Talk:Chess variant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Zillions of Games

From the text; "Since the creation in 1998 of Zillions of Games, a Windows compatible program which enables non-experts to quickly design and playtest chess variants using an AI opponent, the total number has been increasing constantly and rapidly." I think this statement is misleading in that it assumes the increase in chess variants is directly tied to the computer program Zillions of Games. While ZoG deserves mention, it is not, in my opinion as a variant designer, the reason for "the total number has been increasing constantly and rapidly." Rather, I suspect the existence of the website http://www.chessvariants.com/ has had more to do with this increase than ZoG. In otherwords, ZoG has had a lot of existing variants translated into it's own program rather than being a breeding ground for new variants that then become popular. neoliminal

Although many chess variants obviously predate the existence of the ZOG program (1998), the chess variant pages is mainly, merely a reference resource for playing chess variants manually- not a powerful set of tools for inventing, playtesting, refining chess variants (as well as automatically playing an AI opponent with rules enforced). Of course, your personal methods as a game designer may differ from other creative people and considerable time is typically required for something new to become popular. Nonetheless, the ZOG program has been a great catalyst to the development of many new games (in addition to the implementation of many old games), some of which may be of higher quality than even possible for popular, traditional chess variants. The statement rings true in correctly ascribing cause-and-effect to my experience and so, is not misleading to me. Of course, neither your opinion nor mine is being sought. The fact is the growth in the number and variety of chess variants in recent years cannot likely be attributed to any other event or development than the advent of the ZOG program. --AceVentura
The fact is the growth in the number and variety of chess variants in recent years cannot likely be attributed to any other event or development than the advent of the ZOG program. Again, I disagree. Can you site some proof of this? I suppose we could take a sampling of chess variants before ZoG and after, and see how many were created using ZoG or were simply translated into ZoG after being created elsewhere first. This may be a confusion of cause and effect. I bet there were tons of good variants that were added to ZoG because it's a great medium for new variant... but that doesn't mean ZoG caused these variants to be created. I guess I would like some evidence to support your claim.

No evidence. The correlation could be completely dismissed as an astonishing coincidence ... if you wish to belittle the significant contribution and stimulation the ZOG program has held for chess variant development since 1998. Personally, it has been quite valuable to me. Moreover, many others in the chess variant community have made similar remarks in various forums. --AceVentura


I suspect that the group you refer to as "the chess variant community" is actually the ZoG using community. Since you are part of this community what you aren't seeing are the variant creation efforts which do not use nor rely on ZoG. From such a perspective it would indeed appear that ZoG was the reason behind any increase since you're seeing all the development of Zog based games and any conversion of variants designed without ZoG that someone has created a ZoG file for. neoliminal 18:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there any practical way for an independent arbiter (for instance, a Unix or Lunix user, perhaps) to evaluate the claims the ZoG using community has made? Although there may be at least one website where ZoG has achieved a level of preeminence, that's a far cry from universal acceptance. I don't wish to belittle the achievements of the author behind ZoG, but not everyone has access to a Windows compatible environment to try it out, and see if it does, indeed, facilitate - or even automate - creation of "new chess variants" never before seen anywhere else.

[edit] Ultima

What about Ultima? Cant find it on wikipedia at all, but I know it has been mentioned before. Removed maybe? http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/ultima.html

It is listed as "Baroque chess" here. Andreas Kaufmann 16:51, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historical links between national variants and chess

I was not aware of any scholarly debate about the historical link between the national variants of chess (shogi, xiangqi, janggi, etc.) and shatranj (or its predecessor chaturanga). Would someone be so good as to provide me a reference for [...] may even come from unrelated origins. Some writers even emphasize that they are not chess.? Thanks. --Karl Juhnke

[1] is a good reference on the subject. The conclusion there is that the theory that it comes from India (which I believe is the traditional story in China, BTW) is entirely plausible, but that there is no concrete evidence for its truth.

