Comments by avunjahei

This is one of the "closed" category of large chess variants, that is, there are a lot of weak pieces, so the game develops slowly. If you like such kind of games - i do - this is one of the best.

It usually begins with a kind of vanguard skirmish involving pawns and alfils (and maybe one or two dabbabahs), in case both players try to advance in the middle or on the same side. This phase is quite pleasent and interesting.
Next comes a longwinded phase of consolidation and defining the front lines, advancing the rest of the pawns and the weak pieces like knights, camels, zebras and the 1-step-sliders. This phase may be tedious for some, it requires strategic thinking rather than tactics. I like this phase and also the next one.
In the 4th phase the players try to break into the enemy's line-up, usually with the weak pieces backed up by the strong one's from the rear. Far reaching minor pieces like zebras and bishops are becoming quite prominent now and often manage to get traded with more powerful pieces.
After most of the weak pieces are traded, the game becomes very tactical. For dull players like me here the game is getting arduous. 

The initial set-up is a good solution, but why are the knights closer to the rim than the camels and zebras? The logical order should be: zebras on the rim, then the camels, than the knights, isn't it?
Initially I also thought, that ferz, wazir and guard standing on the rim are misplaced, too. But thats ok. They are flank fighters, only slowly getting to the middle of the board, so they don't disturb the opening game. Or they stay at home to protect the king.

Worst game ever!!!!

Yes,the idea is good, but i guess, Burroughs was a bad chess player. It's just not possible to avoid a draw! The fliers will just get traded (better were the odwars of the "earlier" game) - this game is a flaw. At least with this rules it's just not playable.

Innovative choice of pieces. Theoretically they fit well with each other. But game play turnsout to be rather awkward.

Looks nice, but doesn't work well. Every game I played was like the other.

What a game!

I didn't know that it is possible to create a game using pieces that are credibly EVIL. That's not just a game, it's a piece of art.

I'm not convinced though, that it is playable "by mere mortals" without minor changes. The most problematic piece is the Ghast. It's presence restricts the possible opening play for the second player to a few playable variations.

If you happen to hear strange voices when trying this game, don't bother! Thats normal...

I hate to say it, but this is a children's game. Alas, it's flawn. It will end in a draw when both players are moderately skillful.

Works very well.

Still one of the best solutions for a large board. The set of pieces is quite conservative, but that may be the reason why it works. They consist merely of the most logical extensions of the classical set. The set is well balanced. There are more leapers than sliders, but that's good for the board at first is a bit crowdy. The foxes in front of the pawns are placed very well. They effectively close the game, hindering advancement of pieces. Whithout them opening play wouldn't work nicely.

The game mimics well the proceedings of a real life battle, much better than Classical Chess and even better than Shatranj. This feature is geneally one of the pleasant things when playing large chess variants

One of my favorite large board games. Playing it gives a kind of breathy feeling, if that makes sense. Like on a wide open field; your limbs seem elongated...it's like playing chess on Pandora... In a way.

Doesn't work. The dabbabante exerts too much pressure on the 2th/9th rank.

I really tried many games some time ago. This situation never happened. As soon as the number of pieces was reduced, it ended in a deadline.

Anyway, I would love to be wrong. I for my part would be ready to see my theory challenged by playing a game at the MindArena.

Well... i try to play my first game on this site (Wildbeast Chess) But it doesn't work. i make a move, the preset shows my move, but it's not remembered. Don't know what I do wrong-

Well, I see now that i'm not the only one who noticed the river problem. Maybe the idea with the two islands is good. also the elephant being allowed to stay (but not to move I guess) in the river.  Both changes combined may work, at least it would increase the variability of gameplay

Works like magic. Thanks a lot!

"Whenever a piece leaves its initial square, one of the extra pieces can
immediately be introduced to the vacant square. So this is a double move,
comparable to castling. Should a player refrain from inserting his extra
pieces at these occasions, then he has forfeited his chance of introducing
them." - Ok. - "When castling, one of the extra pieces can be placed on
either of the squares left vacant" - Isn't that a contradiction?

Before you castle you have to move two pieces at least. That means to me,
you have already defeated your right to insert them.

What do I misunderstand

The opposing Genschers can get exchanged in the starting position. That's ugly.

Shouldn't they better be put behind the sea?

Jeremy, how do I castle in Wildbeest Chess? I would have to move 2 pieces, but the preset doesn't allow it.

Ultima is a puzzling game in more than one sense. It seems to violate all rules for game invention. Even its inventor called it a flaw and his reasons are all pretty true. yet it is one of the most successful chesslike games, and its also one of my favorites.

First point, he says, it lacks clarity. Of course it does. Playing it does not feel like playing chess at all, its more like solving a puzzle in every turn, so for every move you need much much time. Does that make it a bad game? No, it doesnt. Its exactly what we like on it.

The other big point is, that it favors the defender. And so it does. This should lead to draws, at least at a high level of competition. But thats okay. Draughts and Morris are even more drawish, yet they are not bad games. If following an interesting fight it does not matter that much if it finally leads to a draw. 

Maybe it is even the lack of clarity that makes the game playable despite the strong defending power of its pieces.

I cant see that it is bad to advance your pieces rather than stay at home. The more space youve got the more mobility you have. And what is the biggest advantage of that? To be able to bring your immobilizer in a strong position.

That may be the only ugly thing of this game: that the immobilizer is too important. As far as my experience goes, he is the central piece in every successful attack. Immobilize the king and capture it with the chameleon. I rarely succeeded in winning in any other way.

But yet not ugly enough yo reduce my rating.