[ 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 Octahedral Chess. 3d-board in octahedral form. (x9, Cells: 340) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2008-07-02 UTCGood ★★★★From 1996 this is like my idea at Chessboard Math for 1x1 over 3x3 over 5x5 over 7x7, all centered totalling 84 squares. Ward's Octahedral carries on the other way, and its 10x10 become too many. Octahedral would be pretty good with 2x2 over 4x4 over 6x6 over 8x8, totalling 120. Opposed to write-ups, we accept the Pyramid board-space that flashed across the mind as hybrid of Thompson's Tetrahedral and this Octahedral probably noticed then. xxx Charles Gilman wrote on 2003-05-17 UTCGood ★★★★It is great to see constructive comments taken on board so quickly. I recently discovered an extraordinary feature common to the leaper you call a Camel (2:1:1) and the one more commonly called a Camel (3:1:0). Both can lose the move in 3d, that is, return to a square in an odd number of moves (5 minimum). It is notable because the 3:1:0 leape rcannot lose the move on a 2d board! In general root-odd leapers cannot even lose the move in 3d, and root-even ones can lose it in 3d if their leap does not pass through the centre of a cell of the other Bishop colour, but not in 2d. Thus the Ferz and Alfil can lose the move in 3d but the Dabbaba cannot. 2 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.