Rated Comments

Edited. Can you publish it please?

The way I have always looked at this is that to know whether a square is attacked by the opponent during your turn you should pass that turn, and see whether the opponent then can move there. So the question then is what the turn-pass would do for the movement capabilities of the Joker.

1 seems most natural to me. I would think that passing a turn shouldn't count as moving a piece, so it shouldn't change the Joker's move if it is defined by the last piece moved. In a game that doesn't allow passing, passing should be considered the same as a double move by the other side.

Are there no promotions in this version? Where is the prince and adventitious king?

No, it’s not easy win, black can easily block the path of check by 1.…Be7 or 1.…Qe7 after 1.Qe2

So it’s not required to add interactive diagram for THIS variant. But if it will be in online chess resource, thank you.

Mister Albillo had his interesting Web pages about his so-called Bizarre Chess stored since 1998 in a free server, but unfortunately, that server went out of activity in the early 2000s.

Then Mister Albillo did not find another server, and he kept for twenty years his Bizarre Chess only with himself, unknown to the World.

Recently he has converted his old Web pages to Adobe Portable Document Format, and re-published them after that hiatus of twenty years.

The old hyper link given by him obviously is dead, but as of late 2022 this other hyper link is working perfectly:

https://albillo.hpcalc.org/files/misc/chesstests

Each page has been made into a different PDF, available for download. There are twenty in total and not heavier than 300 Kilobytes each. They contain astonishing examples of weird situations on the board, and comments made by important authorities.

The old hyper links do not work in the PDFs. Mister Albillo has chosen to preserve the flavour of an era in the History of Chess and Computing, out of a nostalgic feeling for a time that is 'Gone with the Wind'.

The Illustrious Members of Chess Variants will certainly find engaging material in those pages. Especially those of us who love the History of our Noble Game.

Sorry, but yellow X-es are captures!

I have an idea: you can turn Ox’s face to left in Stone Garden, as it was in my drawings, and make it different from Horizons. About Index it’s same. Please.

Points are accumulating. I’ve written this in the page.

One remark: can you watch Magician’s moves and make diagonal-based motion. And small Shielder’s regulation of replacing rules, but it’s not required for now.

Yeah, thank you very much!

Can you watch Fluidity please, I can’t add new variants but I have 5+ of them in keeping ready.

So how can I add my piece to Piececlopedia?! If I can;)))

Can Canvasser be Agitator?! In my notation, he is it. Noted as Ç

I like the idea of this, although it seems possibly over-complicated with the momentum rules.

Assistance request for promotion piece in the test applet for chess variants

Hello, I ask our help for understand the correct process for implement the promotion of a piece in this editor: https://www.chessvariants.com/page/MSplay-test-applet-for-chess-variants

I use for example a 12x12 board and i want to make a Queen promotion with pawns in the last rank (white & black) so I set this: Promotion zone (ranks):1 Promotion choice:Q Pieces to shuffle:P

Press Apply Press start position

Unfortunately I try this mode but seems works sometimes only for the a.i. pieces...

I also want to ask how I do for also more type of promotion on the same board? For example always in a 12x12 board I want the pawn-to-queen promotion and add a new one es. the knight-to-amazon promotion, both in the last rank, or the Queen promotion in the 10th rank and the Amazon in the last...

Thank you very much for your support, Best regards.

This is a great idea with those switches. Together with the twisting of the files it makes a very interesting board and game. The switches give instantly the game a dynamic tension which is enjoyable. And a very sophisticated solution that 2 squares together constitute 1 field on which there can only be 1 piece. There is no mentioning of pawn move/capture (maybe it could be helpful), but it must be implied that 'normal' forward movement and diagonal capturing are in place, that will often be first 'battle' around the switches.

What is better than 2 switches? That has to be 4 switches! The inventor, Gerd Degens, has also such a game, Chess69, which can be viewed through the link at the top, or for CVP members through the link in the comments. I will try to make a comment about it later. But I can only recommend to the editors that this game also is published properly. It is even more interesting because here the ranks are also twisted, very delightful for us fans of 'unusually shaped boards'. It already has a old post from 2003 here on CVP with a broken link in the Alphabetical Index and the Topic Index, so that will have to be displaced.

Please check my submissions. They are waiting Your look, except for 2 lasts) Regards, Rechefiltr_is_Fire

File Manager do not work. I have unpublished Orthodia and all pieces’ images are here. But my image of board below the diagram of this board is missing. So before this it wasn’t missing by more than one time. I open File Manager for this page and see “File manager submitted item” — and nothing more! Please fix. Other inserted files of this page are safe and sound. Thank you very much!

Added Westernized board and pieces for Xiangqi to the Wikipedia article.

The premise for tri dimensional chess set's presence on federation star ships was to teach three dimensional combat tactics, which is something the Bartmess and Meder rules patently fail to do, by blocking circumventing moves.
The rules presented here, on chess variants, are not complete and lack rules for castling but also advocate inverted attack boards, which, if nothing else, are highly impractical.
Not only were the World Tri Dimensional Chess Federation rules written by a fighter pilot, to teach three dimensional aerial combat, which is more in keeping with the original theme, they also start the king and queen in the centre files and provide the most reasonable method for castling, as the attached images demonstrate.

King's side castling


Queen's side castling

Inspiring game, yet it seems the action may take a while to get going

I don't yet get how to mobilize in the opening smoothly when playing this CV, at least when I tried to do so in my first game (with White, no less). After I moved the pawn in front of my king two squares, for example, I wanted to develop my knights to my fourth rank, towards the centre, in natural fashion. Yet that would allow Black to develop his deves (camels) similarly, and then to take my knight(s) almost at will - perhaps clearly at least a slightly worse exchange for me, since my pawn structure might be compromised without sufficent compensation when I recapture, and by my valuations (though tentative) a Kt is worth more than a camel on 10x10 (maybe even by as much as a pawn).

