3d analogue

Standard chess transpires on an 8x8x1 two-dimensional cartesian( non-wrapping) grid starting with two sides each consisting of eight pieces (including respective king) plus eight pawns occupying an initial combined squares of 32 of the 64 (one-half the board's area).

I have been pondering: what would be the closest three-dimensional analogue?  For starters (firstly), the grid naturally would remain confined to the walls (cartesian). Secondly, the one-v.-one aspect ought to remain; adding a third or fourth side is not necessary and would alter the game in a fundamental way beyond dimensionality.  Thirdly, the pieces ought to remain the same or close to the same in movements as in standard chess, but might benefit from slight modification or addition to maintain the spirit and dynamic. Along thus line, fourthly, the enumerations, types, and starting locations of pieces should remain the same or close to the same as in standare chess, with perhaps some additions in light of the additional number of squares (seven times as many more if a simple cubing, but 64x8 = 512, which half a thousand might prove too large), which leads in to the next matter:  Fifthly, logically the board space would consist if a volume of 8x8..x8, but that might be too large and give long-range pieces too much relative power on top of White's first-move abvantage denegrading Black's king's safety; if it is 8x8x8 then knights ought to move further or have power to do so (e.g. 3,2 instead of just 2,1). If 8x8x[3 or 2 or so], this reduced z-axisvmight not present the same issue as with an an 8-tall z-axis.  Sixthly and lastly on my mind, tying-in with point 3, special moves (castling, pawn-promotion, pawn moves in general including an passant) ought to remain in place, at least to the extent to keeping in spirit with standard.

The first two matters are self-explanatory, but the latter four require further examination.  Specifically piece arrangement and enumeration. If on an 8x8x8 set, then logically either player would be placed diagonally opposite. But under this size of space, two rows each would feel lacking: 32/512 is a mere 8% (compared to 50% of standard).  Even if the entire planar ends (64*2) were occupies with figures, they would still occupy only 25% of entire space (whilst standing), but would add ridiculously huge complexity to combination considerations.  Therefore, I suggest five rows per side of figures: three opposite from two against an edge. The two-deep row might be simply standard figures while the three-deep could consist primarily of pawns. Perhaps an extra two rows of pawns and knights blocking quick exit of rooks/queen/bishops. Obviously this wouldn't be so much a matter with a shallower z-axis, and would also allow easier physical designs not reliant on software (although even using just four-thick as I believe was seen ST:TNG, the set looked rather unwieldy with the figurines including shorter ones standing much taller than confines if there square).

As for modification to figural movements: Keep them the same or nearly so,simply adding new orthogonal/diagonal/hippogonal possibilities into another vector, with perhaps a restriction or two to prevent overpower.

What do yous think?  A four-dimensional is conceivable too, with nearest analogue to 8x8x8 design brleing an 8x8x8x8l following pattern of extra pawns and few extra pieces.