Thanks for the reference. It puts in perspective how scanty the evidence for common origin is. However, it is one thing to point out a lack of proof for one theory, and quite another to articulate an alternative theory. True, the evidence for a common origin is sparse and inferential, but the evidence for independent (convergent) evolution is AFAIK as non-existent as the theory is implausible. The article you link does not advance any evidence, direct or inferred, against the notion of xiangqi being descended from chaturanga; it merely points out gaps in our knowledge.
By all means, let us be cautious about presenting a tenuous theory in the guise of fact. But if the evidence for common Indian origin (prior written references and extremely similar rules) is so much stronger than the evidence for inpendent invention (absolutely nothing), I don't see why the latter theory should get equal or greater emphasis.
If I am still missing the point, please educate me. Peace, --Karl Juhnke

I didn't write the original paragraph, I just answered your request for a reference. Personally, I don't think any commentary either way is needed on this page, which is really just linking structure. Someone will doubtless write a separate article on the game family as a whole eventually. Matthew Woodcraft

[edit] Can we call XiangQi and Shogi a "chess variant"?

As some of you probably already know, I don't like calling XiangQi and Shogi variants of chess, because I don't believe they are variants of Chess. AFAIK, a chess variant is a change of chess to another ruleset. XiangQi and Shogi seem so completely different to me than Chess that they should not be called variants (I think Asian players of those games would be offended by this) even though the Chess variants page lists them as variants. What do others think? --Chuck Smith

I think it depends on whether people think of 'Chess' as referring to the FIDE game, or to the family as a whole. My impression is that among English speakers, shogi is usually called 'shogi' and not 'Japanese chess', but xiang-qi is called 'Chinese chess' at least as often as it's called 'xiang-qi'. So maybe there's no way to make everyone happy. More practically, this page could usefully distinguish between games which begin with FIDE chess and make changes from there, and games of the same family where the common ancestor is much further back. Matthew Woodcraft

Matthew seems to have grasped what I was getting at when I restructured the way that chess is treated on Wikipedia. It was completely intentional to put variants as the last major subdivision of the Chess article. In making place for variants, I had no intention to have it dependent on the history of chess. I can appreciate Chuck's position that Shogi and Xiangqi are not chess, but one cannot excape the simple fact that they are chess-like. If someone were to ask me "What's shogi?" I would be hard put to avoid saying that it's like chess. Maybe I'll just add the words "chess-like" to "National variants". Eclecticology

I too think Matthew has hit the nail on the head. When I edited the page, I didn't call Shogi and Xiangqi "National variants", I called them "Chess-like games derived from Shatranj". I was reserving the word chess for the game that standardized in Europe by the 1500's, and xiangqi et al are not variants of that chess. I know that whatever convetion we adopt here won't be universal, but that shouldn't prevent us from adopting a convention. Let's respect Chuck's point and reserve "chess variants" for games derived from chess, and call games with a common ancestor to chess "chess relatives", or "chess cousins", or something that emphasizes the actual genetic relationship. Chess is not a shogi variant, and shogi is not a chess variant, they are both (in all probability) chaturanga variants.

I understand that's the trend in modern biology too. Don't we group species based on how long ago the split occurred, rather than on how similar species superficially appear to be? Traditionally we would love to group all the other apes together and split ourselves off as being special, but actually chimps, gorillas, and humans are all more closely related to each other than any of us to the orangutan. Something like:


common ancestor ______________organutan
                \
                 \____________gorilla
                    \
                     \________chimp
                        \
                         \____human

OK, that was a wild tangent, but the point is that the error of viewing "our" chess as primal is somehow akin to viewing our genes as privileged, and miscategorizing other species as a result. --Karl Juhnke

The tendency in biology is to base differences on the DNA maps of the different species, but I'll refrain from including references in the article to chess playing orangutans. My intent with national variants was not at all to exile some games which did not have the proper breeding. I'll keep trying to find a commonly accepted term. Eclecticology

Additionally, if this page is going to describe variants in the whole family, rememeber that shogi has a great many variants of its own (see shogi), and doubtless the other national forms do as well. I have heard that chu shogi is the most played of any country's 'secondary' chess-family game; certainly it has hundreds of years of history of high-level play.

I like the idea of building a good taxonomy of games that have evolved from chaturanga. There is a second level of variation around each of these games and this is prone to cause confusion. I agree that treating fantasy variants of FIDE chess in the same way as games like Shogi which have their own history and variation, seems inappropriate and misleading. That said, I don't know what the best term is for the overall family of games is.