As my game (with arx) went on, I found my gold and silver had a hard time being deployed usefully for quite some time - an issue since they can get in the way of other pieces. I also had mobilization issues with at least one of two of my bishops, especially concerning if assuming castling is desirable in general. The assassins I had a hard time valuing, but guessed one could be worth as much as a queen. Maybe the inventor intended that mobilization be slow in playing this CV, I don't know.

@arx: I've sent you a personal invite to a Sac Chess rematch, in case you missed it, and wish to play.

Hi Gerd, hope your fine and well. I'm sure you haven't upset or hurt anyone!! I understand what you said, and it is extremely interesting idea indeed how you describe your game about the board etc.

I don't want to go on about the pawns, but still, I have to say, the game would maintain your 'theme' even if the pawns remained pawns. However, the game as you have it must have a unique feel and play to it!

Would be fun to see the game in action.

Should play well, it's nice to see you didn't 'overpower' it.

Mon Admirable Monsieur Jean-Louis Cazaux,

Je parle assez couramment la belle langue de Racine, même que je ne l’aie pas parlée depuis des années, mais veuillez me permettre d’offrir les informations suivantes dans la langue de Shakespeare, comme une aide pour ceux qui peuvent avoir des difficultés à lire Votre langue.

Le sujet est déjà suffisamment complexe en l’état tel qu'il est.

The player whom You refer has nothing less than 43 games hanging in Game Courier. The oldest is hanging since 29th June 2021 (a frightening 421 days as of 24th August 2022), the newest since 15th August 2022.

Of those 43 games, 7 games are waiting for his move and 36 are waiting for the move of his opponent. All sorts of Chess varieties are represented, out of the thousands of varieties that exist here in Game Courier. Even the most exotic and flamboyant varieties, are represented amongst his 43 games. Very few appear more than once, the vast majority appear only once. The pattern here is clear: a player who experiments with every variety that has existed, exists, and will exist, in the whole History of Chess. But also a player who does not care much about the results of his games, nor about a minimum respect for his opponents.

And of those 43 games, only 3 are timed (one with Ye, the other two with Mister Daniel Zacharias), while the other 40 games are untimed. The game that he is 'playing' with Ye was posted to the public room for any player to accept, but here it is not a question of who sent the invitation and who received or accepted the invitation. It is rather a question of DISRESPECT for the opponents, and to some extent also of abusing the resources offered by Game Courier. About technical resources the problem is trivial, because the data base of Game Courier can handle many more games than it handles now, but about the lack of respect for opponents, the problem becomes much more serious. You already know, Sir, my recommended solution.

Then, let me please proceed to explain how You can apply the solution, hopefully catering to Your personal preferences or needs. I hope to avoid too many technicalities, but pray forgive me if I dive deep into waters technical, and You find it difficult to bear with me. I am at Your disposal for answering relevant questions.

Sophisticated time controls were incorporated to Game Courier over eighteen years ago, in February 2004.

The idea was to make the Play By Mail system capable of handling games in a single session, also known as 'one sitting', or 'real time', or 'face to face', or by other names, and in several or many sessions for the same match, likewise called 'extended period', or 'delayed time', or 'correspondence', or by other epithets.

It was for that reason that complex time controls were introduced. Complete, exhaustive, flexible, with rich possibilities for any situation that could possibly be imagined. Then a manual was written and made public detailing how Game Courier can be correctly operated. GAME Code is full-fledged programming language, full of resources for implementing almost any board game in existence, short of boards of infinite extension or hyper boards of N dimensions. Naturally, the time control system had to accompany that sophistication.

It was hoped that the manual could answer almost any doubt. And in fact IT CAN answer almost any doubt, but it is easy for programmers to say that. The uninitiated may find certain explanations somewhat cryptic.

The manual assumes a certain level of Computing literacy, but any technical system offered to the public is a trade-off between technical sophistication, and usability. The most perfect computer in the World, but with the technical manual, every instruction, and all characters on screen written in Sumerian, would be useful only to those who can read Sumerian. And to a team of top-level specialists in several disciplines who would need years for deciphering the text or for discovering how the computer works by very careful process of trial and error. And even so, there is a high chance that not every feature would be discovered.

In Your specific case, which may also be the case of a number of our Esteemed Members, it seems to me that the best approach at the moment is to solve Your immediate problem, instead of delving into a rich plethora of concepts and definitions, but let me briefly inform that there is not a single method for timing competitions of Chess, or of other games, sports, or contests. Be it championship, tournament, single match, or some combination of them, various timing methods have been devised throughout History.

The first truly international Chess Tournament, organised by Mister Howard Staunton and other prominent British players, played in London in the year 1851, and won by Herr Adolf Anderssen, had no time controls whatsoever. As a consequence, some players took an exceedingly long time for their games. Twenty hours for only one game, or even two hours for one single move, were recorded for the amazement of posterity.

You will understand that under such conditions, more than a mental sport, Chess becomes a sport of pure physical resistance. The most suffered and ascetic hermit wins the game. After that horrifying experience, time controls by need had to be introduced in Chess competition. First the clepsydra (also called sand glass or hour glass), later the analogue mechanical clock, then the double clock originally invented specifically for Chess (later applied also to other competitive activities), and in the XX century the digital double clock.

Besides physical devices, diverse methods of timing or winning have also been experimented with variable success. There is the fixed maximum time per turn, fixed maximum time per game, increment or delay by Fischer or Bronstein Method, the Sudden Death, the tie break by points or by Armageddon, and others.

