Comments by DavidCannon

I don't regularly comment on others' games and when I do, I hate to give a negative grade. However, as there are already quite a number of 3D variants, I can only compare this game to some of them.

1. 3D chess creates extra paths on which pieces may move. The most obvious of these is the so-called 'trigonal' path (like a diagonal path, but not colour-bound); various variants have introduced a UNICORN or a MACE as a line-piece to move on this path. A variant that misses this is really lacking something important, I feel.

2. One weakness with the starting position is that a couple of simple moves by the Rook or the Queen can check the opposing King. As white moves first, this gives quite a head-start to white, which is not fair.

3. The piece density is too low. FIDE chess has 32 pieces for 64 cells (50%); Shogi has 40 pieces for 81 cells (almost the same, although Shogi's pieces are somewhat weaker). Changgi (Korean Chess) has a lower density of 32 pieces for 81 points (40%). Now, there's nothing sacred about these percentages, but they have stood the test of time. Having designed quite a few games and playtested them on Zillions of Games, I've found that Changgi's 40% density is close to the lower limit at which one may play a satisfactory game. With too low a density, the players just chase each other around the board forever. (My own Diamond Chess 306, whose Zillions file you can download from this site, has a 38% density, but in two of the variants each piece is really a three-piece compound that can be unpackaged). The popular 5x5x5 variants have a 16 percent density, which I find too low. Your own 32 pieces per 320 cells is only a 10 percent density. You've got to be joking.

Now, some suggestions for you, Hafsteinn: 1. Either borrow a Unicorn/Mace-like piece from other variants to ride the Trigonal path, or modify one of the existing pieces to utilize it. 2. Give us something most of the existing 3D variants haven't got. Leapers, for example. Most existing variants simply extrapolate the Knight's move (one orthogonal step plus one diagonal step) to the 3D board. How about bringing in some new leapers that cover the orthogonal plus trigonal, and diagonal plus trigonal, steps? 3. Increase your piece density! Either reduce the size of the board, or increase the number of pieces. (I know the solution is problematic - I'm working on the idea myself, and it's tying my brain in knots - but we've got to try).

This game is definitely not balanced. Black (Shatranj) will blow white (Shogi) out of the water, unless it's Deep Blue versus a complete novice. The two Lances are NO match for the Rooks, and I really question whether the Silver is more valuable than a Knight in the end-game. Cazeaux balanced his game by varying the number of pieces. We definitely need to bring back the Shogi Rook and Bishop if we're going going to get anywhere near balancing this game.

You're on the right track with this one, Daniil.

That's a great step in the right direction! Yes, it is complicated, which is why I've never published any of my own 3D explorations here - I've never been satisfied with the results.

If you want to experiment with your ideas, we've got quite a few Zillions experts around here. (I know a little Zillions programming, but I'm no expert and it takes me weeks to produce a functional game, but there are others here who could do a better job much more quickly). If you have a Zillions implementation and let the computer play against itself, you can see what goes on and analyse it - which I've found very helpful.

I think I spoke a little too hastily last night. I've seen a few too many games that seemed just slapped together, but now that I've taken a look around some of your work, I can see that's not what you're about. It's probably a good thing that you've submitted your 'first draft' raw for others to look at, and I'm sorry I shot from the hip last night.

I've just released version 2.0, a significant upgrade. The layout has been changed, with a greater piece density. The graphics have all been improved, and a new Zillions of Games file has been posted.

Hi Joe! Wow, you've put a lot of thought into your analysis of 3D games. Obviously, you and I have reached different conclusions concerning piece densities, but then, different ideas are what having multiple variants is all about.

There are a number of ways to increase the number of pieces without getting too complicated. One way is simply to have more of the familiar range of pieces - e.g., four Rooks instead of two, etc. Another is to make new pieces with new moves, or to borrow pieces from other well-known variants (such as the Elephant and the Cannon from Korean Chess). A third way is to have compound pieces (a number of my own games explore this possibility).

