[ 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 Mono-dimensional Chess. Small, one dimensional variant with unorthodox pieces. (1x10, Cells: 10) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jonathan Rutherford wrote on 2007-08-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I myself have givena stab at a 1 dimensional chess game. I called it Rutherford's 1 dimensional Shogi. Independently, I thought of the idea of Shogi pieces, and created what I feel was a very good game. Here is the link: http://www.chessvariants.org/shogivariants.dir/1dshogi.html Sadly, it is apparent that my game has not gotten the attention I'd hoped, since I actually find it to fill the niche of 1-dimensional chess games quite well. As far as I can tell, playing with Zillions and going solo with my own board and pieces, it is a very enjoyable and surprisingly complex game. So why hasn't it grabbed attention like mono-dimensional chess or other small shogi and chess variants? I suppose it is because of my self aggrandizement. I wanted to be sure I always had the credit for my magnificent invention, so I named it after myself. I also didn't present the rules in a very interesting fashion. But give me some credit, that was several years ago, and I've aged some since then. But at the heart, is it the fact that my little game is still too complicated? Is simpler better? I've never played LCC's game, but I commend his answer to simplicity without too much predictability. Perhaps a solution will one day be found, and a public-gripping one dimensional chess variant will finally take its deserved place. Anonymous wrote on 2007-02-01 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Why don't we let E promote? L cannot get to the last square without taking the king. Ludamad wrote on 2005-11-22 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I like the simplicity, it does beat tic-tac-toe. But as with other simple games, two good players will always tie. But, as you said, a perfect chess game would be no different. Just maybe make things more complex, checkmate happens rarely. Anonymous wrote on 2004-12-06 UTCExcellent ★★★★★KEWL. Was I the only one who noticed that? Anonymous wrote on 2003-02-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I like this game very much. I think LCC underestimates its own game, considering it 'simple'. Despite having so few pieces and being played on only ten squares (!) the game is much fun and at the initial position all four pieces of each side can make a move. This proves that the way to find new exciting chess variants isn't always to search for larger boards with lots of pieces of many different types, to make complex games or to switch to the 3rd and 4th dimension. Maybe we should 'look inwards' because the small have their say, too. (Remember David and Goliath, hehe). The explanations about piece movements do not state clearly whether the Executor's one-step movement is a non-capturing movement or not - only the sample game makes this thing clear (for example move 6.ExW) Tomas Forsman wrote on 2002-08-03 UTCGood ★★★★I like this game =) It's a fun game to play. Is there some way to force some forwardness into the game to avoid situations where the only option is to give up or draw by 3 time repetition? -=T=- Glenn Overby II wrote on 2002-07-30 UTCPoor ★It's a draw by repetitive boredom, unless someone blunders. I programmed a Zillions file for it this afternoon, and the computer cannot win without help. But neither will it lose. Nice theory; I'd like to see a playable linear chess (yes, it's been attempted before). But we're not there yet. William Overington wrote on 2002-07-28 UTCExcellent ★★★★★This is fascinating. After just two moves for each side there are an amazing number of possible positions for the game! An interesting game, perhaps ideal for email games. Also, by being a simplified game, perhaps an attempt to have a computer play it will be an interesting exercise. I hope that it is successful and gathers its own literature of games. William Overington 28 July 2002 8 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.