It would be my pleasure to go on describing how Chess and its ancillary equipment evolved in the course of years and of centuries, but if I continue, then this short introduction will become a book. Thus, without any further immersion into the History of Chess that I love, I am going to offer presently a concrete instruction that, as it is my hope, will be understood and put in effect without need of previous technical knowledge:

Go to a working preset that You would like to play, against a specific player or offered in the Public Room.

Activate the link that reads 'Invite'. In another page You will see "Invite Someone to Play (Name of Preset)"

Fill the relevant fields and leave the others as they are. You have already done it, so You know what I mean.

I strongly recommend that You activate the two check boxes labelled 'Rated Game ?' and 'Timed Game ?'

Once in the time controls, You set the third of seven boxes (upper right box) called 'Min Time' to 40 days.

I repeat, because this is the most important detail of the whole operation: SET MIN TIME TO FORTY DAYS.

Be careful for not setting it to 40 weeks, 40 hours, 40 minutes, nor 40 seconds. It must be for FORTY DAYS.

You leave all the other time control fields as they are: ZERO. Then You activate the link marked as 'Invite'.

I sincerely hope that the unavoidable technical complexity of the lines above have not been too confusing.

As example, You have received an invitation from me for playing Maidens Chess, a Chess variety of my own invention. The set is identical to Standard European Chess as per FIDE rules, therefore if You prefer we can play normal Chess instead of Maidens Chess. My preset does not enforce rules, neither shows legal moves.

I request the Honour of playing this game with Your person, Monsieur. Accompanying my invitation to play, You have also received from me a formal request that I include in the following lines. Good luck, Monsieur.

Mon Respecté Monsieur Jean-Louis Cazaux,

Je demande l’honneur de jouer à ce jeu avec Votre personne. Nous pouvons le jouer comme des échecs européens normales, en suivant les règles de la Fédération internationale des échecs, ou nous pouvons le jouer comme des échecs de jeune fille (Maidens Chess), une variété d’échecs de mon invention.

Le préréglage n’applique pas les règles. Le délai est exactement de 40 jours PAR COUP (entre un mois et deux mois, comme Vous l’avez demandé). Bonne chance, Monsieur.

Dixieland for ever ! P. A. Stonemann, CSS Dixieland

I like the idea of making an army using various combinations of a few building blocks, though I do have two critiques.

1: Balance. A combination piece is usually wirth more than the sum of its parts (eg: a Queen is worth more than a Rook and a Bishop; a Mann is worth more than a Wazir and a Ferz) which means an army with A+B+C=7.75 is likely to be completely overpowered. For example, look at army 1:
BNW=10, NW=5.25, BW=5.25, W=1.25, B=3.25, N=3.25, BN=8.75 (total: 37).
This is over a full Rook stronger than the regular chess army.

The more equal the components are, the more powerful they are when they work together. For example, army 2 (where one component has most of the value) is only about 2 pawns stronger than the regular chess army. So, armies with wildly unequal component strengths will need to have stronger components than more egalitarian armies to compensate for this.

2: The components should be versatile enough to be fun to play with on their own. For example, an Alfil can only reach 1/8 of the board which is un-fun to play (both with and against). One solution to this would be 'ABCD' chess, with 4 components arranged like this:

By adding an extra component, one can eliminate the need for components to survive on their own, and can make weak components without having to worry about un-fun Alfil play.

I have a new chess variant idea. 
Before I send it across to you , I have a few questions:

1) If my variant idea becomes popular, is there any way I can get paid for it ?

2) Can chess variant idea be patented ? Can I apply for a patent before sending it to you ? How many chess variants in your site are patented ?

Would it be possible to provide a rule enforcing preset that begins with the "rational" setup with all Pawns on the second rank?

I have a code to create Piece in Piececlopedia. I’ve taken your template and written my text.

Marsellais chess has a rule where each player moves 2 pieces in the same turn. Castling is considered a single move. All other castling rules apply.

Some Nemoroth pieces are 'color blind': they capture or otherwise affect friendly and enemy pieces in exactly the same way. The only effect of their allegeance is then which player is allowed to move them. But when they are petrified neither player can move them, and in effect they become neutral. An alabaster and an obsidian Leaf Pile are really the same piece, from a game-theoretical point of view, and that also holds for petrified Wounded Fiends. Likewise petrified Go Aways are all the same. And since they lose their special power on petrification, they are also the same as a Mummy. And they only differ from petrified Humans when we adopt the rule that petrified Humans promote to Zombie when pushed to last rank. Which would also make it necessary to distinguish petrified Humans by color.

Petrified Basilisks remember their allegeance because of the Basilisk's asymmetric move, which is preserved in the way it sees. Ghasts have a more severe effect on foes as on friends.

i think so

I think one thing the author may do until when and if this variant gets formally published here is to make a Zillions of Games implementation of it, then send an email to Ed van Zon to get the implementation published. There can be a long delay before a submission and its publication here, but Ed’s pretty good about publishing a submission within a week of its submission.

The hard part is taking all these rules and converting them in to Zillions’ quirky language. I enjoy doing it myself; it converts rules in to unambiguous machine-readable rules, and it allows people to play the variant themselves.

I would also change the name of the summoned pieces in to something like, oh, Dragon Horse and Dragon King, the Anglicized form of these pieces’ names in Shogi. I like the summoning tactic, but it’s an open question whether having it makes the White advantage overwhelming. People seem to enjoy Crazyhouse a lot over at Lichess, so I think this summoning mechanic can be very usable.

