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: 2006-06-11
 By Lex  Parker. Dragon Chess (tm)This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2006-06-11
 By Lex  Parker.. Commercial board game played on a large board with a new piece -- the Dragon.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
George Duke wrote on 2007-11-14 UTCPoor ★
Well, let us start calling poor 'poor'. Even though taking exception to 'Kasparov-Fisher's, or 'Fisher-Kasparov's, indelicacy at times, as a game to play Dragon Chess(tm) adds nothing to the art, zilch. That is because restricted Queen is bad Chess piece. That goes for all CVs too that use one- or two-step, or one- or two- or three-step, movers in radial lines. The reason they are all poor pieces, whether Rook-like, Bishop-like, or Queen-like, is that there is no rationale not to go to one-, two- three- and four-stepping. As a pretext for making 10x10 board, however, this Dragon Chess(tm) makes sense for them and their own interest.

Kasparov Fisher wrote on 2007-11-14 UTCPoor ★
This is unbelievable! This is completely uncreative! The guy or guys who invented this not only don't care about chess, they surely don't know the least about chess (if you don't believe me, read what they've put on their website)! The bigger board is a blant copy of dozens of other variants: because there are two added pieces, we need two more files and since we want a squared board, we need also two more ranks! Boring and done thousands of times before!!! Another novelty: we need a pawn in front of the new pieces!!! Wow, that's new!!! And the two 3x4 squares at the sides: what the hell are they good for? There is no justification for them! They are just there because! There is not a real need for them to be there!!! The pawn can't go there and the board is already 100 squares big! Who needs the extra 24 squares that don't have a real purpose!!! It's obvious that they wanted to create a patented chess set that they could commercialize! And they wanted to add a dragon! The pieces look really cool and so do the graphics also. But beside that, there is nothing. They just took chess and added a piece that moves like a weak queen. A piece they really wanted to have the form of a dragon so they could use cool graphics and could commercialize! Really sad. I know much better and creative variants.

Greg Strong wrote on 2006-06-13 UTCBelowAverage ★★
When I looked at this game, I was very pleased by the appearance of the
pieces, and, although I, like Fergus, find Staunton pieces easier to use,
on account of their familiarity, I think I will purchase a Dragon Chess
set anyway, just to have the pieces at my disposal to facilitate making
physical representations of other Chess variants that I do enjoy.

I was not particularly impressed by the game itself, however.  Unlike
Jianying, however, I do not think it needs to be a radical deviation to be
good or to be successful.  Gothic Chess is no radical deviation and yet it
seems plenty popular, as CVs go.  And I'm not sure that throwing out the
opening book, while that is of concern to more experienced players like
us, even entered into their thinking.  My criticism of the game is more
related to the specific implementation.  The main 10x10 board... ok, good,
clearly that board has been tested in many successful games such as Grand
Chess.  But why add the extra battlefields on the side?  It is not as
though the setup or rules encourages any pieces to move there; I see them
remaining largely unused.  And a pawn would not want to go there (only
possible by capture) as it would then have to capture again to get out of
there, which it would have to do in order to promote.  But, conversely,
the fact that a pawn would not want to go there is not enough incentive
for other pieces to go there.  You would still move a pawn into such an
area in order to capture a piece, even if it means giving up on promoting
that pawn.  The board doesn't seem to be well thought-out.

It also looks like the text of the rules wasn't thought out at all.  For
example, they list material values for the pieces, but they left the
values of the Chess pieces as-is, and added the Dragon in at a value of 4
pawns.  For starters, on such a large board, the Bishop and Knight are
obviously not of the same value any more.  Beyond that, all the standard
chess pieces are valued incorrectly.  Should be more like: pawn=1,
knight=2.5, bishop=4, dragon=5, rook=6, queen=10-12.

But I'll probably still buy a set just for the pieces.  I wish I had
acquired an Omega Chess set before they all ran out.  Anyone have an Omega
set they want to sell?!?

Jianying Ji wrote on 2006-06-12 UTCBelowAverage ★★
The lack of innovation of this commercial game suprises, one would have
thought that they do their due diligence and seek out something more
innovative, as very much on displayed here. Most of the games on these
pages easily out flanks games such as this.

Here's the challenge: What is the most minimal change of the rules that
one can propose that would make this game much more innovative?

4 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.