Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 11th 17, 06:43 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 569
Default Dukes Chess

Looking in Edmonton for chess sets for sale, I saw that someone had "Dukes
Chess" for sale.

I did a Google Search, and found out that this was a proprietary chess variant.

It was on an 8 by 9 board.

White's layout was changed by adding the Duke between the King and the King's
Knight, and on the King/Duke side, the Knight and Bishop are swapped, so that
both Bishops are of opposite colors.

On the Black side: Black's Duke is opposite White's Queen and vice versa. But
the board doesn't have central symmetry - the Knights are opposite Knights, and
the Bishops are opposite Bishops.

The Duke moves on Queen lines, but it can only move 1, 2, or 3 spaces. And it
can only capture, again on Queen lines, by moves of 2 or 3 spaces.

The company making the game appears to have failed and disappeared.

While, unlike, say, Chancellor Chess, this game could have been quite playable, since the Duke is not so overpowered as to unbalance the game, it's not surprising that the game failed to make a splash. Why invest effort in learning
how to play such a game well, when Chess exists with such a large community
behind it, and is so similar?

John Savard
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 17, 02:06 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2014
Posts: 49
Default Dukes Chess

Quadibloc wrote:
..
Why invest effort in learning
how to play such a game well, when Chess exists with such a large community
behind it, and is so similar?

..
Why indeed?
..

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

  #3   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 17, 06:48 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 569
Default Dukes Chess

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 6:05:41 PM UTC-7, 52% wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:


Why invest effort in learning
how to play such a game well, when Chess exists with such a large community
behind it, and is so similar?


Why indeed?


But there's another side to that. If people are put off from Chess not by
anything about the game itself, but by the fact that there are so many people
who have studied it in such depth that they are likely to run into impossibly
superior opponents... a variant has appeal for exactly that reason.

John Savard
  #4   Report Post  
Old February 12th 18, 09:01 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2014
Posts: 49
Default Dukes Chess

Quadibloc wrote:

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 6:05:41 PM UTC-7, 52% wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:


Why invest effort in learning
how to play such a game well, when Chess exists with such a large community
behind it, and is so similar?


Why indeed?


But there's another side to that. If people are put off from Chess not by
anything about the game itself, but by the fact that there are so many people
who have studied it in such depth that they are likely to run into impossibly
superior opponents... a variant has appeal for exactly that reason.

John Savard


Well, if I may repunctuate my previous as not a serious question but
more an exclamation of agreement; thusly: Pourquois indeedy!!! ... I
mean, personally oi think the game as is (ie: the modern game viz: teh
Queen...) is more than enough for most patzers 'n masters similarly ...
& while I'm not going to agree with the reason u give {abov^} for a
variants appeal ... or maybe Fischer random is for the truly elite ...
it's also eccentric that 3 Man Chess might possibly float some dudes
boat - not me btw, 'n pls don't aks:

http://www.chess-site.com/wp-content...ssVariants.jpg
..
  #5   Report Post  
Old February 13th 18, 05:35 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 569
Default Dukes Chess

Yes, while many different three-person Chess variants have been designed - many
inspired by an ancient one for Chinese chess - unlike normal Chess, the way to
lose is to make the other two players gang up on you, so while it can be a fun
game socially, playing it seriously to win the way one does normal Chess seems to
be impossible.

So it's a totally different kind of game.

John Savard


  #6   Report Post  
Old February 13th 18, 01:33 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 57
Default Dukes Chess

On 13/02/18 04:35, Quadibloc wrote:
Yes, while many different three-person Chess variants have been
designed - many inspired by an ancient one for Chinese chess - unlike
normal Chess, the way to lose is to make the other two players gang
up on you, so while it can be a fun game socially, playing it
seriously to win the way one does normal Chess seems to be
impossible.


This, of course, is a problem with all three-sided [or more]
games. Either the game is structured so that the sides cannot play
as a team [eg, a race], or else it is so one-sided that one side can
win even if all the other sides gang up [boring!], or else any one
side loses to a coalition of the others. Strategic games are almost
always of this last sort; but then the game has much more to do with
setting up the coalition than with the actual play.

As you say, this can be fun socially, but it is death to any
serious play. Effectively, the weakest side becomes king-maker, and
is therefore open to bribes [overt or covert]. The strong sides can
win only by offering the best bribes; the weakest side only if the
chosen alliance causes the initially-strong sides to take enough out
of each other for the weakest side to sneak through [but then there
is a risk of the strong sides noticing and temporarily sinking their
differences].

The game stops being Chess [or Carcassonne, or whatever] and
becomes a matter of who is best at making friends. At that point, it
stops being subject to rational analysis. Nothing wrong with that --
many real-life situations are like that! -- but it's not why most of
us are interested in chess and other strategic games.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sound and Fury in Polgarland B. Lafferty[_6_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 December 15th 08 10:20 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 18th 05 06:36 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 November 3rd 05 06:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017