Fencer: Kudos for the creativity!

nabla: Wow. I get the Variant Chess magazine (which is great), and I am crushed by this news.

I was reading the recent newsletter and there is an opportunity to have a "best-of" match (best of 3, best of 5) with another player. If interested, let me know. Also, for those who might want to participate in a quad tourney, I would be interested in hearing from you.

I was thinking of an invitational, but I would like to know who is interested. Message me here.

Peace and good health to you all.

For those who are part of the FRCEC club, and wish to participate in a quad or a trio, let me know. My BK id is 8352 and I will set up one for you--and I will send invitations to the players.

Thanks, and good gaming to you!

redsales: " (To WhispersQ): The problem with this game is that it's really a training game to get the players to figure out the moves. It was not intended for FM-IM-GM class players!" Correct. It makes for good discussion between the veteran player (Maharajah) and the novice. It is still an entertaining idea, and more "uneven chess" like this makes for good teaching tools, solved or not.

I agree with Gary's point-spread analysis, with a Maharajah and two non-royal "Assassins" to even up the score. I like this as a teaching game, with (as it currently stands) one piece having the ability to move as each piece of the opposing team. The fact that it is alone stacks the deck against it, but with two non-royal pieces with similar powers, it will allow for some danger for Black. I do think it should be modified to make it

In the absence of that, I like ughaibu's idea of set matches.

But I prefer the addition of two non-royals. A sharper game is needed.