The confusion comes from the fact that the word chess in English followed ultimately from chaturanga. But the game of chess exists today essentially as a single well defined game. Historically there have been several different games that have gone by the same name, so looking back we have to call them something different to distinguish them. Perhaps we could refer to other descendents of chaturanga as relatives rather than variants? --Jeff 17:30 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

The web site chessvariants.com has no difficulty Shogi et al. as variants. Eclecticology

I also think it's fine to list the national chess-like games on the Chess variants page, but not to call them variants. Would you list Chess under Shogi variant and Xiangqi variant? Do you consider Chess to be a Shogi variant?

--Chuck Smith

The case with shogi and Chinese chess is less clear-cut, but these games do not derive from modifying the rules of chess, so I would not call them variants of chess. --Zundark, Sunday, April 14, 2002

Admittedly, "chaturanga variants" may be a historically more appropriate term than "chess variants". Nonetheless, the term "chess variant" has a long-established history (in old books) of usage to describe games of this reasonably well-defined lineage or type. Note that this is a compound noun with a distinctly different meaning than its single, contained word "chess".

After Hans Bodlaender founded "The Chess Variant Pages" (dedicated to "chaturanga variants" ... if you prefer) in the early days of the internet, this term became established worldwide to any extent it was not already. The days of making games of this class known by "shogi variants" or some such had permanently passed.

When the Zillions Of Games AI program (powerful, adaptable, creative) was advented in 1998, they adopted the same term.

For better or worse, it is now set in the English language- the prevalent language of the internet. There is nothing left to debate. Anyone with a deficient understanding of this matter should NOT be so bold as to try to redefine the language on Wikipedia or anywhere else. In fairness, noone has messed-up this page to date.

OmegaMan

I disagree that Shogi, Chinese Chess, Korean Chess, Thai Chess, should be called a chess variant, for the plain simple reason that such a label does not respect the culture which developed their own Chess-like games completely independent of the "Mad queen chess" (modern western Chess) developed in Europe in the 15th century. While, from the perspective of a western person, Shogi and Chinese Chess are indeed variants, there needs to be a term which does not imply that these regional versions of Chess are somehow derived from "mad queen Chess". And, yes, there are Shogi Variants (Tori Shogi, Chu Shogi, etc.) which were developed as modifications of Shogi instead of Chess, and are generally considered "Shogi Variants" instead of "Chess Variants". Samboy 21:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Chess variants" is the only currently existing and established term available for universally referring to any and all board games of this defined class. Your lingering dissatisfaction with it as a matter of historical and cultural origins is understandable yet would not "shogi variants" be just as unfair to Westerners? Perhaps, the prevalence of the term "chess variants" arose because chess-playing Westerners (esp. in Europe and North America) were more avid about chess variants than Easterners. Obviously, "shogi variants" is left with a more restrictive meaning than "chess variants" but this did not evolve within our language as a result of anyone trying to be unfair to anyone. A term was needed and so, a gap was filled albeit awkwardly.

OmegaMan

Well, I feel it is clear that the chess variant terminology here has been imposed by self-appointed 'experts'. I satisfy my conscience by saying that it is used for the game stripped of all its culture and associations. On the other hand, why 'variant'? These games are all chess games, in a much less offensive sense. Charles Matthews 19:04, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think "chess cousins" might be a better description. Common, though not immediate, ancestor. Jake 18:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I have always preferred lesser-used yet known terms such as "chess-related games" or "chess games". Notwithstanding, it is correct that "chess variants", which carries an implication of insignificance, has become the standard term.
The pioneers of the field became the first experts by default and this process has not yet run its course due to great advances in chess variant software (AI) and computer hardware recently made, the ramifications of which are still being explored.
I consider this situation legitimate although I think it should be strongly noted that such "experts of chess variants" generally cannot be compared at a fraction of the rigor and training required to become experts in long-established sciences (for instance).
Unfortunately, formal combinatorial game theory just does not address how to create chess variants of the highest quality since mathematics concerns measurement instead of value judgments. So, this work is being undertaken informally and mostly without applying (or even attempting to correctly apply) quality guidelines by a mixture of people who strangely regard themselves as qualified and/or creative. In my studied assessment, a few are genii, a few are idiots and most are stuck (despite their efforts) with being merely average.
BadSanta

[edit] Different way to play chess is not a "chess variant"

