| |
Main
Date: 05 Apr 2008 03:11:22
From: Sanny
Subject: What Should I re-name "Grand Chess"?
|
I invented GRAND CHESS But later found the Name is already taken by
someone else
Learn about Grand Chess
http://www.getclub.com/Show/view.php?best=Discussion&itemid=18
It increases the Size of Board to 16x16. With Each piece doubled as
well as board size doubled.
RRNNBBQQKKBBNNRR
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
RRNNBBQQKKBBNNRR
So we have to Finish Two Kings. Current Chess with 1 King you just
find a way to kill the King and you win. With Grand Chess you have to
play much tough game to beat the Opponent. Only Chastling is not
Allowed
ADVANTAGES of Grand Chess
1. You can seperate the Kings and delay the Check Mate.
2. Incase your One king is in trouble you may let it kill while
attacking Opponents Other King. So You have to kill Both the Kings to
Win.
3. The Game will need 200-400 Moves and you can play one game for 1
week. Small blunder will not kill you. If you are a good player you
can win even if you made 1-2 Blunders.
4. Since there are so many possibilities more strategy will be needed
to win the game. Just by attacking one King will not give you a win.
5. Opening theories will be needed for Grand Chess.
Please suggest a new name for this Chess, as GRAND CHESS is already
taken by other people.
Once people start liking this game I will create this game for GetClub
Chess. What do you say how many people will play Grand Chess?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Apr 2008 14:58:52
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: What Should I re-name "Grand Chess"?
|
Sanny, I have already told you
to call your variant
sanchess"
(make sure that it is a new name for a game).
Regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 05 Apr 2008 14:41:41
From:
Subject: Re: What Should I re-name "Grand Chess"?
|
On Apr 5, 12:08 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 5, 8:24 pm, Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 4:11 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > What do you say how many people will play GrandChess?
>
> > I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
> > I don't think anyone has invented a variant quite like yours before,
> > with two of every piece *including the King* and the need to checkmate
> > both of them. But that's howChesson the four-sided board is usually
> > played, and it's played as a partnership game, so the double-dummy
> > version of that already satisfies most people who would be interested
> > in your variant.
>
> > Many people have, for whatever reason, proposed enlarged versions ofChesswhere there are two Queens, four Knights, and so on, however.
> > The ideas was that by not adding pieces with new powers, they could
> > concentrate on makingChesslarger without making it more complicated,
> > and a largerChesswould be a step towards a more realistic wargame.
>
> > Some related games also did add one or two pieces with new powers. The
> > Duke of Rutland'sChessis one example, and several games on an 11 by
> > 11 board come to mind.
>
> > Double-dummy MecklenburgChess, on a 16 by 8 board, or DoubleChesson
> > a 16 by 12 board, are similar to your idea as well, but with a doubly-
> > repeated array rather than an array of piece-pairs. DoubleChess,
> > though, requires checkmating either King, not both.
>
> > John Savard
>
> When we win by Killing just one King. Whole game revolves arround
> surrounding the opponents King and Give Mate in 2/3. But with 2 Kings
> to be finished It would be difficult the kings if they are far away So
> more strategy is needed.
>
> Player can give Sacrifice of 1 King to get a Queen Extra and everyone
> know if you have a Queen Extra how much ahead you can go.
>
> So When 2 kings are there One will never give Queen/Rook/Bishop
> Sacrifice to kill the first King else Opponent can otherwise easily
> win.
>
> So more concentration will be on how to kill opponent pieces and then
> finish opponents both the Kings.
The maker of Millennium Chess, that uses two kings, argues that you
can give up a queen to make the other king on the board vulnerable,
because until you knock out one king, you can't lose the game.
Because there is so much firepower on the board, this is doable.
May I suggest here, that if you want help working on your design, and
playtesting it, propose it as an experimental version and have the
chess variant community help you out, and go with their suggestions.
I am trying to do this with the IAGO Chess System I have actually, for
IAGO, to integrate variants and so on, into IAGO for tournament play.
