Regimental Chess Is Chess, But With Six Boards And 372 Pieces

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Regimental Chess Is Chess, But With Six Boards And 372 Pieces

Moving many pieces at once is certainly one way of fudging with the chess formula.

Attempting to redesign chess is a pretty old idea, and happens fairly often. But not often enough, I think. Apparently the people who made Regimental Chess agree with me, and have just put their video game component in beta for mac and PC. Regimental Chess has two primary conceits: If multiple pieces can move similarly, then those pieces can move simultaneously in formation; If you have more than one army, each army can move its pieces each turn. From there, the game blows up into an interplay of brutal and dynamic tactics.

The game, fascinatingly enough, forms a rock-paper-scissors style meta competition. Kings are best protected from fast formations of queens and bishops by knights, but knights are very vulnerable to formations of pawns. Those same pawns are quite vulnerable to the aforementioned queens and rooks.

It gets pretty crazy from there.

If you're interested in more information, or you'd like to try out their free beta, you can go to the Regimental Chess website.

Permalink

Chess: THIS ISN'T EVEN MY FINAL FORM

*cue choir and chanters*

the age old question is answered: can a chess playing computer shit their chassis?

I've always felt that Chess is a "perfect" game, with no need for any modification whatsoever. Good balance, with plenty of complexity while still maintaining a degree of elegance. This modification seems to lose the "elegance" part of the game...it looks like a mass of exchanges rather than a game of positioning. There also seems to be too much going on to think three of four moves ahead. That said, it seems fun enough for a rainy Saturday. A rainy Saturday in which I've lost access to all the other fun things I could do on the internet, anyway.

tl;dr: get your Total War out of my Chess!

Wow. Good thing it's virtual. I'd hate to try and lay this with a real chess board :) Looks like fun though. I'm still a bit iffy on the rules of who can move, and when.

Oh also the first two links in the article don't seem to link anywhere.

This seems fun for a short period of time, why reinvent the wheel though? Chess is a perfect game.

Looks interesting. Really captures the feel of the massive, ugly 18th century regimental battles from which it draws its name. All it needs is six players per side and it would be perfect!

dyre:
I've always felt that Chess is a "perfect" game, with no need for any modification whatsoever.

No en passant for you, eh?

Veylon:
Looks interesting. Really captures the feel of the massive, ugly 18th century regimental battles from which it draws its name. All it needs is six players per side and it would be perfect!

dyre:
I've always felt that Chess is a "perfect" game, with no need for any modification whatsoever.

No en passant for you, eh?

Fine, fine. Chess has been perfected in the last update back in the Middle Ages and needs no more further modifications (with the possible exception of reskins), happy? :P

Veylon:
Looks interesting. Really captures the feel of the massive, ugly 18th century regimental battles from which it draws its name. All it needs is six players per side and it would be perfect!

I've always felt that chess was a bit flawed as an analogy game for warfare because it didn't really have the feel of a battle. Generals who equated war to chess seemed too detached from the sheer bloody mayhem of it all. This looks feverish, chaotic and has a very satisfying feel of moving regiments of troops around and smashing into enemy ranks.

You are correct, when i think of the glory days of tactical battlefield troop warfare i always tend to think of late 18th to early 19th century British army square formations and advancing ranks of bayonet men.

dyre:
I've always felt that Chess is a "perfect" game, with no need for any modification whatsoever.
No en passant for you, eh?

Ha! A fine point. I've always kind of hated the "Chess is, always will be and always has been the perfect game" idea personally. Chess gets elevated to too higher pedestal.

Personally I didn't know the rule was a later addition until a couple of years ago when i decided to read up on the history of chess. Used to play a bit at school. Non players tend to call hax on the en passant rule because the idea that the prices have to 'touch and fight' is so ingrained in their imaginations.

I used to play chess as a kid. I was never good enough at it to think any more than one move ahead. This new version looks like it would be even harder to master, though I would love to watch someone play it.

Currently playing this with a friend. It is messy good fun moving large armies through a line of pawns and putting one of the kings in check. Best part, killing a king removes all the same color pieces, so it can get bloody really quickly.

dyre:

Veylon:
Looks interesting. Really captures the feel of the massive, ugly 18th century regimental battles from which it draws its name. All it needs is six players per side and it would be perfect!

dyre:
I've always felt that Chess is a "perfect" game, with no need for any modification whatsoever.