I appreciate your offer to 'host' both Hafsteinn's version and mine (which is still on the drawing board). I'll have to crystallize my ideas a bit more and get back to you about that as soon as possible.

Hi Hafsteinn! You can download the full version of Zillions here. The cost is $24.98 (or a little extra, if you want to receive a CD). Believe me, it's worth it!

I wouldn't worry too much about 'stealing' others' pieces. Anything completely original wouldn't be a chess variant - it would be something else entirely! Of course, you can't just copy the game in toto and present it as your own, but there's nothing wrong with borrowing ideas, as long as you acknowledge the source. I did this with a number of my games, such as Diamond Chess 306. The tiling pattern and many of the pieces are taken from Parachess, an earlier game by Tony Paletta. I did invent a number of new pieces, but many of them are logical extensions of Paletta's ideas. I briefly acknowledged my debt to him (and to Fergus Duniho, for some other ideas) on the web page, and in more detail on the information file that I included in the Zillions package.

One weakness, as I see it, with a lot of 3D games is that the King is too mobile, making checkmate problematic. We'd all do well to explore ways to address this.

That'll work:-)

Thank you, Daniil. Thanks also for your suggestion about having only seven rather than nine files. I suppose it comes down to personal taste - I mostly prefer larger boards to smaller ones (my Chess on a Soccer Ball is an exception). But yes, removing one of the rooks and its file would work well too.

Another thing you might notice: most of my games allow pieces to merge with other pieces; this one does not. That is deliberate: as this board was designed with the Bishop in mind, I want to let the Bishop shine without merging with other pieces.

Good concept. I've always liked the idea of adding new pieces with various kinds of movements. You've done it very tastefully, too.

This is very much better now! I'm pleased to see some new pieces, too.

Thank you for your kind words, Hafsteinn. As I've explained on my main page, I no longer rate this game so highly. Fergus Duniho made some games based on a similar concept, but much better designed and implemented, so I'd rather you played his.

I feel flattered by all the 'excellent' grades people gave me, but at that time, there were not so many games posted on the CV pages so people didn't have much to compare it with. I would probably rate it as 'below average' or 'poor' myself now, which is why I've never programmed it and have never made any diagrams. But this was my first serious attempt to design a game, and I've left this page standing to remind me of where I came from.

I did use the idea of pieces merging with other pieces for many of my other games (Diamond Chess 306, Dürer's Chess, Matrix Chess). You could saw that I see this game, not so much as a game worth playing, but as more of a source of raw material for other games.

This is a good concept. The only other pentagonal variant I know of is one produced by Graeme Neatham, so this is a barely explored field. There are a number of pentagonal tesalations that tile the plane, all of which offer possibilities for unusual piece movements. Thank you for submitting this game.

I'll be adding the finishing touches to a Zillions of Games file over the next 48 hours.

Please bear with me. I have two more images to finish off and upload, along with a Zillions of Games file. It's 1:31AM and I'm very tired, so I think I'll get around to it tomorrow night.

I'm always delighted to see a game using new tiling patterns. This pentagonal tiling is one that I have thought about, but never gotten round to implementing. Thanks for sharing this one, Charles!

On the whole I like this game, but please refrain from making claims that cannot be substantiated. 'No opening book' and 'No end game strategies' are, in my judgement, subjective claims. FIDE chess - officially - has no opening book either. No does it have any official end game strategy. Just look up the rules of FIDE chess - you won't find anything about openings or end games. The popular openings (Ruy Lopez, Sicilian, etc.) are simply choices that have become popular because players have found them workable. Your game, Steven, isn't well known yet. But you can bet your life on it that if and when it does become well-known, people will be analyzing opening and closing strategies to find optimal advantages for each player.

A simple but far-reaching innovation which creates some interesting possibilities for play.

I have just released version 2.1, whose greatly optimised code should make the game run much more efficiently, especially on older computers.