(I should also point out that Betza called what is the Jester here the “Waffle”)

The Heroine and Popess piece types in this variant arguably (nicely) complete the combination of compound pieces I used in my own (earlier) 10x10 Sac Chess variant.

On the topic of piece names, I've noticed that in some languages the name for a chess rook translates to ship (or to boat, also). Thus 'Admiral' (or my choice of 'Sailor', in Sac Chess) gets bonus points as a choice of name, perhaps (for the piece type in question, a promoted rook in shogi), i.e. a person who uses a watercraft's power.

Maybe there's a slightly related argument that a real-life knight, in the past, is a person who uses a horse (arguably knight is a more elevated title than horseman, which would also work).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_(chess)#Name_translations

A while ago, I looked at 31 possible short range pieces. I have now expanded this research.

I have written a small C program which looks at all 16,777,215 possible leapers that move at most two squares. Some findings:

• I expected around half of all possible pieces to be colorbound in some way. Wrong. 16,452,080 (over 98%) pieces are not colorbound.
• There are 104 non-colorbound pieces with three moves, 2,512 pieces with four moves, and some 2,696,337 pieces with 12 moves.
• Only 2,944 possible pieces are Bishop colorbound: These relatively few pieces can go to the same 32 squares a Bishop can go to.

With some 16,452,080 non-colorbound pieces, if we replace the knight, bishop, and queen with a random non-colorbound short leaper, that gives us 4,453,099,898,116,838,912,000 which is, what, 4 hextillion possible variants, and that’s keeping the king, pawns, and rook.

OK, if that’s not enough possible variants, we can also add the ability for a given random piece to be able to be a rider in any direction it can leap (e.g. a fers-rider is our bishop; a wazir-rider is a rook, and a knight-rider is, well, a knightrider), where we randomly choose, from all the moves a given leaper has, for it to be able to ride in a random number of directions. For example, if we look at the wazir, then randomly choose which directions it moves like a rook and which directions it can only move one square, we get 16 possible pieces. If we do this for all 16,452,080 non-colorbound short range pieces, we get some 282,232,643,280 possible pieces, just over 2 to the power of 38 (2^38 or 2 ** 38 in Python notation).

This means an 8x8 board with random non-colorbound pieces and using a standard chess set has some 6,344,961,231,517,063,209,074,884,200,517,463,972,290,560,000 possible variants (the pawns and kings can keep their moves), just over 2 to the power of 152.

I don’t know the correct procedure to file a bug report for ChessV, so I will just note the bug here.

Description of bug

ChessV does not use the standard Chess960 numbering scheme for opening setups. See https://chess960.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/chess960-starting-positions.pdf for the reference of correct number to starting position. In particular, ChessV is off by one (Position 0 in the official spec is position 1 in ChessV, etc.)

Steps to reproduce

Open up ChessV. Choose Fischer Random Chess. When it asks for an expected setup, choose setup #692.

Expected results

The opening setup should be RBBQKNNR (Mongredien chess)

Actual results

The setup is BRQKNNRB

Notes

Position 693 is the Mongredien setup in ChessV, so one just needs to add 1 to the official position number to get the corresponding position in ChessV.

Position 518 (519 in ChessV) is the standard chess starting position.

I love the concept of spherical chess. I think one thing needs to be changed, however. Chess is already drawish enough on a square board, and more so on a round board. On a spherical board, where pieces move in all directions, draws may become the overwhelming norm. That is not my preference.

So, on a board like this, I would love to see something done about that. Possible ways to do it would be to put some restrictions on the movement of the King (as in XiangQi and Janggi), or to immobilize the King when in check, or to take away the King's ability to capture pieces, including attacking pieces.

The Wolf is ranked higher (stronger) than the Dog.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/鬥獸棋

象>獅>虎>豹>狼>狗>貓>鼠

Elephant > Lion > Tiger > Leopard (Panther) > Wolf > Dog > Cat > Rat

I played this since childhood. This is the proper ranking of the animals.

The confusion about Dog > Wolf happened because on some of the cheap chess pieces, the wood carving of the Dog and the Wolf are almost identical.

Big thanks to Malcolm Webb for programming the zrf for this game! I would like those who download this to know that as of this date in 2022, I have updated the rules to Ito Shogi drastically, while the rules of this zrf file are based on the 2007 rules.

great article, this is definitely one of the easiest strategies for young chess players to skim through and learn. Might also interest for more Superhero Chess Sets see this page [spam url deleted].

great article , this is definitely one of the best for young chess players to read and learn strategy.  If you intend on writing more similar content on this site be sure to check out our page with more inspiration for future posts

Is there any .ZRF file for this game?

What If They Castle Do they Tell you?

But why the limitation to set up queen and archbishop on different coloured squares, when they can change the square colour by moving like rook resp. knight?

I've been playing a lot of this game recently (via Ai Ai), partly for my own enjoyment and partly as inspiration for my own 16x16 experiments. There are relatively few modern Chess variants played on 16x16, and for me, this game is the best example thus far.

The variety of pieces presented here is at first intimidating, but one soon realises there is a logic to everything presented here, and shortly thereafter you'll find the piece movements become natural. The balance of the initial position is excellent, with every piece finding its way into the fight without too much awkward development. Games are long -- against AI at 2 minutes/move my games take at least 400 plies, with my longest so far at 695 -- but as a large Shogi variant fanatic this doesn't bother me at all. Throughout those long games one will find drama, excitement, and plentiful opportunities for subtlety and subterfuge.

If I were very picky, I might say that I'd like to see the Rook + Camel/Bishop + Camel compounds in here, which I find really fun on a large board. Also the basic leapers -- Camel, Giraffe, Knight -- feel less impactful in a game this size. Having said that, everything works well together, and I enjoy this game tremendously.

