[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Game Reviews (and other rated comments on Game pages)
I like this idea. I have to try this out with some friends sometime soon. -=T=-
Honestly! See Jean-Louis Cazaux's page on the relative ages of 2-handed
and 4-handed Chaturanga. It can be found at:
<ul>
<li><a href='http://www.chez.com/cazaux/chaturanga.htm'>http://www.chez.com/cazaux/chaturanga.htm</a>
</ul>
Neither Forbes nor Cullen are considered exactly up-to-date sources, you
know.
I have always liked the idea of using the unicorn as a knight with an added dimension of movement. it's how i first imagined he would move instead of as a bishop with an added dimension. when my friends and i play, we use it this way because we find that there aren't very many good strategies that the unicorn can implement moving as a bishop. as a knight, we allow it to move in all three dimensions, one space in two and two spaces in one, ie. foward once, left once, up twice, or back one, right twice and up once. there are many combinations and it is much more difficut to determine where it will end up allowing surprise attacks to the uncautious. i haven't sat down and analysed any potential problems using the piece this way, nor have my friend and i encountered any. as for the king, we found it becomes easier to check mate if you cut out 8 of his moves, those eight being where he moves in 3d diaganols. this is just my input of minor tweaks to an otherwise great impemintation of 3d chess. the most fun one i've played as a matter of fact.
You could have a version of Castlingmost Chess with captures -- when castling with a friendly piece not separated from the castling piece by
friendly pieces, any opposing pieces between them are captured. You may still castle with opposing pieces, just not capture in those cases.
I was taught that there can only be one Queen in a game of Chess regardless. Is this wrong? Email to joec40@gtepacifica.net. Wish to avoid arguments during a game of Chess.
Dear Hans, your e-mail server doesn't work. My e-mail was sent back to me. Now my comments to 'Vierschach': Vierschach was invented by the famous German doctor Dr. G. Arthur Lutze (1813-1870). He invented a health coffee, founded the Lutze clinic in Koethen (Sachsen-Anhalt) and was one of the greatest homeopath.He wrote a poem called 'Der Drachenfels' (a mountain near the former capital of Western Germany, Bonn. The Drachenfels is also called the highest mountain of the Netherlands, because so many Dutch people climb it.)which was set to music by Johann Karl Gottfied Loewe (1796-1869)in 1838. A photo of Dr. Lutze: http://www.kulturstaetten-koethen.de/tourismus/images/lutze_1.jpg The game is described in: Heinz Machatscheck. Zug um Zug: Die Zauberwelt der Brettspiele. Verlag Neues Leben Berlin. 6th edition, 1990. (pp. 65-66) BTW you have the book in your collection, Hans (your description of Russian Fortress Chess is based on it.) I have rated the site as 'poor' because when I try to print it, your site crashes the workstation of the Institute for Data Processing at Tuebingen University. There must be a major bug in the html of your page. Ralf
Well, I had to go view the complainant's cited page, to give him his due, and it might appear that he, or at least someone, has a modest commercial interest in this issue. I might be more inclined to give his views some thought...especially since I once held them...but for his utter lack of politeness. The preponderance of the evidence in 2002 argues for the 2-handed game being first, possibly by centuries, but the question is surely not settled.
Ijust got a chinese chess set from my sister so I tried how to figure out how to play but this website didn't explain to me well enough so I could actually play.
In reply to last comment: Bush is an exceptional leader, who has charasmatic insight on group dynamics. Nontheless, RAND has more to do with game theory than our leader.
The description contains several errors: The right corner of White A ('South') must be a dark square. The book written by Theodor Müller-Alfeld contains a rather long explanation why this MUST be so. The position of the Queens and Kings must THEN be exchanged so that the Queens are on the square of their own color. Ralf
This is a nice idea, but the pieces you call Hobbits have been around for
a while. For example, John Williams Brown called them Stewards, and used
them in <a href='../large.dir/contest/cenchess.html'>Centennial Chess</a>;
however, this is a nice use of them.
<p>
As for the 9x9 game, I notice that all four Bishops are on White. Now,
some people like it like that -- consider Gabriel Maura's game of
<a href='../large.dir/modern.html'>Modern Chess</a> which also has four
Bishops on the same color -- but you still might want to consider something
like Carlos Cetina's <a href='../varvar.dir/bcr.html'>Bishop's Conversion
Rule</a>, when one Bishop has to change color on its first move.
