Let's talk about Space

We all know very well that Chess is a battle; but in what moment of the battle are we exactly at the beginning of the game? Well, we are in the instant immediately preceding the clash of the two armies.

Pieces can start capturing each other right after first move; It's not two armies preparing the ground for the next battle, or provoking each other at a distance for long hours before approaching. Here they are already thrown at each other, just the moment before the melee.

Also, if we take a look at the chessboard in the initial position, we notice that pieces occupy exactly half of it. The game of chess is made with the right proportions and it's so engaging maybe because it encompasses the right balance of spaces.

You can mate the opposite king because the number of pieces available and their strength, in relation to available space, are sufficient to constrain it within a space where it can be defeated. If the opponent had ample space available in which to wander indefinitely, the game would not be as compelling.

Now several proposals of 3D chess have been circulating for 170 years; but none of them ever took off seriously. The reason in my opinion lies in the fact that creators were rightfully fascinated by the wide possibilities of movement for pieces; but perhaps they didn't consider proportions between forces and spaces.

When you add one more dimension, the space is not simply expanded, but multiplied; you get huge spaces where the pieces risk "feeling lost". As a result it can become difficult to really engage in battle; like two armies chasing each other over a wide territory without ever really clashing. This way the game becomes boring and clueless.

Many creators conceived 8x8x8 chessboards as a normal evolution of the traditional 8x8; thus multiplying spaces by a factor of 8; but without multiplying the number of pieces as much. Historically quite often the same creators or others decide later on to reduce their proposals to 4x4x4, 5x5x5 chessboards or similar. This happens because they remain tied to the original number of pieces, which can be 32 or a little more.

My thought has been: if you want to recreate the same fascination in a space with a huge number of opportunities, you should multiply the number of pieces by the same factor, as well as increasing their strength. This is why I thought to deploy in my 3D-GrandChess an impressive mass of 256 GrandPieces in a space of 512 boxes. That's exactly the half. So this way those who love complexity have reason to have lots of fun.

After all, it's only a matter of proportion.

Completely agree

I'm definitely a fan of increasing the size of the armies. XXL didn't quite cut it for me (I thought 16x16 was a better concept than 14x14). Here is something I made called Colossal Chess:

Also, I think checkmates in 3D are certainly going to be interesting given the nature of variability and escape for King in 3 dimensions.

This very much resembles the deployment of a legion before battle. A legion could comprise up to 6000 men.

That was what I was going for. Just a rediculously massive army. Also to create a variant that was larger than the previous "largest chess variant" which was a type of shogi on a 36x36 board.