Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Well, of course, this hadn't been tested. Still, it's the first of a kind
and perhaps someone can think of a better version. Larger, maybe.

Besides, mathematics teaches that complexity increases exponentially with
dimension. The fact that this game can be easily and fully explored
(possibly in all combinations of moves) can't be exactly an argument
against it, because in theory, bidimensional chess can be emptied in the
same sense (of course, no computer able to do so already exists).

Too many draws in chess. Isn't this why we're in the chess variant
'bussiness'? :)

Of course this variant is new, but there are already some examples 
with chess for one-dimensional boards:

1) The 'One Ring Chess' by L. L. Smith 2001, where 32 fields are
   arranged to build a closed circle, published at the Zillions page
   http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/oneringchess.html.


2) I have a bilingual book (German and English) 

  Dr. Karl Fabel, C. E. Kemp: 'Schach ohne Grenzen - Chess unlimited'
  Walter Rau Verlag, Duesseldorf und Kempten, 1969

with the following short section about the subject (I quote from the
english part, FCR = Fairy Chess Review, TDR = Thomas Rayner Dawson):

  Boards

  We now move off the 8x8 board, it is sometime necessary!
  In 1944, as a wartime diversion, FCR had a tourney for problems
  of any kind on an one-dimensional board, that is a single line
  of squares of any lenght.  N. M. Gibbins who proposed and judged
  the tourney, expected the entry to be small.  In fact there were
  85 problems.  TDR won 1st. and 2nd. prizes with two sets of
  problems.  The themes of the first set, of 8, were 'self-
  interference, line-closing, grab, crosscheck, chain interference,
  mutual obstruction, and triangular Grimshaw interference'!  How
  did he get all this on a single line?  By using composite pieces.

  No. 1 is one of this set.  We will refer to squares simply by the
  the numbers 1, 2, ... 15, 16, starting from the bottom.  The rider
  (R for short) at 16 can be play along 16, 13, 10, 7, 4, 1, as a 
  3-rider, and along 16, 11, 6, 1, as a 5-rider.  The problem is 
  built on the fact that 16 and 1 are in both sets.  The solution is  
  1. K9 P5, 2. P12#;  1.... P12, 2. P5#.  Not 1. P5 threat 2. Rx13# 
  as black is stalemate, P13 is now pinned.  And not 1. P12 threat 
  2. Rx6#, also stalemate as P6 is now pinned.  

  These are two highly thematic tries.  The mates are discovered
  mates, there is a double battery from the rider at 16.  Two-line
  chess on a one-line board!

The position which the referred diagram No. 1 to is following;

White: K8, R16, P4, P10 (R = combined 3-rider and 5-rider, 4 pieces)
Black: K1, P2, P6, P12 (4 pieces);  Board 1 x 16, 
Mate in 2,  FCR 1944.


Regards,
Alfred Pfeiffer

I like this game =) It's a fun game to play.
Is there some way to force some forwardness into the game to avoid
situations where the only option is to give up or draw by 3 time
repetition?

-=T=-

I like this game very much. I think LCC underestimates its own game,
considering it 'simple'. Despite having so few pieces and being played on
only ten squares (!) the game is much fun and at the initial position all
four pieces of each side can make a move.

This proves that the way to find new exciting chess variants isn't always
to search for larger boards with lots of pieces of many different types,
to make complex games or to switch to the 3rd and 4th dimension. Maybe we
should 'look inwards' because the small have their say, too. (Remember
David and Goliath, hehe).

The explanations about piece movements do not state clearly whether the
Executor's one-step movement is a non-capturing movement or not - only the
sample game makes this thing clear (for example move 6.ExW)

Thank you for your comments. As has been mentioned before, this game
suffers from predictable results. This can be easily explained by the very
limited 'play tree', that is, the way different games branch out with
different plays. Since there are only 4 pieces to each side, each with an
average of 2 or less possible moves per play, it becomes easy for a human
or computer mind to analyse all results of a move and play for draw. 

Normal chess is the same, but the number of pieces and average possible
moves make it impossible for a human mind and any contemporary computer.

But I have indeed been giving thought to this variant. It has occurred to
me that Shogi-style dropping of captured pieces could offer enhanced play
branching possibilities, for example. And randomness could reduce the
ability to do the most favorable play. For example, when capturing, the
capturing player rolls a die. With a result of 4 to 6, the capture occurs
normally. 2-3, the capture does not happen and the turn is lost. On a 1,
the capturing player loses his piece. While this classic idea is too
boring for a 'normal chess' variant, it's a surprising twist for 1-D
chess. Or another where you throw a die at the start of your turn with the
die result dictating which piece you can move (e.g. 1=K 2=E 3=W 4=L 5=any
6=none).

I know this variant won't likely become as complex as FIDE chess, for
example, but I have found other uses for it, such as using it to train
blindfolded play. It really helped my memory of piece positions and
threatened areas, allowing me to start playing blindfolded 2D chess
regularly. And I'm sure children could be amused by it, although I suppose
it would be better for them to be taught FIDE chess directly.

It sure beats tic-tac-toe, though :)

I myself have givena stab at a 1 dimensional chess game. I called it Rutherford's 1 dimensional Shogi. Independently, I thought of the idea of Shogi pieces, and created what I feel was a very good game. Here is the link:

http://www.chessvariants.org/shogivariants.dir/1dshogi.html

Sadly, it is apparent that my game has not gotten the attention I'd hoped, since I actually find it to fill the niche of 1-dimensional chess games quite well. As far as I can tell, playing with Zillions and going solo with my own board and pieces, it is a very enjoyable and surprisingly complex game. So why hasn't it grabbed attention like mono-dimensional chess or other small shogi and chess variants? I suppose it is because of my self aggrandizement. I wanted to be sure I always had the credit for my magnificent invention, so I named it after myself. I also didn't present the rules in a very interesting fashion. But give me some credit, that was several years ago, and I've aged some since then.

But at the heart, is it the fact that my little game is still too complicated? Is simpler better? I've never played LCC's game, but I commend his answer to simplicity without too much predictability. Perhaps a solution will one day be found, and a public-gripping one dimensional chess variant will finally take its deserved place.