I removed the following from Chess variant because they are not chess variants, but simply different ways to play Chess. ...and what is situs? --Chuck Smith

Variants by situs

I'll put this back; if Chuck objects to the title because it has a word he doesn't understand, let him begin by suggesting an alternative title. Situs means place; it has meanings in law and medicine. I simply adapted it to variants that depend on where the players are. It also seems that the word variant needs explaining: The listed items are variants because they are different ways to play chess. Eclecticology
Seems like these are variations of method of play rather than rules of play. Perhaps blitz chess and other methods of time control (of which postal chess can be seen as an extreme form of time control, which allows for the remoteness of participants). --Jeff 17:30 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Playing chess on the Internet and playing postal chess are really NOT chess variants! If anything, they belong on the main chess article. They are simply different ways of playing chess. The game itself is not changed, so they don't belong here. Also, situs wasn't in my Franklin Electronic Dictionary, so this certainly shouldn't be the appropriate term... Alternate title: "Ways to play chess" --Chuck Smith

  • I went to the online dictionary mentioned by Chuck. Franklin publishes the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and the word "situs" is certainly there in the free collegiate edition. My own reference was to The New Oxford Dictionary of English. It is noteworthy to mention in passim that "siti" would not be a correct plural since the Latin root is a fourth declension noun.
  • Variant means, according to the Oxford, "a form or version of something that differs in some respect from other forms of the same thing or from a standard". Since postal chess requires an alteration of the rules of chess (notably rules 1.1, 4.1 and 12.2) it is a variant. Eclecticology
    • Postal chess, blitz chess, etc. are not Chess Variants in the commonly use of the term; they

are just different ways of playing FIDE/Western Chess. Samboy 22:14, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I said Electronic Dictionary, not Online Dictionary. If a word isn't in there, it's not likely to be in common use (from what I can tell it's a specialized word for law and medicine).

Which ruleset are you talking about? I used to be a certified USCF tournament director and I pulled out my USCF Official Rules of Chess handbook, but those rules aren't laid out in that fashion. I also looked at FIDE's website, but cannot find the reference to correspondence chess that you mention. Also, it sounds like the "altered rules" are rules to tournament play, not changes to the basic game. Correspondence chess and playing on the Internet are different ways to play Chess, not different games. I hope someone else will get in this discussion, because between the two of us, we're not really getting anywhere...

--Chuck Smith

I'm with Chuck on both these points. All chess variants can be played postally or via the Internet or face-to-face (and even in other ways). These are different ways to play the variants - they are not themselves variants. --Zundark, Sunday, April 14, 2002

[edit] Chess variants, which don't belong to Wikipedia

I (Camembert) have removed the following:

  • OliverYue Chess: Starting with an empty board, players alternate either with a move or a parachute drop of a piece on one's own half of the board. Pieces can cross this river (a4-5 to h4-5) only when one's own king is on the board. Pawns cannot parachute onto one's own first rank. Each piece gets one parachute opportunity, when captured it is out of the game. No castling or en passant, however all other rules re e.g. check apply as in normal chess.

I can't find any reference to this variant on the web or in the books I have, and I suspect it hasn't been recorded elsewhere. We can't really list any old variant that people happen to think up (in effect, it's a kind of original research, one of the things that Wikipedia is not). If anybody can provide a respectable source independent of the Wikipedia and of the inventor detailing this variant, then, of course, it'll be fine to go back in the article. (Incidentally, this does bear some resemblance to Unachess, detailed at [2] on chessvariants.com) --Camembert

I removed the following on the same reason as Camembert (see above) - Wikipedia is not research (Andreas Kaufmann):

  • Geodesic Chess: Played on hex-based grids of various sizes in the shape of a sphere or icosahedron.
  • Super Knight: Starting position for white is the same as in chess. Black gets 8 pawns, his King, and a knight ...the SuperKnight. The SuperKnight checks like a regular knight, but it can move to ANY unoccupied square or capture any of the opponent's pieces. The game should be won by white every time but only if he keeps his pieces well defended. The white rooks are not defendable so blacks first two moves are usually to capture white's rooks.


The following is removed, because it actually defines a family of chess variant, e.g. Marseliese Chess and not concrete chess variant. So, I think it is misplaced in the list of variants (Andreas Kaufmann):

  • Double and Triple Move Chess: each player moves twice or thrice per turn.


