[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by CharlesDaniel
Chess (orthodox chess or 'FIDE') is very hard to master and a very difficult game to compete in. The real reason most give up on chess is because there is too much competition and to get an 'edge' one must be sufficiently knowledgeable in opening theory (but not excessively memorizing lines as this does NOT improve play), constantly analyze past games with the help of a computer and also analyze high level games played. Not to mention constant practice. Online resources are normally filled with players playing in realtime especially 2/12 5/12 blitz. Any chess variant with same rules but with extra pieces with sufficient popularity will reach this stage (though larger board games it would be difficult for humans to memorize as much lines). Computers aid most modern chess players in analyzing games and do not contribute to any 'decline' in chess except in the eyes of spectators not too familiar with chess who may not respect the chess player for been beaten by a computer. Computer programming has advanced sufficiently that a program can be written for any game that relies on perfect information. Computers are only behind in games with psychological aspects such as poker. The effect of computers on chess popularity - None, except to serve as a useful learning tool.
Joe, Time travel chess will not be a problem because the computer has a record of all past moves made. Of course it would take some to develop a suitable algorithm but that game should not pose a problem. Kriegspiel is also no problem (just dont ask me to do program it!) - same thing here - the computer will be normally better at building many trees of possible piece placement etc. Statistical based games are not a problem, but any game relying on human psychology will be more of a problem. For instance, computers already can play poker well based on starting hands,bet amounts and even can execute certain types of bluffs but fail miserably when it comes to detecting bluffs and adjusting to player styles. Go has been touted as been something a computer cannot do well in but I am not sure if this situation will last. And as Gary Gifford said earlier - why the need to invent a game that a computer can't solve anyhow?
Actually computers are far more sophisticated than merely 'adding machines'. IN fact the computer algorithms that play chess are not brute force. The brute force ones are the ones all GMs and Ims can easily defeat. Computers see many strategical advantages such as doubled pawns, isolated pawns etc _ these are all built in - Computers will choose moves based on above IF there are no branches that will give them an even greater advantage. In fact computers make better decisions by valuing material over positions a bit more than humans . Humans tend to make more unsound sacrifices. Computers don't do so (though they can be programmed to) I think the problem with making a computer play these games is to develop the algorithm which is a human endeavor. the computer is a machine that can handle and process logic that we program. Once an algorithm is developed to prune the unnecessary branches for Go and Arimaa then computers will easily dominate. Perhaps the problem with these games is that there is not enough theory yet to develop a suitable algorithm. What is been forgotten here are the brilliant programmers who contributed to the current chess machines we see now. So no breakthrough in computer technology is needed at all, just more human minds translating the strategy/tactics needed to win into programming. Pattern recognition is not a problem for computers but this is a vague notion at best. Humans tend to go with a 'feel' for something. This 'feel' cannot be translated logically. The computer needs something more tangible. I think winning patterns can be programmed into Go, but the Masters must be willing to GIVE UP THEIR secrets! Exactly how much literature is out there for Go and especially Arimaa ? I think Go is the next challenge of computer programmers. Arimaa is simply not popular enough to be taken seriously by computer programmers.
Omega Chess game. Moves of a game between chess grandmasters Alex Sherzer and Judith Polgar.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Rich, I do see the IAGO system as beneficial. After all it does cover almost all types of chess variants. However, I do not think it is a good idea to point all to the direction of 8x8 variants/Seirawan etc. It is best to let the person decide for him/her self what to look into. The problem right now is that the chess variant people are mostly inventors not just play-testers. If there were a sufficient number of players (chess players preferably ) to try out the different variants looking into ones they like the best - we would have something. The pot luck tourney is good esp if it can attract more non-inventors as well . My concern is all this talk about rule changes/draw problem etc is going to turn off the average chess player and thus will not bring new people into playing the variants. And even though 'draw issue/rule changes' are only a small fraction of chess variants - the remaining variants will too be ignored. I prefer a more open method of promotion - many new ideas categorized with no preference for either. A Chess variant could be an alternative game or a proposed rule fix - it is up to the players to decide which they prefer. Personally, I think chess players would be interested in an alternative game not a 'rule fix' that would replace chess. anyway just my thoughts ..)
