Rated Comments

I have 2 questions about the brouhaha squares:

1) What is the advantage of allowing a capture on a brouhaha square? Spontaneously, I find this strange: I understood that such a square hosts a piece until it is activated and enter into play, then the square disapears. Then, this square is not part of the play area really. So, I wouldn't have allowed a capture on it at all. Maybe there is something I don't see.

2) Why this name of "brouhaha" square? At least in French a brouhaha is a surrounding noise. Those squares are more like a fog, brouillard in French. Brouhaha/brouillard, is there a linguistic confusion there? 

Welcome to our two new editors. It's great to see some new blood. 

Next step : see some new blood in terms of contributors, not just editors, too. I'll try to find time to design a new variant or two myself, if I can get some letup from my 70-hours a week job, but I'd also love to see a lot more game designers get on board.

Great idea. I have always loved Fischerrandom Chess, but I really don't like the way it gives players no control over where their pieces start. I also consider Fischer's castling rule to be cludgy and it's hard to believe that a man of his genius came up with that. Your project fixes those shortcomings. 

One tweak I'd make if it were up to me is to require both players to enter ALL their pieces before making any other moves. White would enter a piece, followed by black, and they'd take it in turns to enter pieces, one at a time, until the first and eighth ranks were full. Of course, Bishops must be required to be on different coloured squares. 

Thank you very much. I have been able to upload all diagrams and the process was very lean. 

Yesterday, it was my mistake for the size limit. Instead of uploading the jpg diagrams I have made for my own website, I uploaded instead the source images coming from the board painting tool, which are much heavier. Thank you for your help.

The texts still says: The antelope is a (3,4)-jumper, i.e., it moves (with or without taking) four squares horizontally and five vertically, or five squares horizontally and four vertically.

It should be corrected as:

The antelope is a (3,4)-jumper, i.e., it moves (with or without taking) four squares horizontally and three vertically, or three squares horizontally and four vertically.

Btw, what is the name of the (2,4) jumper?

Pieces are never attacking friendly pieces or I miss something

That is the answer to my question. So if a virgin King is on h1, a black Bishop on h2, and a black Knight on g4, the King can move to h3. If his own Bishop was on h2 instead, he could not.

Some people would say pieces can attack the square a friendly piece is on. They obviously cannot capture it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as being attacked. E.g. when my King stands next to an enemy Pawn that is protected, does he attack that Pawn?

Personally this rule strikes me as quite illogical; to pass through a square it should be empty, and if you don't pass through it but jump over it, you shouldn't have to worry if you are attacked there. And I wonder how much this rule actually affects the game; it seems very hard to attack any squares next to the enemy King before he moves away to safety, as he starts buried behind 2 or 3 ranks of pieces. Especially if he can jump.

In general I like your variants a lot, because you do not only feature super-strong pieces (much stronger that Rook), but also Knight-class pieces. Most variants suffer from an over-abudance of Queen-class pieces. The middle of the strength spectrum is still a bit under-populated, though: almost none of the pieces is close to a Rook in value.

Looks great

I think this game is OK, but I do not care for the promotion rules.  The game does not have a queen, so promotion to queen would already be the strongest piece.  The amazon seems excessive and most games that feature that piece are not very good IMO.  The amazon attacks in 16 directions while the next strongest piece - the rook - only attacks four.

Thanks a lot. I didn't know about Lioness, very good.

Very good information! What is not clear for me at the moment if that Asakura shogi is a reconstruction of a possible step in the evolution of shogi, or if that form of game is really asserted and supported by historical proofs. I may ask a specialist that   I know. Thank you again.

I came on this page and I am horrified to read what I read.

"In H.J.R. Murray's History of Chess, page 181 states that the Alfonso manuscript was published in about the year 1211" >> no, not 1211! Murray wrote it right: 1283. 

"which on page 346 is said to have used algebraic notation, and to have described a chess variant that included the modern B and Q": not at all!
That chess variant wich used algerbric notation and modern move is another one, from India, written in Persian and dated 1796-8. It is reported quite clear in Murray page 181 for who has eyes to read!

Page 348, Murray gave a short description of Grant Acedrex from King Alfonso X.Today this is better known thanks to the PhD work of Sonja Musser. I worked a bit with her on this, this is reported in my book A World of Chess (McFarland, 2017). In few words: what was called Unicornio in medieval spanish was clearly a Rhinoceros. So the Rhino was a piece first jumping like a Knight, then going away like a Bishop.

It was the counterpart of another piece moving one step diagonal then moving away on rows and columns. That later piece is called Aanca in the manuscript. It's an Arabic word, not Spanish, designating a giant Eagle or prey bird, from oriental legends (able to carry elephants). This was mistakenly traduced by Gryphon by Murray. This is unfortunate as the Gryphon was a very different legendary animal. This is why I prefer to use the name of Eagle in Metamachy and not Gryphon to avoid replicating that mistake.
 

"Not described there is a piece which makes a one step Rook move and then continues outwards as a Bishop. For lack of a name, I'll call it the Aanca." 
No no no please! Aanca is the Giant Eagle, or the Gryphon if you want. Do not give that name of Aanca to a piece which is different and is more like the Unicornio / Rhinoceros. This is a very very bad idea. Stop adding confusion, I wish one is more careful when reading the work of Murray.

I don't usually like games with different armies, but this is an exception. You've put a lot of thought into making a game whose different armies are not unevenly matched. For sure, the Spartan side lacks a Queen and its army appears to be slightly less powerful, but that is compensated for by the presence of two kings, both of which must be checkmated/captured. 