No en passant for you, eh?

Fine, fine. Chess has been perfected in the last update back in the Middle Ages and needs no more further modifications (with the possible exception of reskins), happy? :P

Actually, checking out the Wiki entry, En Passant - and the conditions of it's usage - weren't universally accepted until the late 1800's. If you had Lincoln and Garibaldi play a game, they'd have reason to dispute the rules.

The applications of the "Fifty Move" has been adjusted back and forth throughout the twentieth century and may not yet be settled.

Veylon:

dyre:

Veylon:
Looks interesting. Really captures the feel of the massive, ugly 18th century regimental battles from which it draws its name. All it needs is six players per side and it would be perfect!

No en passant for you, eh?

Fine, fine. Chess has been perfected in the last update back in the Middle Ages and needs no more further modifications (with the possible exception of reskins), happy? :P

Actually, checking out the Wiki entry, En Passant - and the conditions of it's usage - weren't universally accepted until the late 1800's. If you had Lincoln and Garibaldi play a game, they'd have reason to dispute the rules.

The applications of the "Fifty Move" has been adjusted back and forth throughout the twentieth century and may not yet be settled.

I'll be honest...I'm decent at Chess but I have no idea why En Passant exists and have never created a strategy around it. Useless update is useless!

From what I can tell the fifty move thing is really meant to keep people from wasting time. It's not meant to change how the game is played. The adjustments are probably to accommodate games that for legitimate reasons lasted over fifty moves.

dyre:

Veylon:

dyre:

Fine, fine. Chess has been perfected in the last update back in the Middle Ages and needs no more further modifications (with the possible exception of reskins), happy? :P

Actually, checking out the Wiki entry, En Passant - and the conditions of it's usage - weren't universally accepted until the late 1800's. If you had Lincoln and Garibaldi play a game, they'd have reason to dispute the rules.

The applications of the "Fifty Move" has been adjusted back and forth throughout the twentieth century and may not yet be settled.

I'll be honest...I'm decent at Chess but I have no idea why En Passant exists and have never created a strategy around it. Useless update is useless!

En Passant is the way of accounting for the fact that pawns can now move 2 squares in the opening move. Early rules of chess had pawns only move 1 square, with the 2 square first move becoming a way to speed up the opening. Because of this, pawn-on-pawn captures could hypothetically be avoided by using the double move. En Passant takes this into account.
Example:
Old Rules:
White has its pawn at start (b2). Black has its pawn at c4.
White advances its pawn to b3. Black can capture.
If black does not, white can advance to c4. Black can no longer capture.
Modern rules:
White has its pawn at start (b2). Black has a pawn at c4.
White moves its pawn two squares forward for its first move (b4). Black can only capture through En Passant on this turn, as the old rules would have the white b pawn exposed for only this move.

In modern terms, the double pawn move is a quality of life change, and En Passant simply prevents exploits, rather than acts as a new tool.

Yay for chess history!

OT: Regimental chess looks interesting, but loses some of the simplicity chess has. That said, I could see games being a lot less predictable with 8 armies and various formations. Could be fun.

F-I-D-O:

En Passant is the way of accounting for the fact that pawns can now move 2 squares in the opening move. Early rules of chess had pawns only move 1 square, with the 2 square first move becoming a way to speed up the opening. Because of this, pawn-on-pawn captures could hypothetically be avoided by using the double move. En Passant takes this into account.
Example:
Old Rules:
White has its pawn at start (b2). Black has its pawn at c4.
White advances its pawn to b3. Black can capture.
If black does not, white can advance to c4. Black can no longer capture.
Modern rules:
White has its pawn at start (b2). Black has a pawn at c4.
White moves its pawn two squares forward for its first move (b4). Black can only capture through En Passant on this turn, as the old rules would have the white b pawn exposed for only this move.

In modern terms, the double pawn move is a quality of life change, and En Passant simply prevents exploits, rather than acts as a new tool.

Yay for chess history!

OT: Regimental chess looks interesting, but loses some of the simplicity chess has. That said, I could see games being a lot less predictable with 8 armies and various formations. Could be fun.

Ah, I see...yay for chess history indeed!