IAGO Chess System. http://abstractgamers.org/wiki/iago-chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Rich, so moving thread to topic IAGO.
I think IAGO has a few things going for it.
1. it provides a good way to class many types of variants and rules.
2. it also can serve as a unifying governing body for many types of contests/tournaments etc.
3. it can help in promoting variants in general.
As an example, if Omega chess's potential problems: not enough pawn play, rook cannot mate becomes an issue for many players - the game will sink. I even proposed a similar game if it does -
Omega Transplant but commercially it will be over if any problems arise.
I think IAGO has a few things going for it.
1. it provides a good way to class many types of variants and rules.
2. it also can serve as a unifying governing body for many types of contests/tournaments etc.
3. it can help in promoting variants in general.
However, I disagree with your approach to finding the 'next' chess - which seems basically to replace std. or FIDE chess with another ruleset - supposedly resulting in fewer draws.
Most std chess players might actually look to variants for variety and as such would be more interested in larger chess boards (or different shaped ). That is at least how I got interested. The idea of changing the rules of std chess but not much else does not appeal much to me and in any case you are still creating a 'variant'.
Consider instead of marking your approach to finding the next chess as just one of MANY possible approaches. Groups of players might investigate via large board size or however they see fit. In the end, whatever game(s) turn out to be most played (by actual players) can move through the various classes as you propose.
My preferred approach is to find the best possible chess on a large board 12x12 max, 10x10 or odd shaped 104 sq. With sufficient players participating - this goal can be reached. I envision this new large chess to be played side by side with std chess until it gains more popularity.
It might be beneficial to break up IAGO into various compartments with 'finding the next chess' being only one and also one of many approaches. Thus, we can differentiate between IAGO classification, IAGO promotions and IAGO 'finding the next chess' !
Additionally, I think most games have to be good to go. That is they are churned out and any fault found by others (via play) is going to cause the game to be dropped. The adjustments are better done by the inventor right at the beginning.As an example, if Omega chess's potential problems: not enough pawn play, rook cannot mate becomes an issue for many players - the game will sink. I even proposed a similar game if it does -
Omega Transplant but commercially it will be over if any problems arise.
Non-commercial games have a harder time getting started since they never get played and the comments are far and few between. One opinionated person going around commenting on games that suit his theoretical fetish is certainly not feedback :)
I think IAGO can certainly help with these games the most.
With regard to pieces: chess players are fine with using a salt shaker for a new queen :) so I think this is the most trivial issue of all.
Besides, I can't remember when last i played any chess game on a physical board.
A bigger issue is to get a good idea out to many - a nice chess set will be a good start. The commercial variants have this advantage.
Herculean Chess. 12 x 12 version of chess featuring 4 Rooks, 4 Bishops, 4 Leapers and 22 pawns. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]On a humorous note: If I were to take the Sorcerer Knight - remove the knight move and add the camel move - I would be in violation of a very *** patent! I can second H. G. Muller's previous rating of said game from pure play-testing point of view. Two lame Zebra-Camels are awkward on a small rectangular board configuration with unprotected pawns from the onset. The game rapidly improves once they are exchanged but then one is merely playing orthodox chess on a slightly bigger board. Herculean chess (and up-coming Hadean Chess) emphasize the Ferz-Zebra/ Wazir compounds more. Having two leaping movements even zebra + knight much less zebra + camel plays awkwardly even on much bigger board and does not lend to pleasing game-play. I find the Sorcerer Knight version (both sliding dual path and leaping) a bit problematic - and the last example game made me change Herculean to use the Ferz/Wazir compounds. On paper, two leaping movements or limited sliding movement as in Korean Chess etc seems interesting but never translates play-wise. It plays more like some sort of puzzle solving trivia than anything else. In effect I am criticizing my sub-variation for poor game-play along with similar piece form in different board.
