Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

9x9 Squares Rotating Chess. Usual set of pieces in different setup and changed movement on 9 by 9 board. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Charles Gilman wrote on Sun, Mar 30, 2003 09:06 AM UTC:

This game has two problems. First there is the perennial problem with
symmetry about square centres: the Bishops are confined to the same group
of squares. Secondly it does not as promised use only the standard chess
set. There are nine Pawns per side (assuming the f8 Pawn a misprint). My
first thought for solving this was to remove the b8 and h2 pawns and
reverse Bishop and Knight on the Queen's side. Then I had a better idea:
leave the Bishop and Knight, strip out the long diagonals, and close up
the board to 8*8, putting the Kings in opposite corners. This would allow
the standard board as well as set can be used. Below are two versions, one
rotationally symmetrical (like the 9*9), the other symmetrical about the
empty diagonal.
KQBNRP--	KBNRP---
BPPPP---	QPPP----
NP------	BP------
RP-----P	NP-----P
P-----PR	RP----PR
------PN	P-----PN
---PPPPB	---PPPPB
--PRNBQK	--PRNBQK

Matthew Paul wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2004 06:38 AM UTC:

The rooks are unprotected and are exposed to each other at the start.  Or
did I miss something?

George Duke wrote on Mon, Feb 14, 2005 08:49 PM UTC:

'9ABCLargeCV': Berolina Pawns promote at interesting squares. Rooks move like Bishops. Knight is Camel. So, only Queen is not colour-bound (not counting K and P). 9x9 here not a game worth playing, there should be saving in related 10x10 Multiple Knot Chess from year 1997, Hyperbolic, Fibonacci et al. for their conceptual ideas, some of those being large chesses to review.

George Duke wrote on Wed, Jan 21, 2009 07:17 PM UTC:

6 years ago Gilman already had the last word on the deficiency in this rotated array. Apparently Betza drew on more than one precedent. We just looked at Missoum's Knot Chess.

Flowerman wrote on Thu, Feb 25, 2010 01:54 PM UTC:

I did not understand, what is different between rooks and bishops here?!

Charles Gilman wrote on Sat, Feb 27, 2010 07:26 AM UTC:

Presumably the missing bit on the First Approach - Rooks move as Bishops - is that Bishops move as Rooks. I had not noticed the First Approach at the time of my previous comments, and my comments apply to the Second Approach. First Approach is even worse than Second Approach - representing Rooks and Bishops as each other is confusing and colurbinding the Knights into Camels serves no useful purpose. If there were only the First Approach I would rate it poor.

6 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.