Hello, I have just read the rules of your interesting (and very nice looking) chess variant. I invite you to read a comment I posted in 2008 about the Luberza’s variant. http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=19541 I guess that problems 1 and 3 exist also in your variant, and rule 1 could be interesting to solve or reduce these problems. By the way, I am the program manager of “Tutto è Numero”, Festival of Mathematical Games” http://www.tuttoenumero.it/, where I organize every year a combined tournament of many abstract games (old and new ones). You could bring us your game and present it! You can see some pictures here: http://www.tuttoenumero.it/italiano/2011-2/?show=gallery&nggpage=7. I can be contacted via email also through that site. Best regards, Cesco Reale
Thank you much--allow me to, if I can survive this extreme surge in orders (due to Christmas and other things that have come about), then I can study these links better and get back to you
Regarding Problem 1: I find aggressive play more fun & effective. Yes, C is happy that A lost a Knight taking B's Queen, but if you sit on the sidelines waiting for the other teams to destroy each other, you're not controlling the game, which you need to do to win. Problem 2 is not a problem, as the game continues until 2 teams are checkmated, plus a team cannot take over another teams pieces. (However, you can take a dead (checkmated) team's piece to occupy a square for strategical positioning) I don't find Problem 3 a problem. It's free market capitalism working. More often I find that some threatened pieces may be allowed to exist as their position may benefit a team that could capture them. But I've never seen 2 teams actually coordinate play over time against a 3rd team. Your suggested Rule 1 : May be fun & fine for Shogi, but NOT for 3 Man Chess at all. It would be a completely different game from Chess if you could transform into other pieces. Suggested Rule 2: This is already built into 3MC. Suggested Rule 3: Just happens to already be clarified in the 3MC rules, & is the only time a King can actually be captured (but doesn't have to be.) Its quite simple & illustrated in a graphic on the rule page at www.3manchess.com.
Posted by Cesco Reale on Feb 6, 2012, 6:04pm
Hello, actually I spoke only about problems 1 and 3, and rule 1: "I guess that problems 1 and 3 exist also in your variant, and rule 1 could be interesting to solve or reduce these problems."
Clif said: "but if you sit on the sidelines waiting for the other teams to destroy each other, you're not controlling the game, which you need to do to win."
The problem 1 is exactly that. You don't need to control the game in order to win. You don't have interest in attacking, it is better to wait.
About problem 3, if I understood correctly your words, you confirm that it exists, then you can like it or not, but the game does not necessarily lead to the victory of the best player.
About rule 1, maybe there is a misunderstanding: there is no transformation: if you capture a piece it becomes yours and then at your round, you will choose if you want to do a normal move or to put wherever on the board one of the pieces you have captured (like in the famous variant chess "Bughouse"). Of course it would be a completely different game from Chess, but also 3 Man Chess is a completely different game from Chess. One could test the rule and see if 3MC becomes more or less funny, if one likes the idea or not, but I just say that, in case one wants to solve problems 1 and/or 3, I could not see a better solution. Of course I would be interested to read about other possible solutions.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")