Though, that explains why I was never able to put it to much effective use. I'm also a little surprised that they added the two square move for the pawn just to speed up the opening...I mean, yeah, sure it's primarily useful in the opening, but surely the ability to save a move when advancing pawns throughout early and mid-game has other repercussions.

This reminds me of my old days in high school where I and all the other extremely cool kids would hang out in a classroom at lunch time and play chess. Because we had like 20 chess sets available we'd keep inventing new games, our favourite was a 2x2 board where each player controlled two kings, but we also had a four player free for all + shape game and if we could get enough people we played a 2x4 eight player game, basically the same as this video where all the players on one side worked together against the players on another side, although we alternated turns so it would be Black 1, White 1, Black 2, White 2, and so on. Our main problem was that we'd never finish a game in the given lunch time so we had to leave our set up games in the classroom and pray that it'd still be there the next day.

james.sponge:
This seems fun for a short period of time, why reinvent the wheel though? Chess is a perfect game.

Why not? Just because a game is good doesn't mean no-one should ever bother making anything similar.

As for "perfect", that's just straight up bollocks. There's no such thing as a perfect game, and if there were a lengthy, two player only game with no possible surprises or variation certainly would not be it. Certainly the huge number of variations that already exist make it clear that an awful lot of people don't consider it in any way perfect. Even very common, simple changes such as speed/blitz chess are efforts to address the shortcomings the base game can have.

Kahani:

james.sponge:
This seems fun for a short period of time, why reinvent the wheel though? Chess is a perfect game.

Why not? Just because a game is good doesn't mean no-one should ever bother making anything similar.

Yeah, that was my thought too. This isn't a "better" version of chess. It might be an interesting or fun thing to play though. I don't know if everyone who makes a variant of chess is actually trying to make a "better" game.

As for "perfect", that's just straight up bollocks. There's no such thing as a perfect game, and if there were a lengthy, two player only game with no possible surprises or variation certainly would not be it. Certainly the huge number of variations that already exist make it clear that an awful lot of people don't consider it in any way perfect. Even very common, simple changes such as speed/blitz chess are efforts to address the shortcomings the base game can have.

Strangely, I sort of disagree here. I'm not sure what james.sponge intended, but I took it to mean that you cannot make a better version of chess. It's been perfected. It is not, however, the perfect game since it would be pretty difficult to determine something like that. Go is certainly better, no?

Either way, taking the ruleset of a well known game and making major alterations can be fun.

Kahani:

james.sponge:
This seems fun for a short period of time, why reinvent the wheel though? Chess is a perfect game.

Why not? Just because a game is good doesn't mean no-one should ever bother making anything similar.

As for "perfect", that's just straight up bollocks. There's no such thing as a perfect game, and if there were a lengthy, two player only game with no possible surprises or variation certainly would not be it. Certainly the huge number of variations that already exist make it clear that an awful lot of people don't consider it in any way perfect. Even very common, simple changes such as speed/blitz chess are efforts to address the shortcomings the base game can have.

Chess is mathematically perfect. It's purely a game of skill. Chance only factors in who plays which pieces. Stapling six boards together and throwing in more pieces doesn't seem like a terribly fetching variation.

Definitely confusing and headache inducing.

I wouldn't consider it a replacement for the real thing, buuuuuut I'm always open to try out variants of stuff that I love, Chess being no exception. I don't see anyone dramatically changing up the formula in a way that we have to make it the norm, but it's nice to have some diversity every once in a while.

Johnny Novgorod:

Kahani:

james.sponge:
This seems fun for a short period of time, why reinvent the wheel though? Chess is a perfect game.

Why not? Just because a game is good doesn't mean no-one should ever bother making anything similar.

As for "perfect", that's just straight up bollocks. There's no such thing as a perfect game, and if there were a lengthy, two player only game with no possible surprises or variation certainly would not be it. Certainly the huge number of variations that already exist make it clear that an awful lot of people don't consider it in any way perfect. Even very common, simple changes such as speed/blitz chess are efforts to address the shortcomings the base game can have.

Chess is mathematically perfect. It's purely a game of skill. Chance only factors in who plays which pieces. Stapling six boards together and throwing in more pieces doesn't seem like a terribly fetching variation.

And you think that's a good thing? Mathematical perfection means only one thing: computers will always be better than humans at it. As it stands, this "mathematically perfect" game is boring as hell, both to watch, and to play, unless you're REALLY into chess.

