[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
(I know these words are somewhat strong, however I feel strongly that this variant with some changes has far more potential than it currently has. I mean all this in a constructive manner. I understand the urge to stick close to the original, but by straying a bit farther from the source, the game will standout much more against other games in this niche) [I meant to add the above remark to my original post, but edit didn't have the option of maintaining the same rating.]
I looked over Dragon Chess and it is clearly not as imaginative as 95% or more of the games I've seen at CV. But I think the intent of the game is to stay very close to chess, and at the same time wipe out all the Openings. So, it has done that. (( But then so does FRC... and so would switching Knights and Bishops, etc. )) In regard to making Dragon Chess stray further from chess I think adding a few more piece types would have made the game more desireable to a variants player. For a typical chess player wanting something marginally different, Dragon Chess might be good. On a somewhat related note: Navia Dratp varied from chess quite a bit with lots of different piece combos and options. On an interesting note, I've been informed that BANDAI (that game's producer) is abandoning it.
The set looks nice. The main Chess pieces are in the Renaissance style designed by E. S. Lowe. I have had a set like this since I was a child. Although the pieces look nice, I have quicker piece recognition for Staunton style pieces. The dragons are designed to fit with the Renaissance set, and they look nice. Curiously, the designer of the Dragons is a former TSR employee, and he probably knows that his former boss has a previous claim on the name Dragon Chess. I wonder if Lex Parker made any arrangement with Gary Gygax before trademarking the name of his well-known 3D Chess variant.
Gary you make some good points, I'll address them below, as well as my two cents. I don't think Dragon chess as currently formulated, wipes out openings, it forestalls them. Since there is only one openning setup, in time, opennings will be developed. Variants such as FRC and Sittuyin can be truly said to have wiped out opennings.There are so many openning setups, and one knows not the opponent's openning setup before the game, there is truly no way to prepare a openning. I think Dragon Chess should engage its players in creating new ways to use the components it offers with the game, and publish more rule sets (It already publish two sets of rules, standard chess and Dragon Chess). This does not substantially raise the price, but allows it access to a larger market, for some small value of large. On Navia Dratp, if it does get abandoned by Bandai, that would be a shame, it certainly was innovative. Though I'm not entirely sure Bandai did enough to promote its product. And I am not sure it entirely solved the piece valuations problem. (though I might be wrong on that, do tell if that is the case) On a tangential note, I should note that chessvariants.com is listed in the prior art (reference) section of the patent for Dragon Chess. This is a testament to Hans and all those in the community that built this website into what it is today. Making it a resource for those that want to see the state of chessvariants today.
5 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.