I've played the heck out of this via Ai Ai, and I absolutely adore this game. I prefer the greater piece density and the more interesting piece mix here to those of Grand Chess. The resulting play is interesting and nuanced both tactically and strategically. In my opinion Opulent Chess is one of the finest 10x10 variants.

My one complaint is the presence of Pawn promotion by replacement, but that's not particular to this game, I just dislike it everywhere. Promoting stuff is fun and interesting, so I prefer just being able to promote to any piece without restriction. After all I'm a Shogi player, and what can I say, we like promoting stuff! I also dislike some of the weird effects the rule can produce in rare circumstances, but that's more of an aesthetic objection. I do like the extended promotion zone though.

On the whole, a delightful game. Strongly recommended to anyone with an interest in decimal variants.

hi

For as long as I have known about the games with the Rook-Knight and Bishop-Knight added, I have agreed that adding just them unbalances the game even further towards the line pieces than Chess already is. This is the main reason I have made an alternate history where Capablanca looks outside of the modern descendants of the Western tradition for help in designing his proposed “next stage of Chess”. I made him look all the way to Japan simply because the first place I had thought to post the idea was the 81Dojo forum. However, the other idea I have always had was that he would simply invent a “Great Carrera” with the missing pieces (King-Knight, Queen-Knight and two step Knightrider). This game would have been possible to play with the King-Knight, two step Knightrider or Rook-Knight doubled if the players wanted.

The quality of the page has not been improved in more than one year. If everyone is happy with that, fine.

This appears to be a fine variant, in spite of the 2 unprotected pawns per side in the setup (that kind of helps make up for the 6 ranks distance between the initial pawn ranks, actually).

@ Greg:

Hi. One player mentioned to me that this preset doesn't seem to work perfectly. Namely only two-square K move to castle either side (i.e. not three-square K move to the queenside) has been allowed by it. Also, capturing by en passant isn't always allowed, I guess meaning if a 3-step pawn move is made by the opponent. Has this preset been tested for either of those possible problems? If not, please fix if you can, at your leisure.

K

This is a great concept for an army! I like how the Vouivre encourages tactical play with its forking capabilities and ability to do nasty smothered mates, while the Geese are more focused on strategic pawn play in the endgame; similar to how the tactical Knights and the strategic Rooks provide a variety of viable playstyles in the Fabulous FIDEs.

In your opening line, 2.Vg5 doesn't work because of Qxg5.

PS: If you're willing to upload this army to ChessCraft, I'd be happy to playtest them alongside my own Starbound Sliders.

Edit: Upon closer inspection, this army is actually very weak.

• Ouroboros: 2x5pts Although the Ouroboros is about Rook strength, it's the only one that's as strong as its claimed to be.
• Roc: 2x3pts+0.5pts colorbound pair bonus The Roc is colorbound and has limited range, making it weak and finnicky even by minor piece standards. Complicated maneuvres are less viable when the board is full of pawns, which further highlights the Roc's difficulty in movement. It is definitely not as strong as a Rook, though its ability to reach 12 squares means it may be slightly stronger than a Knight.
• Flying Goose: 2x1.5pts The Flying Goose has very little value, and also gives the Beautiful Beasts the very annoying trait that they can't castle without moving one of the three Pawns that will be in front of the King (unless they castle queenside and mave the a pawn). Granted, the Flying Goose is little more than a slightly stronger pawn anyway, but still.
• Vouvire: 9pts The Vouvire is reasonably strong for a Queen equivalent and it's great for tactical play, the problem is that there's nothing to play tactically against. Knights are fun to use because they're the weakest piece in the army (so when they fork something, you're in business!) while the Vouvire is the strongest piece so it can't fork anything that's protected. Also, it can't go to any of the 8 adjacent squares, which makes maneuvering on a crowded board surprisingly difficult.
• Total: 28.5pts CwDA armies typically range from 31.5 (Fabulous FIDEs) to 33.5 (Nutty Knights) with more complicated armies needing more value.

This is an interesting and logical approach to tackling how to have a double-move variant addresses pesky rules like check and en passant.  They always require special-case rules to address, and how it is addressed here "feels" right to me.  Marseillais Chess handles the check thing fine, but falls down on how en passant is handled.  You seem to have neatly solved that, too.  I also like how you are limited to one capture per move and cannot move the same piece twice.  This also helps to preserve the strategical similarity to orthodox chess. I guess Marseillais is more of a "let's make double moves and we'll end up with an interesting but totally different game."  Originally, it wasn't even "balanced" (white started with two moves.)  This is an ambitious attempt to add the property of double moves games being "balanced" while changing as little else about the game as possible.

Extra Move Chess also provides similar benefits.  You can make a second move, but don't have to, as long as it doesn't capture or move a piece that just moved.  If you make a second move, it can be a two-space pawn move (which a first move can't, except for white's first move of the game.)  This also neatly solves check and en passant.

I'd like to add this to ChessV.  I think it's doable but I need to think some things through.  The thing I see that most concerns me is this:

Each position created by a two move turn is included in the count toward a draw by threefold repetition, or toward a draw by the Fifty move rule (or the Seventy-five move rule)

If I understand this, it would be difficult to implement and doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Are you saying that any move in a single move turn or responsive move turn should not count towards the 50-move rule, nor should they be counted toward any potential repetition?

This seems like a nice variant. I especially like the 32221111Q movement of the pawns. The falcons/bison are also fun to play with, their long leaps make for nice tactics.

