AbigailII: Alright, I see your point, although there is still a random movement factor with the die roll; so, if you really seek a strategy enhancement (i.e., safeguarding the Kings), why not suggest the same game and tournament type without the dice?

AbigailII: Curious suggestion! Would the doubling cube be used? If a double was declined, how many points would the offeror get?

One obstacle may be the time. Dice10 takes much longer than the gammon games, so a short time control (I'd say one day, or less) might be almost essential, otherwise the whole thing could take years.

P-G:

If I understand correctly, a "pure" Cannon will act like a Rook with a limited range?

Well, sort of. I mean it could move like a Rook, but remain stationary when fired, and only fire so far.

The Chinese Cannon implying an intervening obstacle is just what make it so rich of possibilities and so different from all other pieces. Isn'it?

But only rich in xiang-qi, as yet. Like Abigail astutely said earlier, taking a piece from one game set and putting it into another isn't necessarily a panacea; in fact it may be the opposite, or stoical at best. It is hard to say really without examination, but I suppose that with unlimited fire range, the game would just turn into a shooting gallery, or both players would spend most of their time dodging these threats.

You suggest a 12x10 with 12 rows and 10 columns, have I grasp what you wrote? If correct, I don't see the point for the melioration. I thought more for a 10 rows and 12 columns, in order to expand the positionning at the start.

Yes, the "vertical" dimension would be across the board, like from one player to another.

I refrein to propose a 12x12 board, fearing to be consider as a megalomaniac :-). But is that really foolish?

Not at all! Chess Variant Pages is loaded with countless ideas, including many with large boards. I think foolish are those that purport an oblong board, say like 8 by 20, especially loaded with a myriad of pieces.

I totaly agree with you, the best would be to experiment and so doing improving more surely.
I wonder if Fencer read this discussion board. Perhaps he could envisage to program your nice idea of a "Idea editor". How a rich source for new ideas it will feed!

With so many talk boards here, I don't see how he can keep up with all of them, unless a moderator brings a special item to his attention. BTW, maintenance is acutely lacking; one person listed as a moderator here has been gone for two and a half years!!?

P-G: We have to hope the seed will sprout, and keep our fingers crossed! You've got the creative spirit.

Placing cannons on the grand board would definitely alter the complexion of the game. I would be more amenable to the idea of a "pure" cannon; that is, one that may fire a given distance (say, for example, 4, 5 or 6 spaces), not with the need for an intervening obstacle. Either way, I suppose their range would have to be limited somewhat, otherwise you just get into a free-for-all. In other words, you must move them out into risky territory in order to make them threatening. Alas, I remain a bit skeptical that they could prove to be too powerful, and spoil the idea, or otherwise pose some flexibility problem with a grand variant set........ An extra Card is a bold proposition. It's a dangerous piece, and having a pair of them per side would make matters much more challenging.

I was trying to imagine how your idea would work on a 12 (vertical) by 10 (horizontal) board. It would be neat if this site (or some other) offered something like an "idea editor", a system in which games could be played strictly off the record by setting up your own board size and piece array of choice, just to see what might happen by experimentation. In this way, a handful or so games could be tried, and then you might modify it; something you assumed would be useful might not turn out to be, but something else you had not thought of at all could come to mind. I don't know how difficult this would be to arrange, but there is already a game editor for screen chess and others, so it doesn't seem too problematic.

P-G: Good point there about the pawns, they do have an awkward mobility. You may well be correct about the cannon being not so well known. It has been said that xiang-qi is the "world's most popular game", a rather disingenuous boast since China has by far more people than any other country. Attempts to promote the game elsewhere have produced less than stellar results; whether this is due to the peculiar application of the cannon shot or some other aspect is hard to ascertain.

You write that a gold general (following promotion) could tear into an opponent's front, assuming there was anything left there to attack. This works in shogi, where pieces are continually recycled, but in grand (or another similar game on a larger board), it would require an early promotion, which does occur, but rather uncommonly. I was thinking of the latter stages of grand, when there are far fewer units standing on a more open board. The general would be lonely, and at that point may be only marginally better than a pawn. He may be able to move in many directions, but probably won't be capturing anything.