Herculean Chess 
. Extended version of chess features the Flying Bishops, the Flying Chariots, Ninja Pawns, Augmented Knights and Zebras.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Some tips for players who try this preset out: Even if you cannot beat zillions in orthodox chess, you have a chance in this game. The reason: pawn play! Zillions is horrible in the way it moves pawns. Its logic is as follows: - the starting configuration is very safe for the king. Pushing the pawn forward weakens it Therefore it very rarely moves pawns all the way to the center. Zillions even prefers to move the ninja pawns sideways. The trick to winning is to control the center with pawns, watch out for threats from the sorcerers/other pieces - zillions keeps hopping those into your territory. Once you fend out piece attacks, zillions cannot win. It has absolutely no basic strategy built into algorithm unlike new chess playing software that is much stronger. Once it brings its queen into your territory keep attacking it - (but be careful) and soon you will have the queen trapped. It played exactly the same way with the queen in std chess against another computer (crafty) . It always ends up losing the queen and then the game. To draw, you can barricade yourself in the starting position and zillions cannot win! It keeps shuffling its pieces into your territory looking for forks, attacks etc. It never charges with the pawns which is the way to win if your opponent does this. My analysis: the more you can limit its tactics, the better - in Herculean you have a good chance of doing this with the pawns. Thus, one can argue that this is 'harder' for a computer than regular chess. But I am sure that all new software will have no problems at all - pawn play is far superior in new computers.
Janggi - 장기 - Korean Chess. The variant of chess played in Korea. (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This game (and several others) have the lame knight and lame zebra (here elephant). That is both pieces are incapable of moving to destination if path is blocked.
For the elephant, one can easily add more possible pathways to destination square for example two diagonal and one orthogonal outwards.
Even worse would be to compound a zebra and camel and adding multiple paths - nothing new of course - (anyone can do this!).
Combining the knight and elephant here - and adding alternate paths, one gets the Sliding Sorcerer Knight used in experimental sub-variation of Herculean Chess
As used in Korean Chess, the Elephant /Knight as used here make for excellent play.
Even worse would be to compound a zebra and camel and adding multiple paths - nothing new of course - (anyone can do this!).
Patenting an already existing idea is truly an insult to the rich history of chess, but it has been done by a few. Fortunately, the few patents for pieces ( not sure how many are out there but one comes to mind) , are for awkward pieces proposed with even more clumsy configurations.
The patent and its well deserved criticism of course do not apply to excellent single function pieces such as the Elephant and Knight used here nor to the interesting Ferz-Camel compound used in Omega Chess nor for that matter the fascinating Ferz/Wazir Sorcerers in Hadean and Herculean Chess. Titan Chess. Chess featuring dozenal board and seven diverse new pieces with multiple capture mechanisms and movement modes. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Worth repeating:
the rules are exactly the same as in standard chess except for Flexible Castling and extended initial pawn move and en-passant rules. And the new pieces, of course.
the rules are exactly the same as in standard chess except for Flexible Castling and extended initial pawn move and en-passant rules. And the new pieces, of course.
The writeup for the pieces is quite a challenge, and I do agree that the wording can tend to be confusing for some - especially for those with little patience.
Note too that the Ninja Pawn can always move sideways regardless of where it is. However, it can only capture in enemy territory.The inventor(s) of checkers/draughts deserve credit here for my inspiration on the flying pieces. Previous poster is suffering from delusions to even think that names mentioned have anything to do with Flying Bomber /Ninja Guard pieces.
And as I mentioned before, anyone can invent pieces if given enough free time, - and one does not credit a similar invention when the original (and much older) invention is well known source of inspiration.
Of interest to some, I felt that the same fly over mechanism of checkers might irritate some chess players, and in general, simpler movements were more needed for a larger board game. This was my inspiration for Hadean Chess.
I was convinced in the end that a simpler flying mechanism could be proposed - that is a simple 3 square leap (if two pieces lie in between) as in Hadean (derived from Herculean ) chess with no jump over capture allowed.
A humorous note :
Ignore the previous poster's strange use of the word we. Only the poster timed out a game of Titan Chess in the tournament. No other player has done so - so unless I was playing the same game with three people at the same time! In which case I must be in the twilight zone - I thought I invented a two player game !
I like the idea - the only thing. How do you decide what games to play? Do the players on the internet choose the games? Of course if it was Gary Kasparov - then we might have to let him choose any game except std chess of course. How do we promote chessvariants.org Gary so that people outside of this site would want to play him?