Pretty much the only thing I'd change is that castling leaves the King too close to the middle. Instead, I would make it so that castling results in the King and the Rook swapping places (White king can go to b1 or i1, black king can go to b10 or i10; rook always goes to the f file) as this gets the King 1 space away from the corner. This would also fix one of the gripes I have with regular chess: queenside castling is usually terrible. Opposite side castling often leads to fun games, so making it happen more often seems like it would be desirable. Also, it would allow players to castle by moving the Rook first, as the ambiguity between O-O and Rg1 is removed.

I came on this page by accident. After so many years, the name of this game is still wrong. It is Doushouqi, not Shou Dou Qi at all. And the comment about jaguar for leopard is absolutely right. The solution to avoid a L is to call this piece a Panther, panther or leopard is the same animal.

I've only played this once, but it feels right somehow. The hexagonal board, oriented horizontally like this, gives a distinct chess experience that square boards generally lack. It feels more natural than square shogi to me.

I like the Stars, they present a naturally digestible identity, in keeping with the elementary makeup of Classical pieces. I would have invented a more relatable name for them, perhaps 'Sheriffs' or, something you know, that has a real life character, but nevertheless I praise you for their design.

Nice work.

A very well thought and pleasing out blend of a Capablanca's Chess and Shogi. I am curious about the rule against having identical promoted pieces other than promoted Pawns. I consider it a small wart on a otherwise perfect design.

Adding the frog on a Capablanca board is a very nice idea. I'd suggest adding an fil move to the knight's first move, preferably a just move power, so that it can occupy it's regular place in the orthodox chess repertoire. But I don't see this as a problem more as a small enhancement, maybe, also motivated by the fact that the knight in this game starts so far from the center. Overall an excellent game!

Adding the modern elephant on a Capablanca board is a very nice idea. I'd suggest adding an fil move to the knight's first move, preferably a just move power, so that it can occupy it's regular place in the orthodox chess repertoire. But I don't see this as a problem more as a small enhancement, maybe, also motivated by the fact that the knight in this game starts so far from the center. Overall an excellent game!

The idea of introducing two waffles (phoenixes) on a Capablanca board is a very interesting one. But the main drawback proved to the author to be finding a position where all pawns are defended in the initial position. This leads to a sole position where the waffle and knight share the best first move development field. To this gets in a way of the usual castling. To counter this a new way of castling is introduced. I don't like that because it requires to little effort creating a new problem of it's own. I'd approach this by offering the knight the forward fil moves when unmoved. Probably with just move power. This will help the knight further to the center without hindering the waffle's development. It can also go the other way around offering the field towards the center to the waffle by allowing it the two forward wide zebra move. This has the advantage of having the knight on it's orthodox chess spot after it's initial move, so orthodox chess openings can be used. This would help the game become more popular among regular chess players. Both solutions seem to be better than an arbitrary castling rule.

I have played this game extensively in the Ai Ai software package since adding it, and I feel it may be the best iteration so far of Jean-Louis Cazaux's series of 12x12 variants. The piece density and variety generate very interesting interactions on the board. The various Pawn- and Pawn-like pieces in the 3rd/4th ranks create a nice sense of progression, leading the board to gradually open up and allow more powerful pieces to enter the fray.

In a sense, the game reminds me slightly of a Chess equivalent to Dai Dai Shogi, which has a long opening phase that gradually expands into a delightfully complex middlegame. As a fanatic for large Shogi I consider this a plus :)

In any case, I highly recommend this game for fans of larger variants. In the future I hope Maasai might generate some similar developments of Gigachess and Terachess as well. I have experimented a bit myself with adding the two ranks of mixed Pawns to those games and the results were quite enjoyable.

Having implemented this variant in Ai Ai and having played it a bunch of times, I really enjoy this game. Being a large Shogi fanatic, the higher piece density of Yangsi doesn't bother me in the slightest :)

For me this game is an improvement on something like Sac Chess, as the pieces in Yangsi are more interesting to use. In fact I was inspired by this game to make what I called 'Heavy Shako', an extension of Shako that fills in all the gaps in the back rank with other pieces used in the larger variants by Jean-Louis Cazaux. The original concept was much improved by some excellent advice from Jean-Louis, and the resulting game has been a lot of fun.

I'd enjoy seeing an extension of Yangsi to 12x12 with a high-density setup, too.

I like this, it brings out a rural realm to the game. Well done!

I wish this game were more popular. It seems like an excellent design. The piece selection seems strange at first but after thinking about it I can see the beauty of it.

I imagine the aanca could have originated as an enhanced ferz, to go with the bigger board. Then the knights could have become unicorns by gaining a diagonal slide after their leap to complement the aanca. The crocodile is a fairly obvious addition. The giraffe and Lion both make knight-like leaps, suitable for the large board, and the Lion includes and extra 3,0 leap which removes it's color binding and forms a nice looking pattern.

The result of all that is eight pieces with a nice range of power and an aesthetically consistent set of moves. There are all of the 2,1 3,1 and 3,2 leaping moves, the rook and bishop moves, and bent rook and bishop moves (unicorn and aanca). The leaping pieces are differentiated in power by some of them having additional movements, but they don't ever feel like arbitrary combinations.

The initial setup is also elegant. The Pawns start as far apart as they do on the 8x8 board, and the pieces are all on the back rank. The promotion rule fits well with this setup and is another great innovation.

I think the main weak points, if there are any, would be the pawns and the king's leap. It seems unlikely that the king would benefit much from a 2 square leap on such a big board with so much empty space; and perhaps modern pawns would be better. But overall this variant appears to be carefully designed.

Greetings, Thanks for doing this website. I don't see Commander Chess or Cờ Tư Lệnh in Vietnamese. This is not to be confused with the Vietnamese Chess listed here for zillions of games. Commander Chess was designed By Colonel Hải Nguyễn Quí and released in 2010. I think it's been adopted as the official Chess of Vietnam.