What is the policy for tolerating "dead-end" variants on the list of fantasy variants (i.e., listed variants without any articles at all)? Don't they just frustrate readers? --JudgeDredd

I think we don't have any policy here, the usual Wikipedia policies apply. We may still want to list chess variants without articles here, because short description is already enough to describe the game, e.g. as for "King's Corner Chess". Concerning "Extinction Chess", I think it deserves a special article, as the game is quite popular. There is no bad with making it "dead-link". The purpose of this is actually to animate somebody to create an article about it. Andreas Kaufmann

[edit] Bastardo?

Is "Bastardo" a notable variant? I've found a couple of internet links to it. If it is, could someone add the appropriate link to our disambig at Bastardo. Thanks. - John Fader

[edit] I have removed some POV material placed here by an IP

I have removed some POV material placed here by an IP. Here is the information I removed, which was inteposed among other info:

according to the most recent research this [the fact that India is where Chess came from]is not likely so. (See origins of chess and Xiangqi.)

[...]

Xiangqi - of ancient China, which the most modern research to date (see http://www.yutopian.com/chinesechess/history.html ) surprisingly reveals to have been played centuries before Chaturanga (i.e. by Meng Changjun, some time between 770 and 975 years prior to Chaturanga's popularly recognized date of inception)! See http://www.yutopian.com/chinesechess/stories/meng.html for supporting information.

Basically, this stuff belongs in origins of chess, as a minority viewpoint, and not here. Samboy 18:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Does Martian Chess belong here?

Does Martian Chess really belong here? I don't think it's a chess variant. Of course "chess" is part of the name, but the pieces, board, and rules are all different so that I think it's just an unrelated strategy board game. Quale 07:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, "chess" in the name suggests that at least the game inventor considered it as a chess variant. But if you define chess variant as "a game derived from or related to chess", then it is certainly not a chess variant. Andreas Kaufmann 20:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I rarely disagree with Andreas Kaufmann since he is very knowledgeable in this area but I do in the case of Martian Chess (and Tafl) which includes pieces that move identically to queens.
The foundation of this disagreement (which I am already familiar with) seems to be semantic and word-definition related. Where do experts draw the lines between:
A. board games (in general) and chess variants
B. a broad, universal definition of chess variants and a restrictive, evidently-proper definition of chess variants
Since almost any board game can be implemented using the Zillions Of Games program, it is not a suitable acid test for a chess variant (even by a broad, universal definition). Generally, I prefer to use the broad, universal definition since not doing so leaves no term available to classify board games which are chess-like in at least one respect. Of course, one can disagree that there is a need to classify most board games in the first place and criticize such attempts as reductionistic and inaccurate. --BadSanta

[edit] Tafl: a Scandinavian chess variant

As XiangQi and Shogi were discussed and it was finally decided that they should be called "chess variants", I think that Tafl, which was a national game played by the Vikings, must also enter into the same category. Thus, I took the freedom to add it to the list. However, there is a possibility for a new debate concerning Tafl since the rules have been partly lost and it is not played anymore as a national game. --Philipum 07:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe Tafl is a kind of checkers variant, not a chess variant. On contrary, XiangQi, Shogi and chess have a lot in common and most likely share a common ancestor, probably Chaturanga. Andreas Kaufmann 07:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Unlike checkers, the Tafl game contains a King and there are the fundamental chess features of check and checkmate. --Philipum 07:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The only similarity Tafl has to checkers is that every piece is the same. In fact, every piece in checkers is of limited range (1 space diagonal forward) while every piece in Tafl is of unlimited range (orthogonal- ala a rook) as is common to many chess variants.
The inventor of the Symmetrical Chess Collection once told me that Tafl was an inspiration to him when he first realized it was indeed possible to invent stable yet fast-paced chess variants entirely without using limited-range buffer pieces. --BadSanta

[edit] History behind parachute chess

When was 'parachute chess' first memorialized in print? Parachuting chess pieces onto a board, or electing to make a move with a piece already landed, is one of the earliest versions of chess where players tried to escape the 'book' and base their play purely on natural ability. Sure, I remember seeing it in tournament practice (between rounds in the skittle room) in 1975, but I don't recall anybody describing it in a magazine or anything. This predates Transcendental Chess and Fischer Random Chess by a half dozen years or so. It was around the same year when people started arguing about the benefits of abbreviated algebraic notation as opposed to expanded algebraic notation, and comparing these to the benefits of descriptive notation. If you were too young to be privy to these debates, it's a shame.

