[ 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 CommentsLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧ Shako_Balbo. Game with Diamond Shape Board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Kevin Pacey wrote on 2019-02-11 UTCExcellent ★★★★★This game makes for a fine blend of two already interesting games. At first when playing I felt like I was starting out missing an important pawn, but then I remembered that in chess, the Exchange Variation of the French Defence can produce plenty of interesting and decisive games, even between strong players. Balbo's chess. Board with a strange shape designed to make Bishops stronger in relation to Rooks. (Cells: 68) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Kevin Pacey wrote on 2019-02-11 UTCGood ★★★★Interesting board shape. I'm currently not absolutely sure that bishops are quite as strong as rooks, on average. Viking Chess Set. Game board and pieces in search of rules. (Cells: 37) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Michael Ireland wrote on 2019-01-31 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Hello Anthony Thank you for replying after all these years that the post has been up. I saw your post, I do care, and I am replying here. I am the Michael Ireland who wrote the original post. I have been trying to reply through my account but it has gone dormant and I haven't been able to successfully logon, so am replying anonymously. I have not found my answers yet but I am pretty sure this is NOT byzantine chess. I will do my best to answer your questions. It has been a long time since I played the game but this is how I think it worked. The board is made up of "rings" and "crosses" (spaces). There is a centre star (space) in the middle which acts like a cross in all regards but a piece cannot start there. Each player starts with all of their pieces off the board. There is a king, 2 rooks (flat tops), 2 bishops (spikes) and 4 pawns per side. On their first turn (white goes first) each player places their king anywhere on the board on any "cross" but not on the centre star (I believe that no piece could start on the centre star because it gives too much of an advantage to start there - but I am not 100% certain of the rule). Then in the second and subsequent turns, each player can either move an existing piece or bring another piece onto the board as per turn 1. The goal of the game is to checkmate your opponent's king as in regular chess. Different pieces move differently. A pawn or the king can move from one cross to another cross in any direction. A rook moves up to 3 crosses up or down, or one cross to the side. A bishop moves up to 3 crosses around one of the rings, or one cross up or down. Any piece once on the board can enter the star in the middle. A rook can move through it. A player can take an opponent's piece by moving a piece into their opponent's piece's cross. Once a piece is removed from the board it is gone. I don't belive there is a special move in this game that makes a pawn become another piece like a rook or bishop. That is it, essentially, but again, I am putting this together from a hazy recollection having not played for 40 years or so. I hope this answers your questions but I want to say that your query made me go through the process of writing things down here and in a way, helped me work back to an approximation of how the game worked (with a few pieces of the puzzle still needed). I think I could try playing it again and seeing how things worked. I have not given up hoping someone will see this and recognize the game and the rules, but talking about it is always good. So thank you again for replying! Michael Ireland PS: I did come up with one tantalizing lead about the manufacturer Arne Basse and this particular chess variant set. Online I found a photo of a regular chess set that clearly was made by the same manufacturer because the board had the same leather surface (but with a regular chess grid) and the carved wooden pieces were the same except there were queens and knights. No other information was attached to the photo sadly but it was an interesting find. Chaturanga for four players.. Oldest multiplayer chess variant. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Greg Myers wrote on 2019-01-23 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Thanks for the response, that is kind of what I thought but wasn't sure. Greg Crazy 38's. On strange board with 38 squares. (Cells: 38) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]SL Reed wrote on 2018-12-27 UTCGood ★★★★I just began play-testing and I like it a lot. My thoughts so far: There is a tiny bit of ambiguity as to whether the “same file rule” from Shogi is meant to apply to pawn drops (presumably it is not). I believe it can be played either way. I haven't tested it yet, but to try, the following condition could apply: A pawn may not be dropped onto the same vertical diagonal of any other non-promoted pawn belonging to the same player. Or an even stricter alternative: A pawn may not be dropped onto the same rank or file of any other non-promoted pawn belonging to the same player. In the illustrations for piece movement, notice how the rook travels through one edge and then through the opposite edge of each square in its path (even if the 'square' curves a right angle), while the bishop travels through one corner and then through the opposite corner of each square in its path, but seems to be prohibited from doing so on the curved squares (from the black bishop's position in the diagram). If this prohibition were lifted, that