That's pretty cool. I like that.
16 x 16 Chess
Sort:
One more thing, is it just 1 on 1 or are there teams with each person controlling half the teams pieces?
Is this what you had in mind for what it should look like?
Also, what would the coordinates be? Seperate for each board, or just going up normally?
oinquarki wrote:
Is this what you had in mind for what it should look like?
Also, what would the coordinates be? Seperate for each board, or just going up normally?
I thnk that black would be at a disadvantage with this setup since the corners are the best places for the kind, black would have to Queen side castle, which leaves him more vulernable to white, where his kings would both be King side castled.
oinquarki, that's AWESOME! The coordinates would be a through p across and 1 through 12 up. The boards interact with each other i.e. the pieces can all move across to any board, and it is for two players, one move a turn. Setup may take awhile, but the overall result could be very fun.
Possible additional rules:
the kings have to stay on their board (a-h and 1-6 would be one territory)?
An alternate "one move" then "two moves" on the second turn? It would speed up the game but it also may be too overpowered.......
And, magicwill25, I'm not sure what you mean. You could still castle either way, I guess... just reevaluate your strategies to suit this new form of chess?
What about this?
or this, symetrical
this way, the kings would have to queenside castle to reach the edge.
And no, I'm not out of ideas yet!
This way, the bishops get the very long diagonals, and the queens get the 3rd longest diagonals!
Interesting ideas, but I would still want to shorten the board to 12 spaces up.
I think that the kings should be able to move freely throughout the boards, for endgame purposes. I would recommend castling away from the center, if you can force both of your opponent's kings to castle towards the center though, they would be right by eachother and easy to mate.
What about this:
Two players and a referee.
Two normal board, a normal white and black set.
White player sees only his pieces, and black see only his ones.
The referee looks at each player move and says if it is legal (for example moving a king pinned piece, or moving three steps a bishop having an opponent's piece on the second position).
Any players knows only his pieces position (naturally if i see mi knight disappearing I know that there is one of my opponent's pieces in that position), is noticed to be under chess by the referee and must try every possible move to save his king.
Anyone knows if this variant has a name?
What about giving, in this variant, a random (and secret, of course) handicap (0 to 9, for example) to each opponent?
kipos wrote:
What about this:
Two players and a referee.
Two normal board, a normal white and black set.
White player sees only his pieces, and black see only his ones.
The referee looks at each player move and says if it is legal (for example moving a king pinned piece, or moving three steps a bishop having an opponent's piece on the second position).
Any players knows only his pieces position (naturally if i see mi knight disappearing I know that there is one of my opponent's pieces in that position), is noticed to be under chess by the referee and must try every possible move to save his king.
Anyone knows if this variant has a name?
What about giving, in this variant, a random (and secret, of course) handicap (0 to 9, for example) to each opponent?
So you're thinking of something like the board game Stratego, except in that game, you can see their positions, but you don't know what each piece is until you attack it or are attacked by it. I used to play it where if you were attacked, you had to tell them what piece it was, but since you were defending the attack, the attacker didn't have to tell you what piece he or she was using to attack you. Kind of like an honor policy that the players aren't cheating.
Goatllama, how about this: when you capture the first king all of your opponent's pieces which originated on the same side of the board as the king disappear.
oinquarki wrote:
Goatllama, how about this: when you capture the first king all of your opponent's pieces which originated on the same side of the board as the king disappear.
That seems too unbalanced b/c all your opponents pieces across that board would still be there. Also, if you keep the side that lost a king, that side could still try to capture a king.
....... and kipos, that is completely different from the variant we're discussing....... eheh, random? 
Goatllama wrote:
oinquarki wrote:
Goatllama, how about this: when you capture the first king all of your opponent's pieces which originated on the same side of the board as the king disappear.
That seems too unbalanced b/c all your opponents pieces across that board would still be there. Also, if you keep the side that lost a king, that side could still try to capture a king.
Makes sense. Just I suggested it because oftentimes you must sacrifice a lot of material for a king.
But I guess your opponent has to sacrifice just as much to take your king so it's fair. It also puts a new aspect into the game: instead of mate as fast as possible, mate with the least sacrifices. So good call on making sure my half-baked idea didn't make it into the variant.
magicwill25 wrote:
kipos wrote:
What about this:
Two players and a referee.
Two normal board, a normal white and black set.
White player sees only his pieces, and black see only his ones.
The referee looks at each player move and says if it is legal (for example moving a king pinned piece, or moving three steps a bishop having an opponent's piece on the second position).
Any players knows only his pieces position (naturally if i see mi knight disappearing I know that there is one of my opponent's pieces in that position), is noticed to be under chess by the referee and must try every possible move to save his king.
Anyone knows if this variant has a name?
What about giving, in this variant, a random (and secret, of course) handicap (0 to 9, for example) to each opponent?
So you're thinking of something like the board game Stratego, except in that game, you can see their positions, but you don't know what each piece is until you attack it or are attacked by it. I used to play it where if you were attacked, you had to tell them what piece it was, but since you were defending the attack, the attacker didn't have to tell you what piece he or she was using to attack you. Kind of like an honor policy that the players aren't cheating.
There can be no honor policy in the game I am meaning, you need someone, i called him a referee (a computer, for example), that has an overview of the situation and can state if the move you are doing is legal, and says to your opponent if your m ove has taken on of his pieces.
For example, you have your bishop in a1 and want to move it to h8. On g7 there is you opponent's pawn, so the referee says that your bishop must stop there (you will not know which piece you have taken). The referee takes the piece from your opponent's set (remember you can't see that) not telling which of your pieces has taken it. If your opponent's king is in f8 the referee notifies to your opponent that his king is under chess.
I know this is differente from the game described in this post, but it was so to speak about how easy can be to imagine a chess variant.
In the variant described in this post i think that a bigg difference betweene traditional chess will be in comparing knight and bishop. In such a long and wide space bishop will be much more usefull, I think.
The first king you would capture- not necessarily by checkmate. The second one you have to checkmate to win the game.