[ 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 Fusion Chess. Variant in which pieces may merge together or split apart. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]jackman jack man wrote on 2018-06-07 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Another cool idea i like this comments in this post there is another very interesting in [spam link removed] and in addition he offers a very good chess guide... Kevin Pacey wrote on 2018-03-01 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Another cool idea by Fergus. JT K wrote on 2016-07-25 UTCGood ★★★★Disregard my question about pawn promotion there... I see it in the description. JT K wrote on 2016-07-25 UTCGood ★★★★Very interesting variant! I'd love to play it on a real board, if I had the special pieces... Question though: can a player's original queen "split" (fission) or is that piece permanently a regular queen? Same question for a promoted pawn... if a pawn promotes to queen, is splitting an option on that queen? Can a pawn promote to a fused type such as marshal or is queen the only option? Simon Jepps wrote on 2010-02-14 UTCGood ★★★★Fergus, that's a neat little variant. I had a similar idea back in 2008, but not quite this extensive. I find all the notation and multiple merging a little bit of a mouth full, but all the same Fusion Chess is a great game to add to the list. douglas francis wrote on 2010-02-14 UTCExcellent ★★★★★why not make one for 4 players? or team? or how about a fusion with a pond like pond+king=pond king that can move 2 spaces on first move like a pond? or include the amazon it could be Bishop+Rook=queen+Knight? there's so much more fusions you could make out of this! and so much more you could do with this!! if you were to sell this id be one to buy it for sure even if it was for $40!!if you were to make a 4 player version id buy it for $60! even if it was over priced this is so good i'm addicted to it iv played it about 20 times with my sister and brother but it would be a bit better if you had the option to play with more people! most of the chess variation iv played here witch iv played about 30-43 all weren't very interesting but this is more interesting then most of the others iv played i love version B of this because it has the ability for a Royal Bishop or Royal Rook to cross over a square under enemy attack witch makes it more interesting then version A!! Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2006-09-22 UTCExcellent ★★★★★this game too is fascinating, this game started your other variants on this theme right? (assimilation chess etc) Very complex, at least for me anyway ... all variants on this theme you have done seem to be all good too, well done. Matthew Paul wrote on 2004-07-07 UTCGood ★★★★One minor comment: There are only 2 knights when there are 3 bishops and 3 rooks. How about a variant where each player has a Eques rex to start off with, in place of their king? Not only would this balance the number of component pieces, but also the player's two centre pieces would contain all of the four components. Spanish Fan wrote on 2002-12-15 UTCGood ★★★★Why isn't 'triple fusion' allowed? This is, letting a Queen merge with a Knight (or a Marshall with a Bishop, or a Paladin with a Rook) to form an 'Amazon' (piece moving like Bishop + Rook + Knight). More combinations are possible with royal pieces, although the resulting royal pieces may prove to be too powerful. But, at least, Amazons could be allowed, and then let Pawns promote into 'fusioned' pieces as well. The article doesnt say anything on how to denote the Pope, Dragon King, or Eques Rex. Finally, the correct Latin plural for 'Eques Rex' should be 'Equites Reges' (and not 'Eques Rexi' as it appears in the article). 9 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.