I was not aware that anyone on this site is GM level chess rating - is this true? Because if not, this is grossly misleading to anyone. Unless the games chosen are completely unlike chess, any top 20 GM can defeat anyone on this site with ease - any game even remotely similar to chess. They dont even need 48 hrs - just a few minutes to learn the rules. To be GM requires high level of tactical skill and strategical understanding. In fact this translates even to playing GO - though this IS an example of a game very unlike chess that they may have difficulty with. The only hope of beating a GM (or IM too), a game very unlike chess like GO. It would be interesting though to challenge a GM in chess variants.
Hadean Chess. Expanded chess with short-range linear jumpers, augmented knights and zebras and more dynamic pawns. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Actually the name Flying Elephant was meant to be humorous so comment from resident comedian is no problem really . I am really puzzled how you assume I have derived pieces from people I have no idea even existed. The flying compounds here are a simple extension of pieces that existed for hundreds of years. If anything, I should probably give Joe Joyce credit since I used the same icons as he did (for similar but slightly different pieces). And as I stated numerous times before the Flying Bomber piece was derived from Checkers. It is strange that you find the rules complex. Are you talking about the movement of the ninja pawn, or some other piece? The castling rules? The en-passant? Even if the writing is substandard as you claim - the rules are not complex. Addressing your laughable comments on the other thread. So you think that Leko will lose a game of Rococo to anyone on this site? Are you not the expert on that game? I never played Rococo in my life and I still won the only game I ever played. Is it not clear to you why? And you are betting Susan Polgar losing too? You do realize that she played a Capablanca Game and won against another well known inventor (and strong chessplayer)? I would love to see this happen and place a wager with you. Seriously though you really believe Leko will lose Rococo to a non-GM? I think I overestimated your understanding of chess.
Yes, but we are talking about GMs playing much weaker opponents one on one here. Do you really believe Leko will lose say Rococo to anyone on this site (currently)? It cant happen unless he wants to lose. We are comparing apples to oranges here. As long as the game requires chess skill GMs will prevail. Give them a totally different type of game and then maybe they can lose.
SUCCHESS. Missing description (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This seems interesting, I would like to seem some examples of the Horde move. as well as the Phalanx and the push mechanism. Also the spy is not properly explained - Please explain how this moves. He moves like a bishop (captures like one too?) What do you mean by 'He can attack any of his own pieces'. That makes no sense. Otherwise, this seems like a good variant to try out. I like the way you described the basic pawn moves (double /triple ) moves. My variant e.g Birds and Ninjas have the same basic pawn moves and en passant.. Anyway, this seems like an outstanding variant - though judgement should be passed after playing this..
Free Castling Rule. Less restrictive castling rules. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Actually, this is a dramatic improvement to the original castling rules.
From a defensive point, yes it is best to move the king to the corner where it can protect its pawns.
For my version which I call 'Flexible Castling' you just remember to move the king 1-x amount of steps towards the rook and move the rook over next to the king. One confusing position is when I permit the king to occupy the rook square and the rook moves 1 square over. This is the most defensive castling position - allowing the king to protect wing pawn.
Castling is best understood as a joint maneuver to connect the rooks, centralize the rooks and to tuck the king away in the corner. Sometimes it may be necessary to centralize the rooks and start a series of offensive moves .
Flexible castling is perhaps a bit simpler though a bit more complicated than the regular castling rules. The increased strategical/tactical possibilities more than make up for rule complexity.
One can place the rook in an attacking position in the appropriate file - so it is not just a defensive move but an offensive one. Rather than make two moves and then move the rook to the center file. With one step castling one can move the rook to the center right away.
The castling rules in my games e.g. Birds and Ninjas are a bit different. The rook must end up next to the king. Thus, to bring the rook to the center file, the king should move one step. Also, it is permitted to check the opposing king with castling. (but not to castle out of check) This is the way it is in std chess and I see no reason to change this as the rules here state.For my version which I call 'Flexible Castling' you just remember to move the king 1-x amount of steps towards the rook and move the rook over next to the king. One confusing position is when I permit the king to occupy the rook square and the rook moves 1 square over. This is the most defensive castling position - allowing the king to protect wing pawn.