same black bishop's range of movement would include traveling from one curved edge square to the next and then back across the board horizontally, forming a loop back to it's original position. Also, although it is not explicitly mentioned in the original rules, I think it's probably a good idea to declare that a rook or a queen (or a bishop) may not land on the square from which they originated on that turn, even if a path to it exists unobstructed. Finally, my thoughts about the pawn. The language and illustration of the original rules regarding pawn movement suggests that pawns capturing moves and non-capturing moves are executed in the same way (unlike conventional chess). Optionally, one could alter the rules for pawn movement so that it moves (but does not capture) exactly one square in either of the orthogonal directions that is away from its own side of the playing board or it can capture to the cell diagonally ahead of it (if there is an enemy piece occupying that square). I just made my copy of the board yesterday, and have only had the opportunity to play-test the original rules. But yeah, it was a lot of fun! Thanks! Hannibal Chess. Chess with added Modern Elephants (ferz-alfil compound) on 10x8 board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on 2018-12-12 UTCGood ★★★★This is a very nice-playing modest variant. I've greatly enjoyed my games of it. I can absolutely recommend this game as an excellent variant tournament choice. It gets a lot of mileage out of a pair of fairly simple changes. The initial set-up is excellent; it gives good play. The weak piece is a very nice choice, and provides a nice companion/foil for the bishop and knight. Pocket Mutation Chess. Take one of your pieces off the board, maybe change it, keep it in reserve, and drop it on the board later. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-29 UTCExcellent ★★★★★One of the very best variant on the site! Truly beautiful concept, and it appears to work. (I have not had an opportunity to try it myself, yet.) Reading through the comments, much of the complaints seem to focus on the power of the knightrider's ability to reach the back row and promote. I wonder if anyone has considered that the knightrider move and the promotion rules may not work together perfectly? Changing them would result in a different game, but possibly a better one. Just a thought. Time Travel Chess. Pieces can travel into the Future. Kings can also return to the Past! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-29 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Excellent time travel twist on chess! Beautiful! Shatranj of Troy. A Shatranj variant with Shogi-like drops, a Trojan Horse (with 6 pieces inside),. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-28 UTCGood ★★★★Another clean design by Gary Gifford. Nothing here but the pawns, king, and fully-loaded trojan horse. Set-up-your-pieces opening, essentially. Interesting, but personally I prefer a bigger variety of pieces. I can still admire the clean design! Sirlin's Chess. Alternative presentation of "Chess 2 - The Sequel". (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-19 UTCAverage ★★★This page contains the rules for this game: Sirlin's Chess2-the Sequel I agree that name reeks of hubris. However, that page has all the discussion about the game on it. I would be great if this page were linked to it in the main body of text. Chess 2. Different armies, a new winning condition, and duels. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-19 UTCAverage ★★★I've played a fair bit of Sirlin's Chess2, so I'm going to make a bunch of posts to move the rules onto CV website, in case the game is ever abandoned by Sirlin games. I will also comment on the game in general. Sirlin's Chess2 is quite balanced, and has clearly gone through a lot of playtesting. Being developed by a modern boardgame company owner clearly shows here! First, Sirlin's Chess2 adds 3 things: 1)win by centerline invasion 2)dueling stones; possible loss of an attacking piece 3)different armies. Quote from offical rules: New Win Condition: Midline Invasion You can still win by checkmate, but you also win if your king crosses the midline of the board. Each move has added significance, because you must weigh how much it helps or hurts each player’s chances of winning by king crossing the midline in addition to the usual considerations of furthering a checkmate. Just like in Chess 1, it’s illegal to move into check, so to win by Midline Invasion, your King must land on the 5th rank without being in check. Unlike Chess 1 though, there are no stalemates. If you have no legal moves, you lose the game. While stalemates are common in Chess 1, they aren’t needed in Chess 2 because the Midline Invasion rule provides an even stronger option that a player can aim for when he’s down on material. In practice, against reasonablely competent players, the majority of games will end by midline invasion. For one thing, whoever is winning can typically move his king up before he checkmate's his opponent. The big change, however, is when a player starts to loose, he will usually make a quick attempt at midline invasion win. This makes the transition between the mid- and end-game very chaotic. Most non-chess boardgame players will find this a very exciting change; instead of a long slow grind as one player increases his advantage, the the game ends in an explosion of desperate dashes-for-the-midline. While the player who is in a better position will still usually win, there is more hope for the loosing player. Having more