💡📝David Howe wrote on Fri, Jul 5, 2002 04:59 PM UTC:
Hmmmm... I never really considered Progressive Feeble Chess. But now that
you mention it, it seems as if such a game would work quite well. Perhaps
it would even play better than regular progressive chess.
In my opinion, progressive chess progresses a bit too quickly, so perhaps
*gradual* progressive feeble chess would be more to my liking. Gradual
progressive uses a progression that grows more slowly: instead of 1 2 3 4
5... it uses 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5... A bit harder to keep track
of, but perhaps it tones down the game a little bit. I'd try it with the
Italian progressive rules.
A 5x5 version would be possible, although I think it might start getting
cramped at that point. Honestly, I chose Los Alamos mostly out of
laziness.