Castling is best understood as a joint maneuver to connect the rooks, centralize the rooks and to tuck the king away in the corner. Sometimes it may be necessary to centralize the rooks and start a series of offensive moves .
Flexible castling is perhaps a bit simpler though a bit more complicated than the regular castling rules. The increased strategical/tactical possibilities more than make up for rule complexity.
See diagram 1: Modified castling conditions: 1. can castle and check opposing king. 2. king must be next to rook after castling. white to move: castles e1-d1;a1-e1 //check This scenario can apply other files as well. Can be even used in 8x8 std chess with interesting results. Strong players will not use b and g file always. Offensive minded - will castle with rook to the file that poses the biggest threat to enemy. Free Castling as described gets the best of both worlds by moving the king to corner and moving the rook in the center. However, I prefer the version I proposed above as in Birds and Ninjas.
Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]How is 100 squares too large if 64 squares is too small?
Supposedly because 80 squares is perfect.
Then , maybe ... One can only hope that chess will live on in the form of a chess variant.
For now though, the popularity of 64 square chess helps 80 or 100 square variants and will remain gold standard.
Yet the best 80 square game - a Capablanca setup or like maybe ahem ... Gothic is much more constricted (and feels awkward) than 64 square fischer random or std chess. This is actual play experience.
Perhaps its because the pieces are too powerful -
but in all seriousness the challenge of 10x10 has already been overcome by the most successful commercial variant - Omega Chess.
And Birds and Ninjas /Stealth Ninja chess take it one step further. Ninja pawns, strengten the pawn chain and provide enough pawn play for a 10x10 which Omega might lack.
Besides choosing certain setups of fischer random plus reverse symmetry start positions of displacement chess (and Displacement Chess 2 with flexible castling) will ensure 64 square gold standard for say 200 years.
I suspect though that current orthodox chess lasts at least 100 yrs -
Interesting quote from 'The Pan Book of Chess' by Gerald Abrahams
:
Capablanca, at the height of his powers, suggested that so much had been learned in Chess that novelty was on the wane. He suggested the addition of extra pieces on a larger board. But he lived to discover that Chess was richer than he had thought it to be.2008, and still status quo. Give it another 100 years maybe or a technology breakthrough that facilitates Computer to actually play the openings well without opening book. Or of course to ' solve ' chess.
Then , maybe ... One can only hope that chess will live on in the form of a chess variant.
For now though, the popularity of 64 square chess helps 80 or 100 square variants and will remain gold standard.
Dipole Chess. A cross between Chess and the game Dipole by Mark Steere. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Standard chess is much deeper than dipole chess for obvious reasons. No one meaninglessly moves knights and bishops around in chess - so that is not even part of the comparison. (If deeper means less variety - less turns as Joe mentioned.) However, dipole chess could be interesting but the description here is very deceptive. This is a pure 8x8 chess variant - it is by no means a slight change to the rules as suggested. I would describe this honestly as follows: A game with NEW pieces: THE PIECES ARE NOT THE SAME!!!! the king ca only move one step forwards/one step diagonally forward. - it is not a standard chess king Neither is the the very weak knight. The bishop is not a real bishop either. Nor the rook or queen. And this 8x8 chess with 5 new pieces is very unlike standard chess even more so than large board 10x10/104 square variants with new pieces. So in my opinion, this is not a modest chess variant but a complete makeover and change to chess. An 8x8 Fairy Chess just like any other Fairy Chess game. I personally don't like using the term Fairy Chess - but it has been used for some time now to describe a chess-like game with new pieces.
Yes, I see how you came to this idea. But I can say that adding say 4 new pieces with new movement and keeping the rules the same is merely a tweak as well. I think it is the net result that is important. True you could change the wording a bit, take out a few lines of code in zillions but its still a major change. I don't see how this is any different from replacing say a queen with an amazon. or a rook with a chancellor. So, I would say this is a full fledged chess variant, but I do see how you see it as a 'tweak' to the rules. Just that this little 'tweak' changes things drastically - you have to admit! An interesting idea nonetheless ...
Alfaerie Expansion Set 6. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]These look very good - I will definitely use them in my zillions files. Does anyone know how to use these icons for a game courier preset though? I have no idea how to use anything other than the usual alfaerie set when making a preset.