on the line, it is more exciting for both players, despite the fact that the game still usually ends as expected. This also esentially eliminates the chess endgame--which most casual players consider the most boring. Once a player has a significant advantage, chess tends to grind toward an inevitable conclusion. This is why experienced chess players will conceed when the game gets past a certain point--going through the motions is just a waste of time. As a side affect, Sirlin's Chess2 games tend to be shorter. Modern boardgames (not chess variants) tend toward shorter is better, so non-chess enthusasts would generally consider this a good thing. This is where Sirlin's modern boardgaming design experience is showing....he has designed a change that appeals to the masses (more exciting desperate chance of a win) and eliminated the masses least favorite part of chess (the grinding endgame) and shortened the game in one simple rule. There is just one problem. MOST CHESS PLAYERS DON'T LIKE IT. I don't like it either!!! Effectively getting rid of checkmate just feels WRONG. Sum it up=theoretically a good change that appeals to casual players, but chess enthusists won't like it at all. Dueling Quote from offical rulebook: Dueling Dueling allows you to spend a new resource called stones to threaten to destroy a piece that takes one of your pieces. Try to trick the opponent into wasting his stones because if he runs out first, you automatically win any further duels. You start with 3 stones and gain 1 stone each time you capture an enemy pawn, up to a maximum of 6 stones. Whenever you would capture any piece, the defender can initiate a duel. If your piece is higher rank than his (ranks: pawn -> knight/bishop -> rook -> queen), he must pay 1 stone to initiate a duel. To duel, you each put 0, 1, or 2 stones in your closed fists, then simultaneously reveal them. All stones revealed are destroyed. The winner of the duel is the one who showed more stones--ties go to the attacker. If the attacker wins a duel, he takes the piece in question as in normal Chess. If the defender wins, he still loses his piece, but the attacker ALSO loses the piece he attacked with. Initiating a duel and bidding 0 is a bluff to make the opponent waste stones. The attacker calls your bluff by bidding 0 himself. He wins because attacker always wins on a tie and in addition, the attacker can choose to gain 1 stone or cause the defender to lose 1 stone. (A player can't have more than 6 stones.) Kings cannot be involved in duels because they have "Diplomatic Immunity." (They can't initiate a duel or be dueled.) Players with 0 stones cannot initiate duels, but they can be dueled against. When you duel against a player with 0 stones, you must bid 1 and you automatically win the duel. If you lose a pawn in a duel, your opponent does gain a stone. Dueling is another change designed to switch the game up. Normal chess has a very mathmatical quality to it--good players can predict moves very far in advance. The farther forward you can think, the bigger your advantage. Dueling changes this. Now, sometimes you won't keep a victorious piece. Consequently, there is only so far out it is practical to predict moves, leveling the playing field a little bit. Dueling accomplishes this WITHOUT resorting to chance. The number of stones each player has is public knowledge, and he who correctly reads the importance of the current board position and his opponent will win the duel. (And the attacker has the advantage, so ties in skill will result in the same board state as if no duel occured.) However, this requires a very different set of skills than chess. Consequently, it is possible for someone who is really really good at typical chess to be beaten by a player who is better at reading his opponent and bidding accordingly. Someone who is bad at bidding may be winning--until they run out of stones. This gives the othe player a big advantage. By broadening the useful/necessary skills to win AND lowering the ability to look ahead, a larger variety of player types can be effective players. Plus each duel is a mini-game, which gives flashes of excitement in the middle of the game. Again, Sirlin's skill at designing modern boardgames shows. This is a rule that should appeal to the masses and create some excitement, while lowering the necessity of mapping out future moves. There is just one problem. MOST CHESS PLAYERS DON'T LIKE IT. I don't like it either!!! Effectively making it uncertain if you are keeping a piece just feels WRONG. Sum it up=theoretically a good change that appeals to casual players, but chess enthusists won't like it at all. CHECK 11 ~ Original Vision ~. 11 different original factions, chosen secretly, each with extra powers when few pieces remain.