I can't believe this game hasn't been reviewed yet. This is the best game I've played that includes an Amazon. I normally leave the Amazon out of my games, because it has the power to force checkmate by itself, and that has the potential to wreak a game. However, that hasn't been a problem with this game. This game includes several other weaker compound pieces that help make it unsafe to move the Amazons out too early. To get to the point where you could use an Amazon to force checkmate against a King, you have to do lots of maneuvering of other pieces. Furthermore, the potential of the Amazon getting a bead on the King means that position is sometimes more important than material advantage. You can't count on winning just because you are ahead materially. If you find that you can't stop your opponent's Amazon, you may lose even if you're materially ahead. This makes the game more dynamic and exciting.

Hi, thank you for your comment.

Raphael mentioned his comment to me. Loving / Preferences are individual choices.

I have a clear conflict of interest here. 

Is the fact that the recognised variants section wasn't updated from 2006 means that the administrators of chessvariants haven't found any new / recent variant worth to be added ?

Just to mention that recently, there was many things new concerning Musketeer Chess: Jocly website went down so your website, mine and HG Muller work are the only websites where it's possible to play this variant.

Many engine programmers become to have growing interest in it. The major one is for sure Stockfish that recently released Musketeer Stockfish. There are a total of 6 Programmers that already made engines for Musketeer Chess, which is not an easy variant to program due to the rules that concern the Piece selection and the "Gating Selection" = squares where the pieces will enter the game.

This growing interest is for sure for me a good thing. The majority of these programmers tried to play the game and loved it. 

Have you an idea if there are other variants that are currently commercial ?

I runned tens of thousands of engine games and played myself hundreds. 

My conclusions based on these tests are as follows: The game seems to be balanced as there are almost equal winning chances comparing black and white chances, and the draw percentage is low (less than 8%). Seirawan Chess that Inspired Musketeer Chess favors clearly White for example.

Thanks again for your comment: PS working on a wiki page and i mentioned your Game Courier in it. A really nice tool.

I hope also that Lichess will add it to their server.

Well hey, apparently I never commented on this!

I quite like it! The interplay between needing pieces on the arena/safer on the enchanted squares is quite unusual.

Creating your own army is fun, and ensures no game start will be quite the same.

This is a very cohesive & well thought out variant.

Very good, well-thought out game, with pieces which compliment the board--some require elevator movement, some use the empty shafts, and the ox can use them to capture. Nicely done.

I will say the rules allowing the flying pieces to go 'up, through an elevator trapdoor' feel very unintuitive; especially if playing with a physical set. It makes more sense to me to allow flying pieces to go either up or down through the empty shafts only; this would also make it impossible to threaten an identical piece without also being in danger.

Still, a very good variant!

This looks like a decent 10x10 variant; it has the basic Chess pieces--with more mobile Pawns-- and well-known Knightriders & XiangQi Cannons.

The King game-winning 'promotion' rule could liven up the endgames without totally changing the game.

However, I am confused as to the logic behind the apparently abitrary initial setup. The Rooks have an open rank (like Grand Chess) which is fine.  But the Horsemen (modified Pawns) are more mobile--but start very close to each other.  So close, in fact, they can't use their forward most moves initially without being captured.   Except the Horsemen on the far ends; they start one rank farther back for no discernable reason. 

The forward pawn lines leave a bunch of space to the rear; considering the vast area there aren't very many other pieces.

Also, the Knights are back a rank from the Horsemen, consequently they cannot move forward as the first move. They are protecting Horsemen, but it seems like there ought to be another way to do this.

Xhess is quite playable, but I'm left with the impression the starting setup could use an overhaul.

This is a really good idea, the only problem being it really needs a custom Chess set.

I'm guessing it would require similar bluffing strategy like Stratego. I can see myself thinking "hummm, that faux Pawn can't be anything valuable, it's too exposed.... unless that's what he wants me to think....or, he could be counting on me to think that's what he wants me to think...."

:-)

This actually has a decent chance of commercial success, in my opinion. It's got 'wow' factor, but close enough to normal Chess to feel familiar.

Great idea.

Today played a game of Rotary with a set of pieces I made myself. It is a very nice game. The rotational element adds a nice layer of tactics. Only thing that feels weird is the promotion rule 

In my opinion, this is not a very good Grand Chess variant.

Grand Chess is built upon two main ideas; getting rid of castling by freeing the Rooks in the back rank, and introducing the two 'missing' compounds to be additional high-value pieces--the Cardinal & Marshall.

Euchess moves the Rooks back and re-introduces castling, and then doubles the number of Cardinals & Marshalls--but, inconsistently, keeps one Queen.

Ignoring the lack of numerical consistency, this is really bad from a playable perspective--the sheer number of power pieces diminished the value of Knights & Bishops significantly.

Euchess is much too top-heavy, power wise, and significantly dimishes the point of the open back row. (Marshalls, with their Knight move, don't need the room to be developed.)

I think there is room for some interesting variants of Grand Chess, but this isn't one of them.

I have to comment it for having simple yet original rules, promising a good entertainment, perhaps even well commercially-sold.

Happy 25th anniversary, Chess Variant Pages!

Kevin!...

About game courier just ask me and I'l' do it. It is fine for me!...

I'll also teach you how!...

Yes that type of elelphant it is the lieutenenat of spartan chess. Or "the captain" I'm not sure. I like it because it is closer in value to the knight. Also the non square nature of the board helps. An alternative for another game (as you used in wide chess which we have played once) is the waffle. I think a lieutenant game and a waffle game would be more interesting than the 12x8 one! That is my opinion.

About Vao: maybe Dawson gave that name because it was phonetically from the same family than Pao, and the V because this letter is made of diagonal strokes. Maybe it is not that, but it can be used as a mnemotecnic mean. Remark, it could have used Xao as well, that would have been looking more Chinese.