It's a modern warfare, sort of XianQi variant. Uses tanks, aircraft, a navy. Here's a link to the BGG for it:

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/191203/commander-chess

The Colonel has been trying to share his game with the world and I know for a fact they are about to release a new Commander Chess game set and online/mobile platforms to play online as well.

I'm working on making one of these with custom-built clay pieces!

Fun idea! Might I suggest the name ChiMPs?

You only need to checkmate/fork one King. In the standard-Rules version. Game play tends to be the same length as regular-chess.

Its one of the least complicated 3D-Games. Simply set-up 2-sets of chess-men.

The hardest part to explain is why its frowned upon to go on side-ways diagonals (in 3D) or that knights should not go in L-shapes without advancing or retreating from the opponent. I say frowned-upon, because of course you can change to non-standard rules. But you may find the game much longer, and knights to be as powerful as queens. Stalemates to be more attainable...

I have, as per Freeling’s comment, made a number of variants to Congo to address the issues brought up:

• To address the fact Congo looks drawish, I have adopted the “Ko Rule” in my variant: Someone who repeats a previous position in a game loses. This eliminates draws.
• To address the issue with river drownings making attacks harder, I have made the A, B, F, and G files of the rivers have “islands”: While the crocodile can move like normal on these squares, other pieces will not drown.
• I have made the pawns stronger: A pawn can not retreat until it is promoted on the 7th rank; on the other hand, pawns across the river can now move and capture sideways. A promoted pawn is more powerful: It can move or capture to any space one or two squares away (like Chess, a promoted pawn should win unless it can be recaptured quickly)
• I have made the elephants able to move forward like a Shogi Lance. They can also only move backwards one square.
• I have changed the opening setup from GMELECZ to ZCELECZ, removing the Monkey and Giraffe, and having a second Zebra (Knight) and Crocodile. This way, the game can be played with an ordinary chess board and pieces.

In my Zillions-vs-Zillions testing, the games are never draws, and Black wins more often once we give Zillions 30 or more seconds to think through a move.

My changes can be seen here: https://github.com/samboy/ChessVariantResearch

Look in the folder “Congo”. Full rules for this variant, along with multiple possible opening setups, is here:

https://github.com/samboy/ChessVariantResearch/blob/master/Congo/EBW-1.md

Out of respect for the copyright included with the Zillions implementation of Congo, I am not distributing a modified version of the Congo zrf. Instead, I am distributing the original version, along with a Linux/Cygwin script to change Congo to have another .zrf with the modified rules. I have also made from scratch board artwork representing the new river with islands.

(Admin: This is Sam Trenholme. If you have a chance, please update my email address to be “pbm” in the domain “samiam.org” so I can reset my password).

An interesting and very playable game. The figures are divergent pieces moving as the nominal piece and capturing as Querquisites.

Here's an animation of the game:

https://lichess.org/study/WjUgZzpG

I like black's idea on the final move (Rh2! hoping to provoke Kg1), however white called the bluff.

I'm pleased to see this game! One correction : it is a trigonal, not hexaxonal, chess variant. The cells are triangles, not hexagons.

That said, I think this is an excellent contribution to the much under-explored trigonal tiling. Apart from a couple of games contributed by Graeme Neatham and Christian Freeling, along with a couple of my own, I think this is a little-used tiling which has lots of interesting possibilities for play.

I dig this board. I tried writing a Zillions of Games .zrt for Masonic Chess last night.  I think it's about finished, but I can't seem to get through debugging to try it out.  Anyone here still messing with Zillions .zrt files?

The table in the center of this page has several mistakes in the description column

This is a very good game. Everything fits together well. The random setup provides variety without being completely chaotic. The brouhaha squares are a great way to add more pieces without making the board so big it feels empty. The promotion rule encourages more variety in promotion, which is something I look for particularly; and I like the auxiliary pieces used here. The Mameluk especially is fun.

I think I might slightly prefer the Modern Apothecary game, for it's Dragon and Griffin, which to me are more interesting than the Chancellor and Archbishop, but I like the Siege Elephant and Mameluk as auxiliaries, so it's hard to choose one game over the other. I don't know if I'd agree with the statement that the Joker can't defend well. It seems to me that it's ability to mimic an attacker's move makes it particularly good at defending and more difficult to use aggressively. I'm not great at chess (in any form), though, so I could be wrong about that.

I'm interested to see what the next games in this series will be like!

Excellent write-up, Eric. I actually didn't know Fischer presented 960 in 1996 - always thought it has been around for longer.

This looks fun

Where can I find an editor so I can have a piece set uploaded?

Really? Insufficient material? What if the opponent has insufficient material?

Metamachy is fun. The historical pieces are all interesting to play with, and the fast pawns keep the game from slowing down too much.

Fergus, in Janggi, if I want to swap both pairs of horses and elephants with each other, do I have to do it in a single action?

This looks like an amazing game! It combines shogi drops with a beautifully simple setup and set of pieces.

Reading the rules makes me want to play it; and also to design something similar, but it seems impossible to make anything quite as elegant as this.

I think it usually makes more sense to have pawns promote only to pieces in their own army.

I like very much short-ranges games, even with not very strong pieces, and this game falls into this category. Here the piece set (only of max 2-square range) is logical and works well, and the presence of 4 Kings, of which one must be checkmated (with the consequence of a unstoppable fork on several Kings being a checkmate), is here to help the outcome of the game. However, even with the 4 Kings, the game seems to take a very long time to finish; the two games in this website that had been led to a conclusion took 85 and (for the game that ended with checkmate) more than 110 turns, which seems too much for a game of that type. And I am a little bit sceptical concerning the mating potential: when most pieces have been exchanged, the four Kings can more easily prevent the Pawns to promote.