In no way do I claim to have all the answer, and no way am I go to
pontificate that I have the next chess, or as it is now is the
answer. I would expect experience of play to pan it out in the end,
with what play dictates to decide. Well, that is my take. You might
want to consider more play experience, instead of just theory on what
would or would not work.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 05 Apr 2008 14:36:36
From:
Subject: Re: What Should I re-name "Grand Chess"?
|
On Apr 5, 6:11 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> I invented GRAND CHESS But later found the Name is already taken by
> someone else
Yes, rename it, and port it to Zillions, and watch Zillions play it
100+ times to see what needs to be done. At this point, you have two
unprotected pawns above the outer knights on each side. This is
considered a major no-no as far as designs go, and something you seek
to avoid.
Also, once you have a good new name (call it Sanny Chess, or something
else), then register it on the chessvariants.org site and let people
discuss it there. I would also suggest, if you are going to not have
castling, consider a variant where players get to customize their own
back rows as they like, so they can, through play, see what exactly
works for doubling of everything.
It is key to look at what was done before, and what works and what
doesn't. It is easy to just throw something together. As for it
working, that is another thing.
> So we have to Finish Two Kings. Current Chess with 1 King you just
> find a way to kill the King and you win. With Grand Chess you have to
> play much tough game to beat the Opponent. Only Castling is not
> Allowed
>
> ADVANTAGES of Grand Chess
How is this an advantage? How is merely more better? If you ever run
out to Las Vegas, get one of those 18-24 inch super hotdogs they sell
for less than $2 and try to eat it. It is more of a smaller dog.
Then please comment that more is better.
> 1. You can seperate the Kings and delay the Check Mate.
>
> 2. Incase your One king is in trouble you may let it kill while
> attacking Opponents Other King. So You have to kill Both the Kings to
> Win.
So, you are replacing checkmate with two piece regicide? That is a
basic change to regular chess, which then makes for stalemate to be
useless.
> 3. The Game will need 200-400 Moves and you can play one game for 1
> week. Small blunder will not kill you. If you are a good player you
> can win even if you made 1-2 Blunders.
Will someone please speak up here as to why someone would want to have
a 200-400 move game? Maybe I am missing something. How about people
actually play multiple games instead? By the way, as has been seen in
Millennium Chess, which has a similar piece count to yours, going down
a queen is very damaging. So, a blunder large. Anyhow, how many
times have you actually played your game?
> 4. Since there are so many possibilities more strategy will be needed
> to win the game. Just by attacking one King will not give you a win.
Millennium Chess does this exact same thing, but remains truer to
chess than what you have.
> 5. Opening theories will be needed for Grand Chess.
You mean as in opening books with new moves that have names? Why do
you want to give the world yet another chess game that produces a
thing that people complain about now, that chess is to dependent on
opening book play? May I suggest your chess actually follow the
opening theories of regular chess, so it is comfortable to people?
> Please suggest a new name for this Chess, as GRAND CHESS is already
> taken by other people.
Sanny Chess, Chess Squared, or something else that isn't up on the
chess site, that matches what you want to do. Doppliganger, or
whatever. It is your game.
> Once people start liking this game I will create this game for GetClub
> Chess. What do you say how many people will play Grand Chess?
You mean your Grand Chess or Christian Freeling's Grand Chess?
Christian Freeling's Grand Chess is know, and was designed to solve
the issues with having Capablanca Chess pieces in play. His moving
everything up one row keeps similar spacing, and the mobile rooks in
back add another dimension to chess that replaces castling.
As for your version, I have no idea. My two cents is that the
distance is WAY too longer for my tastes. It takes FOREVER to get
pawns across the board, and there is far too much mobility in the
pieces that have unlimited range. You might want to limited the range
of all the long range pieces to 8 squares, and go from there. Again,
I have no idea how many will play it. I doubt you will be able to
actually be able to play in in real life, finding a board for it.
How many times have you actually played your game? I mean, even run
it in Zillions.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 05 Apr 2008 17:11:24
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: What Should I re-name "Grand Chess"?
|
Sanny wrote:
>I invented GRAND CHESS But later found the Name is already taken by
>someone else
Call it Sanny Chess.
or Spammy Chess.
|
| |
Date: 05 Apr 2008 09:25:47
From: SBD
Subject: Re: What Should I re-name "Grand Chess"?
|
On Apr 5, 11:08 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Player can give Sacrifice of 1 King to get a Queen Extra and everyone
> know if you have a Queen Extra how much ahead you can go.
