor' for Big Battle.

The individual writes, quote:

'I think this game sucks! It´s not a new game! It´s not even a new variant!'

If that is the case, just state this is a remake of game_____________. That way we can see what game you are reffering to as the predecessor game. Just because a game already exists does not mean it is a poor game. However, copying a game without permission and/or proper reference to the original is poor. But that has nothing to do with the actual game.

It is interesting that the critic uses the names of Fisher[sic] and Kasparov as his own - hardly original. Those names already exist.

The critic goes on blabbing a bunch of comments about non-original and that he apparently is ill. So, what does that have to do with the game? My opinion: It is good to see a 10x10 board with pieces commercially available. The game is certainly playable and demands stretching one's chess logic. Does this game already exist under a different name? I don't know. But there is a Zillions engine for it. The critic did not provide us with the name of the earlier game - or with any useful information.

By the way, I think editors should remove or substitute vulgar words like **** and ***** that were used in the previous comment. They are not professional. They are immature and insulting. Chess Variants people (all people) should be above and beyond such immaturity.


Fisher Kasparov wrote on 2007-11-10 UTCPoor ★
I think this game sucks! It´s not a new game! It´s not even a new variant! It is just chess enlarged to fit a 10x10 size board. There is nothing new in this thing! All the ideas this guy presents are already presented in other variants with the added bonus of being creative. This thing is NOT! The amazon piece exists already in zillion different variants, the doubling of the knight´s move is nothing new, the king´s, queen´s and pawn´s moves are just a result of the enlarged board! This guy must think he is a genius. Give me a break: the 'sol'? I´m going to vomit!

Bear wrote on 2005-03-27 UTCGood ★★★★
The Prince is not quite an amazon. It is slightly more powerful as it can jump to the entire second radius (the amazon can only jump to half of that (the Knight movement)). I think it has some good ideas but I don't think the box should say 'superceeding chess'. This may be a good sales pitch, however it is too early to make such a wild assumption. Chess is a serious game and Big Bat, whilst perhaps also a serious game, does not promote itself as such. Big Bat promotes itself as 'fabulous fun', for children 110 years old and 'the name of the game' ?!. Whilst chess is fun, it is at first serious. If chess is to be superceeded, it must be done on a serious level. At best this game will provide an alternative in the way goody gum drops ice-cream does to chocolate. Will goody gum drops ever superceed chocolate? I don't think so. Other variants promote themselves as either serious, themed or humorous. I just don't know how to take Big flying marsupial! <p>I commend the author for his obvious passion of both games, new ideas and wish him well in the promotion of his game. <p>Bear

George Duke wrote on 2005-01-20 UTCGood ★★★★
Never commented, Big Battle at least attempts to solve the spacing problem inherent in 10x10. Here Pawns always have 1, 2, or 3 option if not capturing. Prince is Amazon(Q+N). Queen is enhanced by ability to leap over adjacent piece. Knight may double hop from initial position. King becomes more elusive as 1- or 2-square leaper. Conservatively only seven piece-types: usually 8 or even 9 is ideal when a decimal variant is sought. The extreme power of the new piece-pair Prince is offset by powerful Pawns. Nice try.

5 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.