I do like to see a good Chess variant with dice once in a while. So many
variant designers and players have an attitude about anything with a random
element which I suspect stems from delusions about the predictablity of
the real world.
What an interessing game! One that I will probably try to convince my friends to play with! :-)
This reminds me of a Modest Variant I came up with once: Rooks --> Champions Bishops --> Wizards Knights --> Princes (Knight + 0/3 Leaper) Queens --> A Piece Without A Name (Zebra + 3/3 leaper) (K and P stay the same) Each of these three pieces has exactly 12 moves it can make, and they all compliment each other nicely. --Jared
I like the information that was added in, but can we really prove that this game came before chinese chess?
Nice page it really helped me learn to play the game.
Wow, this is definatly one for the logisticly inclined ;) It may make your head hurt, but it's a lot of fun.
Nicely fluidly weird. Normally leapers greater than maybe (3,0) or (2,1) don't work on a board this size, but with <strong>everything</strong> but the King/General and Pawns/Sergeants leaping, this isn't the usual problem.
<p>
One thing I noticed is that it is very common for Pegasi to be exchanged, which is unfortunate as they are interesting pieces. It might be nice to treat them as like Lions in Chu Shogi (or Golems in Golem Chess, which borrowed the idea from Chu Shogi) and not let them be exchanged easily.
MY TEACHER (NOW DECEASED) I CONSIDERED TO BE BOTH EXCELLENT IN PLAY AND KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE GAME, AND HE TAUGHT ME ONCE A PAWN HAS REACHED THE 8TH RANK, IT MAY BE PROMOTED TO ANY PIECE THE PLAYER DECLARES, INCLUDING A QUEEN, EVEN IF HE ALL READY HAS ONE.
I owned the game in the 70's but it wasn't 's' shaped...it was the traditional three regular 8x8 boards overlapping by 1 square so they were somewhat offset instead of directly over each board and the way we used to play was regular chess moves uninterrupted and costing one move for each level jump (directly up) so you actually had to think with multi-level possibilities since telegraphing forth coming moves was entirely too obvious. One player began on the top and the second began on the bottom with normal set-up...jumps to the middle made play functional. It was my favorite game growing up because my dad who taught me how to play never mastered it...we didn't play much after I mastered it. I haven't played much chess since I lost that board and I'm looking for another. I've been watching Trek since it began and never noticed the similarity. My board came from May Cohens in Jacksonville, Florida...a now defunct company...don't know who made it. Any hope on finding one interests me...let me know.
After playing around with this game a bit, it seems to me that the Great
Pajamas are somewhat disadvantaged: the Box can pull out unlimited Bats,
as long as the one per column rule is followed, and the Pajamas can keep
pulling out Elephants, as long as there is only one of your color on the
board at a time, but once the Great Pajamas have pulled out the Great
Elephant, all they can do is generate Dust Bunnies and Dust Demons. It
doesn't seem fair.
<p>
Perhaps the Great Pajamas should also be able to pull out an Investigator
and/or a Cook. Cooks, as we know from Cheskers, are Camels (Long Knights).
An Investigator would be a Nemesis -- a piece that moves like a King, but
only towards the opposing Royal piece. Now, in Captain Spalding Chess that
would be too powerful, so perhaps it could have a Nemesis that moves like
a Wazir, but can only makes moves that would leave it closer to the opposing
Box. If an Investigator is captured, it may be pulled out by the Great
Pajamas again.
There is a clear rule which the F.I.D.E. ought to specify: The king cannot move to a square under control (check) of an enemy chessman even if that chessman is pinned. (To be pinned = to be in line between its own king and its enemy queen, rook or bishop). Please tell me how to clarify this rule according to F.I.D.E. laws? email: nigel_j2000@yahoo.co.in
Very nice, useful summary, although I'm not sure where I stand on the issue of which version existed first. There's bound to be some disagreement, of course, and I hardly think that because someone disagrees with you, their view on the subject is 'appalling.'
From the german Book by Theodor Müller-Alfeld I can add some more information: The pieces of Gala have special names: Gala (King), Korna (Rook), Horsa (Bishop) and Kampa (Pawn). Historical games have bigger pieces for the Galas, Kornas have green heads and Horsas have red heads, while Kampas are left unmarked. The pieces are represented in Theodor Müller-Alfeld by simple geometric shapes: Gala by octothorpe (#), Korna bei square, Horsa by cross (x) and Kampa by circle (o). Unfortunately, I cannot answer the open questions about the movement of the pieces from my source either. --Jörg Knappen
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.