Ninety-one and a Half Trillion Falcon Chess Variants. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe, In Pick the Piece Big Chess, I started out with this premise. And taking it one step forward - Chess players will probably like a 'natural' start position, not one with the pieces in the middle of the board. Thus you have two empty slots in the wings after you fill in the holes with pawns. Further design considerations: Bigger board weakens the knights and the pawns. Stepping knights seem an interesting solution. Dropping extra pawns (stronger pawns) help with the pawns as well. Net result - similar to chess but still different. The lesson from 80 square chess variants applies - change one parameter and the game is radically different. The only possible 'next' chess is something like Fischer Random or perhaps just an alternate setup - something like Displacement Chess, and even these are doubtful - we are talking the next 100+ years or so. Trying to 'convert' chess players to this new variant reminds me of Communism -- it will only work under a dictatorship in the end ...LOL. I mean, come on, we will all be long dead before Chess 'dies' - lets not get too obsessed with the 'next' chess since there is a good chance that this next chess never happens!
Regardless, of differing opinions, one thing is quite clear when you step back 6 feet away.
'Next Chess' as discussed here is just another spec to create another chess-like variant in the hope that std chess players will warm up to it.
See Displacement Chess 2 for my minor modification of this.
'Next Chess' as discussed here is just another spec to create another chess-like variant in the hope that std chess players will warm up to it.
Any game on these pages not too different from chess is 'next chess' in one or more opinions. At one point in time, I used to think this way too: that there must be a next chess either here or one that I create. But the reality is - the players decide (over the course of time) on 'next chess' or the next game not the designer or anyone else (esp NOT people with a dislike for orthodox chess).
I think a more useful endeavor would be categorize the existing chess variants under the parameters mentioned below. e.g. gating, dropping, shuffling, larger board, etc. and maybe promote a few of them in such a manner.10x10 boards seem better for this purpose - unless you want really minor changes like Displacement Chess - more deserving of next chess since it was already tried successfully and is not much change at all.
Adding Rook-knight / bishop knight compounds (or any other pieces actually) to 8x8 makes it too over-powered.
Note that Displacement Chess was mentioned in 'Popular Chess Variants' by David Pritchard.See Displacement Chess 2 for my minor modification of this.
So, far I am hearing odd little items such as '8x8 Chess will be laughed at' presumable in the not too distant future. - Actually this is a possibility if the human race decreases in IQ, every exercise of the mind will be laughed at! And forcing chess variant designers to follow standards dictated by someone or others - *something I as a designer will never do*, So how exactly did 8x8 chess evolve? BY PLAYING! Instead of wasting this time arguing about forcing others to do things, why not just organize more tournaments, play more chess variants and see what comes out of that. With enough people, people will naturally gravitate towards a few chess variants. We have a great tournament going on right now in which each player has 2 favorite variants to play against the others. This has taken a backseat to this useless discussion. Why were not all the parties involved in this tournament? One thing to note: the chess playing community is very large and not interested in ANY chess variant at this point. Feel free to post this Next Chess idea at any chess forum to see what response you get. Perhaps, this post is intended for ortho chess sites - it must be - it does not concern chess variants - as the most important support for chess variants is not mentioned: PLAYING them! However, I do see some benefits to what Rich is doing - probably on the way to an excellent categorization and possible promotion of chess variants - both of which alone are good points for IAGO.
With regards to naming, you can set up something or simply extend the literature on these pages so that if Variant A calls the chancellor Piece Y, most people know what the piece is. Even a simple comment by another user on the variant will point to the original name. And regarding open source bullies. Yes, they are bullies which is why Microsoft has been smart in not fully implementing standards for their browser. Same for Firefox - they end up having to cater to code not following standards or else their browser would have been useless. And here we are talking about something NOT very creative inherently - writing HTML code/programming. So its apples vs oranges anyway. The standards you are proposing actually dictate what the designer should create. For example you are against pawn promotion to multiple queens even though this is quite standard in most chess variants.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Please disregard any link to preset in comments section with 'Falcon' piece.
Excellent comment to balance out irrelevant comment regarding patent.