Don't you then still have to corral 2 kings? Perhaps that is not so
much of an advantage as you think, especially on such a large board,
etc.
But I am sure you have a database of several thousand games to base
this conclusion on. Surely no one, especially not Sanny, with his
"fierce devotion" to research (like Sam of course), would unleash a
variant before they knew a few details? Or could program an orthochess
program that played by the rules.....
>
> So When 2 kings are there One will never give Queen/Rook/Bishop
> Sacrifice to kill the first King else Opponent can otherwise easily
> win.
Bullshit. You don't have a clue as to whether this occurs or not.
> So more concentration will be on how to kill opponent pieces and then
> finish opponents both the Kings.
You are without a clue.
|
| |
Date: 05 Apr 2008 09:08:13
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: What Should I re-name "Grand Chess"?
|
On Apr 5, 8:24=A0pm, Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 5, 4:11 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > What do you say how many people will play GrandChess?
>
> I wouldn't hold my breath.
>
> I don't think anyone has invented a variant quite like yours before,
> with two of every piece *including the King* and the need to checkmate
> both of them. But that's howChesson the four-sided board is usually
> played, and it's played as a partnership game, so the double-dummy
> version of that already satisfies most people who would be interested
> in your variant.
>
> Many people have, for whatever reason, proposed enlarged versions ofChessw=
here there are two Queens, four Knights, and so on, however.
> The ideas was that by not adding pieces with new powers, they could
> concentrate on makingChesslarger without making it more complicated,
> and a largerChesswould be a step towards a more realistic wargame.
>
> Some related games also did add one or two pieces with new powers. The
> Duke of Rutland'sChessis one example, and several games on an 11 by
> 11 board come to mind.
>
> Double-dummy MecklenburgChess, on a 16 by 8 board, or DoubleChesson
> a 16 by 12 board, are similar to your idea as well, but with a doubly-
> repeated array rather than an array of piece-pairs. DoubleChess,
> though, requires checkmating either King, not both.
>
> John Savard
When we win by Killing just one King. Whole game revolves arround
surrounding the opponents King and Give Mate in 2/3. But with 2 Kings
to be finished It would be difficult the kings if they are far away So
more strategy is needed.
Player can give Sacrifice of 1 King to get a Queen Extra and everyone
know if you have a Queen Extra how much ahead you can go.
So When 2 kings are there One will never give Queen/Rook/Bishop
Sacrifice to kill the first King else Opponent can otherwise easily
win.
So more concentration will be on how to kill opponent pieces and then
finish opponents both the Kings.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 05 Apr 2008 08:24:13
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: What Should I re-name "Grand Chess"?
|
On Apr 5, 4:11 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> What do you say how many people will play Grand Chess?
I wouldn't hold my breath.
I don't think anyone has invented a variant quite like yours before,
with two of every piece *including the King* and the need to checkmate
both of them. But that's how Chess on the four-sided board is usually
played, and it's played as a partnership game, so the double-dummy
version of that already satisfies most people who would be interested
in your variant.
Many people have, for whatever reason, proposed enlarged versions of
Chess where there are two Queens, four Knights, and so on, however.
The ideas was that by not adding pieces with new powers, they could
concentrate on making Chess larger without making it more complicated,
and a larger Chess would be a step towards a more realistic wargame.
Some related games also did add one or two pieces with new powers. The
Duke of Rutland's Chess is one example, and several games on an 11 by
11 board come to mind.
Double-dummy Mecklenburg Chess, on a 16 by 8 board, or Double Chess on
a 16 by 12 board, are similar to your idea as well, but with a doubly-
repeated array rather than an array of piece-pairs. Double Chess,
though, requires checkmating either King, not both.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 05 Apr 2008 06:00:14
From: SBD
Subject: Re: What Should I re-name "Grand Chess"?
|
Have you even tried to consult the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants to
note whether or not this has been tried before?
Didn't think so.
|
|
