[ 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 ItemLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Capablanca's chess. An enlarged chess variant, proposed by Capablanca. (10x8, Cells: 80) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Kevin Pacey wrote on 2017-10-03 UTCGood ★★★★In spite of what I see as the drawbacks of this variant (unprotected pawn for each side in setup, rectangular board [though allowing smothered and back rank mates still], bishops clearly stronger than knights, the fact the chancellors might be developed symmetrically and traded in short order sometimes), this was a good try historically to cut down on draws and opening theory. On this particular variant's board dimensions of 10x8, as compared to 8x8, IMHO the archbishops would seem to come closer in value to chancellors (though not queens), though I personally have lingering doubts about archbishops being quite as good by comparison on 8x8 or 10x10 boards, any computer studies aside. IMHO, the bishop component of an archbishop would seem to have a number of extra potential good squares near the centre (or in range of the enemy camp) on a 10x8 board, without the rook component of a chancellor benefitting as much as often in return (unlike would be the case on a 10x10 board). On a 10x8 board the knight component of an archbishop would seem to have a number of extra potential good squares near the centre (or the enemy camp) for local scope, balancing the benefit received by the rook component of a queen on such an empty larger board than 8x8. My tentative estimates for the piece values in this variant would be: P=1; N=3.5 approx.; B=3.75; R=5.5; A=8.25; C=10; Q=10.25 and the fighting value of the K=3.2 (though it naturally cannot be traded). Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2006-06-18 UTCExcellent ★★★★★classic Anonymous wrote on 2005-10-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★ Sergio Capablanca wrote on 2005-05-30 UTCGood ★★★★To Jeanette and Alina with inquiries dated 2005-05-14 and 2004-12-23 respectively: There is a good probability that whenever you see an individual with Capablanca as his or her last name, there is going to be a relationship with José Raúl Capablanca (1888-1942). Sergio Gustavo Capablanca (1918-1997) was the son of Bernardo Salvador Tadeo Capablanca Graupera (1885-1940) and Maria de la Gloria Graupera Capablanca (1890-1975). Bernardo Salvador, was one of José Raúl's brothers, the others were Aquiles, Ramiro and Carlos and six sisters, Aida, Hilda, Graciela, Alicia, Zenaida and Clemencia. I hope this helps. I am Sergio M. Capablanca, son of Sergio Gustavo Capablanca and grandnephew of José Raúl. Thomas Alsop wrote on 2005-01-06 UTCGood ★★★★Before I was aware of the existence of Capablanca Random Chess(CRC), I had designed my own hybrid of Fischer Random Chess(FRC)(sometimes known as Chess960) and Capablanca Chess. My hybrid, Capablanca84000, includes 84000 set-ups as opposed to the 21259 for CRC. The rule differences are: 1. CRC states that the queen and archbishop must be placed on opposite coloured squares. Since neither piece is colour-bound (unlike the bishops) I had not chosen to include this rule. Indeed, a common and logical first move for the archbishop is that of the knight-style jump, thus landing it on a different coloured square. If it can be proven that the jump is the more common first move for the archbishop, it would be equally logical to place the queen and archbishop on same coloured squares. 2. CRC states that each pawn must be covered. FRC does not and neither does Capablanca84000. If FRC did include this rule, it would no longer contain 960 set-ups since some contain uncovered pawns. For example, set-ups which begin with knight-knight-rook starting from either the a- or h-file contain 2 uncovered pawns on either the a and b files or g and h files. Charles Gilman wrote on 2003-05-05 UTCGood ★★★★Why were the Bishops swapped round with the new combined pieces. My own preference is for the versions with all the combined pieces on the innermost files and the elementals on the outer ones. It seems tidier, and also conforms to my instinct (admittedly more æsthetic than functional) for the Bishop-combiners to start on opposite square colours. M. Howe wrote on 2003-01-12 UTCGood ★★★★Mike, sounds interesting. Care to name this variant? I think I'll make a zrf and try it out. I think I'll also experiment with some similar games putting all of the pawns on the third rank and dropping the pawn-2 and en-passant rules. 7 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.