Abigail's point is well made, that the piece arrays fit the game designs; the oriental games are more strategic. But also good is the mention you made of expanded boards, like 12 by 10. This might be the optimum for your design that would give the cannons greater scope. I agree that many shogi variants are too cluttered; one game ("middle shogi", I think, not sure) was reputed to have gone over 300 turns!!?

P-G: I've been thinking about your recent posts. They are worthy of discussion, whether or not merit. Indeed, many adaptations could be made to the grandchess set that conceive "grandchess variants" just as heretofore we have witnessed hundreds of registered chess variants.

Of course, there is a sizable difference in these fields. Chess is centuries old and, especially in the modern era, has been deeply analyzed and become so overmechanized that the highest level games are almost automatically drawn. (This perceived exhaustion of chess was the driving impetus to create variants of it!) Grandchess though (while itself known as a classic chess variant) is just 25 years old, and has undergone no such methodic exploratory transformation. It probably never will, and certainly won't in our lifetimes, so the necessity to develop variants thereof is much less pronounced, although the ideas can be of interest.

The cannon is a good tactical game piece, but its lack of popularity outside the Orient may be due to its obtuse nature in comparison to real battlefield situations. The diagram array you presented appears to be more like an entirely different game construct, rather than an offshoot of grand. You combine elements of xiang-qi, shogi, and grand, but you also placed the Kings on the back rows which (unlike grand) is more akin to Janus, embassy, Capablanca's, and perhaps other ideas. You also expressed a desire to deviate from pieces based on Knight movement, or at least some of them. I don't know what to attribute this to other than personal taste.

Some thoughts on the promotions:
-- First, you suggest that a pawn be promoted to a gold general. I'm not a big fan of shogi, but I like the gold and silver generals; the gold is slightly stronger of course. But, on the 10 squared board among the grand array, they would be sharply ineffective. It is hard to imagine how they could even outplay the Knight, which is unquestionably the weakest piece.
-- Second, with this suggestion you directly contradict the grand standard of promoting only to an already captured piece. Some leeway is allowale here, since variants are mostly about rule and/or piece changes, but it makes your idea that much further removed from grand.
-- Third, you state that a captured gold would revert to a pawn, but this is superfluous since there are no piece drops in grand, unless you want to play it like chessgi (here called "loopchess") but that changes all the game dynamics and unearths a Pandora's Box of whether to allow pawns to be dropped on the eighth or ninth ranks. Or, perhaps you were merely stating a condition of shogi, I couldn't tell.
-- Fourth, Walter says he would do away with eighth rank promotions. You wisely refrained from embracing this notion. Shortly after introducing his game, Freeling explained that he had tested limiting promotions to the ninth and tenth ranks, but decided it better to include the eighth rank as well. Even at that, the suggestion to abolish eighth rank promotion has been made before, and been met with disapproval from most grand players. It may only take four moves to promote a pawn, but that doesn't make it easy.
-- Fifth, By the time one side is able to achieve a promotion, they usually have a winning edge anyway, so a rule change based just on promotion would have scant impact. Of course, if that were incorporated into other changes, as you have outlined, this would be a different case.

Ultimately, I suspect that variations of grand (if any are to become popular) will be those that (like chess variants) make one simple rule change (instead of an eclectic sort) that is easily understandable yet still provides prolific and dynamic play. But, since the mysteries of grand itself are still largely untapped, it seems likely that this site (or others) will be reluctant to add modifications to the basic game. So, it might be that the best we can hope for is to have fun with these new ideas by tinkering with them on our own quarters, or playing against friends.

Chess Variant Pages has a listing for "Amazon-Grand Chess" which adds an Amazon (combined Q & N) to each side of a standard grandchess array, placed behind each Queen; White's on d1, Black's on d10. No mention of it ever having been tested, but it would almost certainly enhance the tactical play.

Also, I'd like to suggest applying the ice chess concept to the grandchess board. This could produce interesting strategic games.

Walter Montego: It is worth noting that inventor Freeling believes the Marshal is the strongest piece. Many disagree, citing the Queen's better mobility. (Placed on any of the four center squares of an open board, a Queen covers 35 squares, as opposed to the Marshal's 26.) And there are situations where a Cardinal is preferable to either. However, it is widely recognized that Q, M, & C are the strongest pieces. Many newcomers have difficulty grasping the Cardinal's superiority to a Rook.