There are a number of chess variant, which match to what you described, for example:
* Unachess
* Placement chess
Do you remember if there were any restrictions on where a piece can be parachuted? Andreas Kaufmann 10:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the usual way of playing the game was with a chess clock, and capturing didn't start until all the pieces were on the board, but moving the pieces that were already on the board (where 1 piece counts as 1 move, in lieu of a parachute drop) was permitted. It's really not that original of a concept, it probably arose independently in different places at different times, almost always from people trying to escape from over analyzed openings in the book.

[edit] ICC 'Wild 7'

This deceptively simple variant, with 3 pawns and a king for each side, has been played in ICC (http://www.chessclub.com/) by many players for many years. It is described in ICC by typing 'help wild7'. It has also been written up in several published endgame books. It is also supported by the freely available open-source chess engine 'Crafty' created by Dr. Robert Hyatt. I think it warrants a mention in the Chess Variant page, and it doesn't fall into the existing categories since it has normal chess rules but a reduced piece starting position.

It should not be included here because it is not a complete, non-trivial game. Instead, it is merely an exercise for becoming more resourceful at handling endgames in chess. AceVentura
Have you ever played this variant? Having played it many times, I would beg to differ - it is complete (and much simpler to set up than regular chess), very challenging (for most people), enjoyable (for many), non-trivial (for most), and is rarely if ever played as an 'endgame exercise'. BTW it can become very complex in some cases where promotion is achieved by both sides. W7fan
Can the pawns promote to spare Kings when they make it to the 8th rank? If so, an initial setup with 3 pawns and a knight each (no King), ought to be equally playable.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.27 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC).
Wild7 is played just like regular chess (except the initial starting position which is a king and 3 pawns), therefore pawns cannot promote into kings. If the starting position included anything but the K and 3 P's then it wouldn't be W7. Crum375 21:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Patt-Schach

Someone should add Patt-schach to the article. See http://www.chessvariants.org/diffsetup.dir/pattsch.html Krakatoa 16:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mutation and Dual Chess

There are two types not mentioned here that I have read about and personally played. Mutation chess is a normal game except that every time a piece is taken, the attacking piece gains it's 'power'. Eg: A Queen takes a Knight, and can thus move in L-shapes, as well as diagonally and orthogonally. This game requires a lot of concentration due to the number of 'mutations' that can take place.

The other type is Dual Chess, an interesting variant with complex rules. It is played with 4 people (2 teams of 2) and 2 chess boards. The players must sit:

Team 1:  Black    White
        (board)  (board)
Team 2:  White    Black

Each time a piece is taken, that piece is passed over to the next person. Eg: White player, Team 2, takes a black rook. He then gives it to his partner, who can place it on his board. Black 2 can also choose to keep the piece in front of him, to play at any time. Each time a piece is placed on the board, it uses up a turn, it must be placed on an empty square, and cannot be placed in a position causing the other player to be in check. Normally, a small group of pawns gathers in front of each player, while queens and rooks are generally played immediately. It is against the rules to wait for a piece to be passed to you and the game ends when both games are finished (if Black 1 and White 1 both checkmate their opponent, Team 1 wins. If Black 1 and Black 2 checkmate their opponent, it is a draw). If Black 1 checkmates White 2, but the other game has not been finished, the pieces from the first game do NOT get transferred over to the other game, both other players must do without. Aside from the passing of the pieces, the games are separate. Complex strategies are required, as placing a piece down enables a player to increase their chance of winning, however they loose a critical turn. Sacrificing is also difficult, as it enables the other player of the other team to gain a piece that may turn the tide in his game.

Should I add these in? As I said, I have played these with quite a few people, and I read about them on the Internet somewhere, so they are valid variants. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TelcontarNuva (talk • contribs) 27 June 2006.

Mutation chess is a legitimate one that could certainly be added. Dual chess seems to be the same as bughouse chess (which is already in the article) except with some slightly different rules. Personally, I don't think it is different enough to have its own entry. SubSeven 19:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/e/Talk%7EChess_variant_8cd1.html"