[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Of course that what I said below about stalemate only makes sense if the rule for the possible 76 square board (64+3x4) was to be maintained the same as usual chess. Which some find illogical but others say it is part of the beauty of chess. So opinions very. And this was the only reason for the possible 3 square citadels. So that, for example a rook - a piece that usually reaches the endgame- could penetrate on this extra squares.
Thanks for your feedback! Your comments are very useful. Speaking of the 68 squared board with camel 'citadels', I've got one more thing I would like to be discussed: Wouldn't be an improvement if those citadels had 3 squares? One behind and another on the side of the rook? I saw somewhere on the net a board like that and it could maybe be a good idea for avoiding stalemates. For example for endgames with rooks.. Because in this game the extra piece Camel doesent add any value to the endgame (most probably it 'goes down' in the middle game..) Which means in the endgame it would be pretty much be normal chess, but with citadels the risk of draw would be bigger!!! Unless the stalemate rules were changed.. Thanks once again! :)
Wizards (Camel + Ferz) were placed on the first and last ranks in TenCubed Chess and Opulent Chess. These two variants both had 48 pieces on 100 squares.
Yes, because they can still get right out, and then they do not hit the Pawns in two. The reduced board size, 68 squares makes the most sense (Grand Chess-style second best). 68 squares is size for most bifurcation pieces of Winther. How about a variant with mechanism to alternate the power of the new piece between Camel and Zebra? Fourriere uses that technique in Jacks & Witches between Canon and Cannon, where after any move of Cannon/Canon, player can switch it to the other one, never having both in effect.
I would like to ask your opinion about one thing: would the set up for my variant beneficete from putting the Camels on the first and last ranks? (as the Rooks in 'Grand Chess'?) instead of this setup?
Charles Gilman wrote on Sat, Jun 21, 2003 07:12 AM UTC:Good ★★★★Another alternative would be to put the Camels between the Bishops and the royal couple, to make them to Knights as Bishops are to Rooks and vice versa in hte array as well as in their move. Of course even better is Wildebeest Chess, which adds a piece that is to the Knight as the Queen is to the Rook.
Hello! The zillions link is misspeled. I't is kamIl not kamEl. I copyed the path, paste it on the explorer adress bar, changed the E to an I and pressed enter... It worked fine! It is really only the link that is wrong, 'cause the file is there. Please correct it. Thank you. Nuno Cruz
9 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Just a warning. The zrf didn't work for me. The reason is, I don't know why, the file Chess10x10.bmp is corrupted. I had to rename it and finally the zrf openned. Also, the Mephisto Chess has a wrong initial setup for black. The one for white is correct. Black Camels and Bishops are switched. It should be corrected to play
As in the zip, (wrong): (board-setup (White (Pawn a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 f2 g2 h2 i2 j2) (Rook a1 j1 off 10) (Knight b1 i1 off 10) (Camel d1 g1 off 10) (Bishop c1 h1 off 10) (Queen e1 off 10) (King f1) ) (Black (Pawn a9 b9 c9 d9 e9 f9 g9 h9 i9 j9) (Rook a10 j10 off 10) (Knight b10 i10 off 10) (Camel c10 h10 off 10) (Bishop d10 g10 off 10) (Queen e10 off 10) (King f10) )