Check out Atomic Chess, our featured variant for November, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later
Tower Siege: 3D Chess Game. Missing description (8x(8x8), Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Malcolm Webb wrote on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 03:30 AM UTC:BelowAverage ★★
I give the below average rating because your description does not give me enough information to play the game. I make the following points:

A) The opening scenario is unnecessary and inappropriate. A force of commandos & terrorists would not bring their King into a battle, nor would the forces be identical. Chess dates from the time when Kings actually rode out to battle. A besieged castle would be a better description.

B) The 3-D board has all the white squares above or below the other white squares in a vertical column; the black squares are similarly arranged. This means that a Rook moving up or down (like a lift in a multi-storey building) would stay in cells of the same colour. Thus if you were looking at the building from the front, you would not see a checkered board; instead you would see four vertical columns of white squares alternating with four vertical columns of black squares. Was this your intention?

C) This being so, I do not understand how the Bishop moves when changing levels. In order to not change colour it would have to move "triagonally" (that is, through the corner of the cells), not diagonally. It would have to follow the same path you illustrate for pawn captures when they are going up or down. An illustration of the Bishop's move would help.

D) From your description, the Queen's move is identical to the Rook's move, namely an orthogonal move in all six directions. The only difference is that the Queen has the additional power to place an enemy King in check if they are both on the same level with no other enemy piece on the same level. Was this your intention?

E) Going from your description the checkmate position you illustrate is not checkmate at all. I presume that the Black Queen is the one under the White  King. The Black Rook does not protect the Black Queen as it is in a diagonal line from the Queen. The White King could move to any of the five squares surrounding it on the same level without being threatened by the Black Queen or by any other piece. It could also move upwards diagonally or  "triagonally" and not be threatened. The only square that it could not move to on the level above it would be the square directly above itself. In total I see eleven cells to which the King could move to escape check.

Perhaps illustration of the moves of the Rook, Bishop & Queen would assist, as I can only go by your verbal description.

The game will take quite a long time to play. This is not necessarily a fault. However it was for this reason that Ferdinand Maack created the original 3D chess as a 5 x 5 x 5 game.

💡📝Kenneth Fourcell wrote on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 10:06 PM UTC:

Mr. Webb;

Thank you for your swift, and candid response, it is much appreciated. I will try to address your evaluation of my variant.

A. “The opening scenario is unnecessary and inappropriate.” It wasn’t my intention to offend; I grew watching a lot of cop shows and movies like SWAT, my father is a veteran of past wars and a retired police detective team; I enjoyed watching the commando teams repelling down the sides of office buildings, storming and crashing through windows, to take out the bad guys! I have nothing but great respect and humility for the men and women who do the job.

“A force of commandos & terrorists would not bring their King into a battle, nor would the forces be identical.” Yes, this is a theme variant, besides a force of commandos & terrorist would have a King leading them anyway, moreover, chess is a game aren’t both side supposed to be even?

B. “The 3-D board has all the white squares above or below the other white squares in a vertical column”

Yes, the idea was to stack the boards one above the other, like floors in a building.

C. “From your description . . . what is your intention?” All pieces moves as in standard chess, this includes the Queen, I gave the Queen this added power so as to threaten the King -- if the King is unprotected, but only on the same level.

My intention is to reduce the Kings mobility.

Checkmate:

The White Queen above and below prevents the King from escaping. The level with the red edges represents the Queens control. There is no Black Queen.


Malcolm Webb wrote on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 05:19 AM UTC:
I think I have a clearer idea of what you intend. However your page needs to be edited.

The Checkmate position: I see you meant to say that the Black King was in checkmate. I can see that it is attacked by the White Rook at the top level. I can see that the two White Queens above and below prevent it from escaping up or down. I cannot see the White Rook protecting either Queen, nor can I see any movement that the Black King could make to capture either White Queen. Nor do I see any White pieces attacking the eight adjacent squares next to the Black King on the same level. As far as I can see, the Black King could move to any adjacent square on the same level and escape check.

The Queen: People will not always assume that the Queen combines the movement of Bishop & Rook (it is after all a different game) and this should be explicitly stated. 

The Bishop: in 3-dimensional Chess the word "diagonal" has been used with various meanings. There are 26 directions of movement from a cell in cubical 3D chess:
- six orthogonal directions through the faces of the cube, changing only one co-ordinate with each step;
- twelve 2D-diagonal movements through the edges of the cube, changing two co-ordinates with each step;
- eight 3d-diagonal movements (sometimes called "triagonal") through the vertices (or corners) of the cube, changing all three co-ordinates with each step.
In order for the Bishop to not change colour, it would need to make the "triagonal" move when going from one level to the next, but make the 2D-diagonal move when on its own level. If this is so it should be explicitly stated. The Bishop in Raumschach and in many other 3D-chess variants moves differently, always using a 2D-diagonal move even when changing levels.

Your best description of movement is your description of the Knight-move.

💡📝Kenneth Fourcell wrote on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 07:15 AM UTC:

Thanks Mr. Webb, with each and every evaluation you give me more to think about and clarify my goals, over all; what do you think of the concept of the game? I tried to keep it simple and basic. . .


Malcolm Webb wrote on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 01:29 PM UTC:
I like the basic idea, and I appreciate the diagram you added to the previous comment illustrating the Bishop move (and presumably the Queen move also).
 
I like the innovation of the Queen's ability to give check to the King if it is on the same level and unaccompanied. This new ability is necessary to keep the game moving, and makes the Queen much more important than in 2D chess.

I presume the King moves in all 26 directions. That being so, I expect that forcing checkmate would be quite difficult if you had lost your Queen.

💡📝Kenneth Fourcell wrote on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 05:40 PM UTC:

Yes, (LOL!!) losing the Queen would put one at a disadvantage, which makes Pawn promotion so vital. . .


Ben Reiniger wrote on Wed, Jan 30, 2013 09:45 PM UTC:
It seems that you want the diagonal moves to be either diagonal within a layer, or triagonal (in the sense that Malcolm described).  Is that a fair assessment?

Do your kings also move this way (orthogonal or "special diagonals"), or do they really get 26 directions?

Do knights leap, or slide?  If they leap, you needn't say that they can go 1 then 2 or 2 then 1: they are equivalent.  (Saying it isn't bad, but it makes me think perhaps they don't leap...)

I agree that the checkmate example probably isn't checkmate.  That should get fixed/clarified.

The queen "holding" rule is nice, and a bit reminiscent of a rule Joe Joyce used for a 4D game.  However, it then seems likely that minimum mating material is FIDE chess mating material plus one queen.  Practically requiring a queen for mate seems like perhaps you should include additional pawns.  Or maybe a different piece should have the holding ability?

💡📝Kenneth Fourcell wrote on Thu, Jan 31, 2013 01:44 AM UTC:

Thank you for your insight Mr. Reinger; yes the piece, or player has the option of moving their piece either across the level or through the 3D environment. One move, one direction; if you so choose you can move your King from (1) d1 to d2 on one move and then move the King (1) d2 to (2) d3.

knight

Sorry, (LOL) the checkmate was purposely obtuse: Q (4) d4 and Q (6) h4 restricts the Kings mobility, while P (8) c6 has

free reign to Pc8Q, then Q c5+.

some_text

With all do-respect, one should make do with what one has, I’ve see many variants adding, changing, and augmenting the environment to meet their own inadequacies; chess had two armies of equal strength and you won or lost by your merits – please, let’s leave it (chess) the way it was (is).


8 comments displayed

Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.