Rate this variant idea if you want
One of my variant ideas
Sort:
Jan 1, 2024
0
#3
8.4
nice peice ideas
one question do you have any queens onn this game?
Rubysi escreveu:
8.4
nice peice ideas
one question do you have any queens onn this game?
theres no queens on this variant, the closest thing to a queen on this variant is the amazon, on this variant Pawns promote to Wizard, Champion, Carriage, Hawk, Gold General, Silver General, Giraffe, Zebra, Crowned Bishop and Crowned Rook on the 16th Rank
josephruhf wrote:
Can the king leap?
No, the king on this variant can move normally but also move 2 squares horizontally or vertically but without jumping over or capturing pieces, but the king still can capture normally
3.8 the variant is just a bunch of pieces everywhere. lots of fool mates.
Arjun1516 wrote:
3.8 the variant is just a bunch of pieces everywhere. lots of fool mates.
Wrong: Theres lots of pieces protecting squares and pawns
How can you say wrong to a rating goes you don't agree with it, why would the creator agree with a 3.8
Arjun1516 wrote:
How can you say wrong to a rating goes you don't agree with it, why would the creator agree with a 3.8
I dont disagree with your rating, i am just saying that theres Not too much fools mates unlike what you say
This is a very interesting large board variant.
I'll go over my critiques first.
The amount of pieces would certainly take some getting used to. There are quite a lot of pieces. I feel if I were to play this, I would have to glance back at the piece guides a lot in the beginning.
It seems you have taken an assortment of variant pieces and slung them onto a board. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; you seem to have arranged them in a position where all of the pieces are well protected. I just feel that your game may be a bit more incoherent without a central system or design principle guiding the way you design the moves of the pieces.
I must be very honest, I despise the material rule. The fact that checkmate is now limited restricted so much strategy. Are not the greatest moves brilliant sacrifices to land a devastating blow to your opponent's position, or perhaps even checkmate their king? What is material anyway? Is it the point value of the pieces you have totaled up? If so, have you ensured that the values truly reflect the power of the pieces? This rule is deeply arbitrary and strips your game of much dynamic, interesting play.
The opposite castling also feels arbitrary. I understand that opposite castling leads to a much more offensive, tense game, but limiting a player's freedom to castle in both directions seems like an unnecessary thing to lose. A weird rule, but certainly not as bad as the material rule.
There are a number of good attributes to this game, however.
The variety of the pieces would certainly lead to very interesting, unique positions. There are many, many different ways to attack. I would certainly like to play a game or two to simply play around with the way the pieces attack and support.
I like the way you gave additional mobility to the pawns and kings. This is a good way to compensate for the size of the board, and the overall increased power of the board.
Though this is quite the mishmash collection of pieces, you have set them up in a very good position. The king has room to move inside the pawn line, to ensure fools' mates of long range leapers don't occur. The pieces and pawns seem well-protected (although I haven't actually thoroughly checked that, but I'm sure you have).
Overall, I think this is a good concept for a large board variant. The piece design (consistency wise) and rules need some tweaking, but I think you're onto something here!
I'd give it a 7 out of 10. If you keep working on this idea, you could have a very nice variant.
Charintellectual wrote:
This is a very interesting large board variant.
I'll go over my critiques first.
The amount of pieces would certainly take some getting used to. There are quite a lot of pieces. I feel if I were to play this, I would have to glance back at the piece guides a lot in the beginning.
It seems you have taken an assortment of variant pieces and slung them onto a board. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; you seem to have arranged them in a position where all of the pieces are well protected. I just feel that your game may be a bit more incoherent without a central system or design principle guiding the way you design the moves of the pieces.
I must be very honest, I despise the material rule. The fact that checkmate is now limited restricted so much strategy. Are not the greatest moves brilliant sacrifices to land a devastating blow to your opponent's position, or perhaps even checkmate their king? What is material anyway? Is it the point value of the pieces you have totaled up? If so, have you ensured that the values truly reflect the power of the pieces? This rule is deeply arbitrary and strips your game of much dynamic, interesting play.
The opposite castling also feels arbitrary. I understand that opposite castling leads to a much more offensive, tense game, but limiting a player's freedom to castle in both directions seems like an unnecessary thing to lose. A weird rule, but certainly not as bad as the material rule.
There are a number of good attributes to this game, however.
The variety of the pieces would certainly lead to very interesting, unique positions. There are many, many different ways to attack. I would certainly like to play a game or two to simply play around with the way the pieces attack and support.
I like the way you gave additional mobility to the pawns and kings. This is a good way to compensate for the size of the board, and the overall increased power of the board.
Though this is quite the mishmash collection of pieces, you have set them up in a very good position. The king has room to move inside the pawn line, to ensure fools' mates of long range leapers don't occur. The pieces and pawns seem well-protected (although I haven't actually thoroughly checked that, but I'm sure you have).
Overall, I think this is a good concept for a large board variant. The piece design (consistency wise) and rules need some tweaking, but I think you're onto something here!
I'd give it a 7 out of 10. If you keep working on this idea, you could have a very nice variant.
Thank you for your feedback! And by the way: the material rule means how much material points you have: for example: if you have a Amazon and a Carriage (Xiangqi Horse + Wazir Compound) then you have 15 points of material
AALIDAR wrote:
Basically more complex Than XXL chess, I like it, but again, it seems a little messy. 8.5/10 take it or leave it
I will take it, but i think I will make a new version of this variant (still with a 16x16 board) but with less pieces so its easier to remember the initial position and to seem less messy
Well, this variant idea cant be created on chess.com but lets talk about it anyways
There is the initial position:
Rooks and Bishops moves normally
Pawn Promotion: Pawns promote to Wizard, Champion, Carriage, Hawk, Gold General, Silver General, Giraffe, Zebra, Crowned Bishop and Crowned Rook on the 16th Rank
Other Rules:
En Passant: the same as regular chess
Castling: the same as regular chess
Bare Piece Rule: the first player to lose all their pieces except for the king loses the game
Material Rule: to win by Checkmate you must have the same amout of material or more material than your opponent, if you checkmate your opponent but you have less material than your opponent then the game ends in a draw
Stalemate: stalemated player loses
Opposite Castling: you cant do castling on the same side as your opponent
Pieces Value:
Amazon: 12
Jester and Crowned Chancellor: 9
Crowned Archbishop: 8
Pegasus: 7
Crowned Rook: 6
Rook: 5
Crowned Bishop: 4
Hawk, Wizard, Champion, Carriage and Bishop: 3
Zebra, Giraffe, Gold General and Silver General: 2
Pawn: 1