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-18 UTCAverage ★★★I strongly encourage continuing work on this....I love the idea of 'choosing different armies'! Sirlin's Chess2 Betza's Chess with Different Armies Fantasy Grand Chess And your idea of a one-time enhancement Trance (spell) appears to be an excellent idea of something different while not being too powerful. However, I think the rules need some clarification. In particular, the army 'Hologram' appears underpowered rules-as-written. You gain the ability to suicide your queen to teleport your king. Useful, but only so much. You can't use it offensively (teleporting your king to the front lines is not smart) and if you use it to get the king out of check you're already in a bad way, and probably only delaying the inevitable. Meanwhile, you loose the ability for the queen to capture--but it can still be captured, apparently. So the queen is essentally useless. (The rules specify only that the queen cannot capture. All other rules being the same as chess, that means the queen can be captured. A queen that cannot capture or be captured is useful as a blocking piece--is that what you meant?) The Trance is not that powerful, only allowing the queen the ability to capture kingwise. (If the queen is uncapturable, this is very powerful.) I'm left with the conclusion that you must have meant the queen cannot capture or be captured. Four Towers. Irregular board with special tower squares upon which pieces can combine with each other or detach from each other. (Cells: 85) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-14 UTCBelowAverage ★★I've got to comment on this....a crazy lot of ideas in this game. I think they need to be refined, but I am attracted to the unusual. This is definitly unusual! Knights of the Round Table. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-11 UTCBelowAverage ★★The idea of Knights promoting into a set list accessable by both sides is an interesting one. It should encourage aggression. However, the high probablity of uneven play drops the game's rating. Maybe if the pieces were closer in value.... Not knowing which side will get thid king is also interesting. There are some unusual ideas here. Diplomat Chess. Round-board variant with a Diplomat to suborn opponents. (Cells: 43) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-11-11 UTCGood ★★★★So, a couple months ago, I wondered about a circular board that uses the center. I figured someone must have invented it, and looked through CV. Apparently my google skills are weak, because I didn't find this or any other. :-( So I began working on it. It took some thinking, but I more or less hammered out the rules on paper. Today I stumble across this! It has identical movement rules to what I have come up with! Brilliant! Also, this looks to be a nice little variant. If only I had found Diplomat Chess before I spent that time reinventing the round rules...... Military Chess. 19th century commercial chess variant. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Dennis Saccuzzo wrote on 2018-11-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I played this game as a boy around 1960. The object of the game was to put the opponent's General in danger 6 times in a row. You did not have to checkmate as in chess. I cannot find any information other than what you have posted, but I would sure love to get my hands on a copy of the game. Thank-you for your post. Game Courier. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Alexander Yakovlev wrote on 2018-11-03 UTCAverage ★★★You can't castle on first move and move the rook on the second. The program says it's an illegal move because "there is no rook there". Wormhole Chess. When a piece leaves a square, it `folds' together. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]erik wrote on 2018-10-28 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I don't find any information about Pawn promotion in Wormhole Chess. Do Pawns promote on the last square they can reach, whatever the rank (for example if there are no squares anymore vertically in front of the Pawn, beyond the wormhole, nor diagonally where an opponent's piece could land)? Or do they only on the last rank, meaning that if a Pawn can't reach the 8th rank anymore, because of the disappearing of squares, he can't promote anymore? This comment gives me the opportunity to rate this game as 'excellent'. Really great concept and gameplay. It would be great to have a larger variant of Wormhole Chess, 10x10 or even 12x12. CHESSAGON. CHESSAGON® is like traditional Chess, but with Triangles, with one new additional piece named the Duke.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-10-24 UTCGood ★★★★I am interested in seing some of the more 'out there' piece ideas you have. In my personal opinion, once you've gone through all the trouble to develop a triangular board, you need to push the envelope on the pieces. Other than just being chess on a triangular board, this looks perfectly playable! Very nice! Palace Shogi. A complicated hybrid of Shogi, Xiang Qi, and Chess.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-10-24 UTCGood ★★★★This is probably the best Chess/Shogi/Xiang Qi combination I've seen. Very good. Afterlife Chess. A game based on Ancient Egyption mythology, played on four boards totaling 42 squares. (Cells: 42) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-10-24 UTCAverage ★★★Average score for sheer originality....no higher due to my doubts of actual playability. This is crazy. Very interesting ideas hidden here though. Catapults of Troy. Large variant with a river, catapults, archers, and trojan horses! (8x11, Cells: 88) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Simon Jepps wrote on 2018-09-28 UTCExcellent ★★★★★ "May someone make in effort to describe his/her's appeal to this game?" It's just brilliant! I had an idea once for a piece called "The Lovers". It was basically a figurine of a man and woman holding each other, but which could separate and thus have two pieces distributed about instead. "Catapults Of Troy" reminds me of this, specifically the Trojan Horse, with its ability to deploy Archers. Whilst this game is not Classically orientated, there are good things to come from designing pieces such as these, which are two abilities combined as one. Nice work. ;) Simon Jepps wrote on 2018-09-26 UTCExcellent ★★★★★It truly is amazing how many exquisitely different and unique Chess variants have been invented. I personally always prefer something more closely resembling the Classical concept, for example Modern Chess and so forth, but am astounded by the dedication given by people like yourself to the intricate details of playability, in what would seem an almost bizarre game in comparison. Well done! Gross Chess. A big variant with a small learning curve. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Greg Strong wrote on 2018-09-14 UTCExcellent ★★★★★This is an excellent game. I avoided it for a long time because I thought the large amount of power on the board would make it too difficult for me to deal with. It turns out I find it very playable, although it does require me to spend more time thinking before making a move for most of the game. Midgame positions can be exceptionally complex. The opening starts out feeling nice and slow, as though the first 10 or so moves don’t matter too much. While I think it’s true that there is a very large amount of flexibility to how you can play the opening, those moves are still very important. At some point, typically around move 20, the game breaks open and becomes tactical and violent quickly. You want your pieces well-positioned when that happens. There is some contention for the e4/e9 and h4/h9 squares. All three of the light leapers – Champion, Wizard, and Knight – are good to develop early and all three are natural to develop to those squares, so you must choose which to develop there. I find that typically one of these three piece types doesn’t get developed in the opening before the game gets wild. I think it’s important to get the Vaos developed early. By the endgame, they are the weakest piece, but their low material value and ability to make long-range jumps gives them significant power to harass the heavier pieces as the game progresses. Developing the Vaos generally requires developing the Knights. I like the promotion rules overall but the 14 extra pieces each player starts with in reserve seem unnecessary. There is tremendous carnage before any pawns are in a position to promote so lack of replacements is not an issue. The extra Queens are the only pieces that have any realistic possibility of being used. Well-played games are typically nail-biters and the dynamic between the two players can reverse several times before it’s over. Having the momentum is very important – you want to be the one forcing the opponent to react, and the longer you can keep it that way, the more advantage you will accumulate. My estimage of the piece values: Piece Ave. Dir. Attacked Ave. Safe Checks Ave. Mobility Midgame Value Endgame Value Queen 7.03 29.03 17.33 12.5 13.5 Marshall 9.78 24.44 15.79 10 11 Archbishop 9.47 16.81 13.76 8.5 9 Rook 3.67 18.33 9.68 6.5 7.5 Champion 9.78 6.11 9.78 6 6 Wizard 8.86 5.50 8.86 6 5.5 Bishop 3.36 10.69 7.65 5 5.5 Cannon 5 2.5 Vao 3.5 1.5 Knight 6.11 6.11 6.11 2.5 2.5 Pawn 1.68 0.00 1.68 1 1.25 Catapults of Troy. Large variant with a river, catapults, archers, and trojan horses! (8x11, Cells: 88) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anthony Viens wrote on 2018-09-14 UTCExcellent ★★★★★This is one of my favorite variants on the site! Very well done. I like the concept of the river as a barrier, but you didn't stop with that as a gimmick. You also made the piece types work with the river! There is an archer to shoot over the water, the ram could be too powerful but the river hampers it's deployment, and a catapult to toss pieces....great job. Now, there are a few things I would do different (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I may design a derivative) but there is only one thing I think is not designed very well. Why do you have 5 ranks on each half of the board? Xiang Qi also has 5, but the pawns start on the fourth rank. Catapults of Troy's pawns start on the second rank, and don't have an initial double (or triple) step. I would venture to say this makes pawn development very very slow. Which would be fine, except I see absolutely no benefit from it. The river already has a huge damper on pawn development/attacks, so even if you wanted to limit pawn interaction in the game it's already redundant. Not to mention, slowing the game (particularly the opening) down for no actual change doesn't seem like a good idea. It slows down getting the bridge builder into position, it slows down getting the Trojan Horse into the action...it also makes developing the bishops really awkward....Honestly, it makes everything except the catapult sadly out of position. I'm afraid the opening of Catapults of Troy would devolve into catapulting most of your pieces close to the river just to save 30 turns of development. Frankly, I think there is so much empty space eliminating only one rank from each side would still play almost the same. Slightly shorter opening, sure, but nothing else. Again, all this would be OK, except I see no benefit at all. Just an unnecessarily stretched opening. Am I missing something? Please inform me, if so. (Maybe you like a long opening! That's OK.) I would allow pawn double step and eliminate one rank per side, personally. I think that would speed up the opening tremendously and lose nothing--maybe lower the importance of the Catapult a little bit, but at the moment Catapults look too central to moving pieces. All that being said, this is STILL an excellent game. I can handle an unnecessarily long opening, so long as the rest of it is great! One of the best on the website! 25 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.