One solution would have been stronger 2-square range pieces, in a game closer to a short-range version of Sac Chess, with a KNAD being the strongest piece (or at least Centaurs, or KADs). The presence of the KNAD, able to force checkmate without assistance, would obviously make the game faster and more decisive, but in the same time maybe less balanced and tactically interesting. (In Metamachy, the power of the KNAD/Lion is well balanced by powerful long-range pieces.) And I wouldn’t suggest a change in the piece set of this game; it works well as it is, and a like it.

Another idea is making a game with 2 moves per turn. With the same pieces and victory condition, not only this would make the game shorter, but also the attacks more dangerous and less easy to counter (and the possibility of double check with two pieces). This solution seems to me more interesting, while keeping the character and the concept of the game, than to have stronger pieces.

Thank you for pointing that out. I have now reviewed Pritchard's encyclopedia myself and agree there is a resemblance to Jabberwocky chess, but with fewer circles and no Queen (the King becoming the most powerful moving piece). I think we are getting closer to the origin story here of this board.

Arne Basse, from what I understand was a furniture designer, not known for chess boards. But he or whoever came up with this game could have been influenced by Parton. The timing would have been right as the board was produced in 1966. I wish there was a way to find out more about whether there is an archive of his designs somewhere, presumably in Denmark.

Thank you Fergus, you spotted our problem right!

New information on this thread: Another copy of this chess set has been found in an online posting on Board Game Geek!  Follow this link and scroll down to see the photo and comments: https://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/276021/item/7825120#item7825120

Sadly this set is also missing the rules!  But I am attaching my most recent ruminations on what the rules were when I played the game in my youth :-)

Viking Chess Rules as best as they can be remembered – November 28, 2020

The goal of the game is to checkmate your opponent's king as in regular chess. 

Board: The board is made up of "rings" linking "crosses" (the spaces).  There is a centre space, the “star”, in the middle. 

Pieces: There is a king, 2 rooks (flat tops), 2 bishops (spikes) and 4 pawns per side.

All pieces start off the board.  

On their first turn (white goes first) each player places their king anywhere on the board on any space except the centre space (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). 
In the second and subsequent turns, each player can either move an existing piece on the board or bring another piece onto the board as per turn 1.  

Different pieces move differently as follows:
-	Pawn moves one space in any direction 
-	Rook moves up to 3 spaces up or down, or one space to the side
-	Bishop moves up to 3 spaces around one of the rings, or one space up or down. 
-	King can move up to 3 spaces in any direction up or down

Once placed on the board a piece can enter the centre space or through it.

A player takes an opponent's piece by moving a piece into their opponent's piece's space.  Once a piece is removed from the board it cannot return.  I do not believe there is a rule to promote a pawn to a Bishop or Rook.

The King is the strongest piece on the board combining both the Rook's move (3 up or down) and the Bishop's move (3 around a ring in either direction). 

If the King is taken/mated the game is over.

very interesting have noticed this when i was collating material on renaissance chess some time ago , didn't realise there's an actual different version of chess, thank you for the page Renaissance Chess

Thanks a lot

This is a fantastic game and one that I regularly enjoy playing both with friends or on my own. When playing on my own I change clothes after each move, speak in a different accent and have a different personality/backstory to give the appearance of separate players. Anyway I digress, a fantastic game, enjoy.

It says KisO4 in the list, which is correct, but I didn't update that one. I had guessed that it defaulted to that based on the board size. But I didn't put the king on the board either - it starts there (if that matters.)

I updated those values and now castling works correctly too.

This is VERY impressive. It is now possible to make presets for typical variants with no writing of GAME code at all. Thank you for making this!

I once had a CV of my invention (Wide Chess) gently criticized for my adding to the standard chess army of each side (on a 12x8 board) 4 pawns, plus two pairs of leapers that were somewhat similar to each other, in that they both had an alfil movement as part of their powers. Namely, it was thought said leapers weren't divergent enough from each other.

In the case of (10x8) Royal Court, a pair of leapers plus 2 pawns is added to the army of each side. The leapers have the same movement powers as knights, plus they can also move like a man (often called the Centaur compound). So, I can see how this addition of leapers to the standard chess army might be gently criticized, too (at least they are very powerful leapers, which might relieve any perception of slight redundancy).

Recently I had a couple of ideas of my own about adding pair(s) of fairly knight-like minor pieces to the FIDE army, although I may have rejected these ideas too quickly, partly due to the previous critique (of my Wide Chess). Namely the ideas involved adding either a pair of fibnifs and/or a pair of horse(mao)-wazir compound pieces (depending on the board size I would use). Besides Wide Chess not yet proving popular on Game Courier, I'd add another inhibition I have is that I've seen very few examples on this website of the FIDE army plus pair(s) of pieces added to them, where the pair(s) were not strikingly divergent in some way from other piece type(s) used in the chosen armies. Indeed, Wide Chess and Royal Court are more or less the only counter-examples I've noticed.

https://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/fibnif.html

https://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/mao.html

The design of this game makes no sense to me. The Rook is upgraded to a Dragon King. The Knight is upgraded all the way to an Amazon. The Queen is upgraded to the most powerful piece I have ever heard of. But the poor Bishop is downgraded to a Wazir - a piece that moves only one step horizontally or vertically. One problem is that the board has so much power that it will be a tactical smash-fest. Another problem is that the Wazirs will never move. I cannot imagine any circumstance in which a player would waste a move on them, except possibly to get them out of the way to allow castling, and probably not even then. With all the nightriders, castling will likely be impossible anyway.