For those of us who prefer more fun things, yes, variations such as this are quite "fetching". Controlling an entire army of pieces in a single turn makes for a much more interesting time to me, and hell, I would've thought that people who like chess would have thought this at least interesting.

That being said, this still doesn't look as fun as Chess 2.

MrPhyntch:

Johnny Novgorod:

Kahani:

Why not? Just because a game is good doesn't mean no-one should ever bother making anything similar.

As for "perfect", that's just straight up bollocks. There's no such thing as a perfect game, and if there were a lengthy, two player only game with no possible surprises or variation certainly would not be it. Certainly the huge number of variations that already exist make it clear that an awful lot of people don't consider it in any way perfect. Even very common, simple changes such as speed/blitz chess are efforts to address the shortcomings the base game can have.

Chess is mathematically perfect. It's purely a game of skill. Chance only factors in who plays which pieces. Stapling six boards together and throwing in more pieces doesn't seem like a terribly fetching variation.

And you think that's a good thing?

Yes, it means it's above all a game of skill in which chance factors at its bare minimum. Whether you find it boring or entertaining depends who you're playing against. Some adversaries are boring as hell, others make me want to keep playing over and over. It's not about winning or losing, it's about trumping the other person's strategy without them realizing it until it's too late. I never needed more of anything to be thrilled by it, just good players.

LRR was right!!
Also, this isn't a game anymore...this is war

Kahani:

james.sponge:
This seems fun for a short period of time, why reinvent the wheel though? Chess is a perfect game.

Why not? Just because a game is good doesn't mean no-one should ever bother making anything similar.

As for "perfect", that's just straight up bollocks. There's no such thing as a perfect game, and if there were a lengthy, two player only game with no possible surprises or variation certainly would not be it. Certainly the huge number of variations that already exist make it clear that an awful lot of people don't consider it in any way perfect. Even very common, simple changes such as speed/blitz chess are efforts to address the shortcomings the base game can have.

I'd like to consider chess as something similar to a wheel you can't make it better. Sure variations exists but they never gained as much popularity as the game they stem from and your usual two player chess game is just rich with variations and tactics. I recommend delving into some literature on the subject you should see there is much more to the game than what we can see on the surface.

Johnny Novgorod:
Chess is mathematically perfect.

No it isn't. There's no such thing.

It's purely a game of skill. Chance only factors in who plays which pieces.

Noughts and crosses and connect 4 are both also purely games of skill. They're both also shit. Just because a game doesn't involve chance doesn't mean it's somehow perfect.

james.sponge:
I'd like to consider chess as something similar to a wheel you can't make it better.

And yet we have made wheels better numerous times throughout their history.

Sure variations exists but they never gained as much popularity as the game they stem from

Clearly you know very little about chess. Variations such as speed chess are actually far more common than the base unrestricted game, for the simple reason that people rarely have the several hours free needed to play. And before anyone tries to claim that a time limit isn't really a variation, it actually changes the game completely. In a full length game the early moves are almost irrelevant, with various standard openings being extremely common, and the end game is the important part. In blitz chess, you will almost never get anywhere near the end game. Completely different play styles and strategies are needed.

I recommend delving into some literature on the subject you should see there is much more to the game than what we can see on the surface.

"We"? Just because you don't know much about the game doesn't mean everyone else is in the same situation.

Kahani:
And yet we have made wheels better numerous times throughout their history.

You mean we improved the shape?

Clearly you know very little about chess. Variations such as speed chess are actually far more common than the base unrestricted game, for the simple reason that people rarely have the several hours free needed to play. And before anyone tries to claim that a time limit isn't really a variation, it actually changes the game completely. In a full length game the early moves are almost irrelevant, with various standard openings being extremely common, and the end game is the important part. In blitz chess, you will almost never get anywhere near the end game. Completely different play styles and strategies are needed.

Sorry but introducing time limit for each move does not necessarily change the foundation of the game (i.e. core rules, move patterns, board size just like the variation in question does) and this was the thing I was referring to.

"We"? Just because you don't know much about the game doesn't mean everyone else is in the same situation.

You may be more versed in the game than I am but no need to be a rude twat.

james.sponge:
You mean we improved the shape?

What does that have to do with anything. You didn't say anything about shape, you simply said that we can't make wheels better. That claim was not true.

Sorry but introducing time limit for each move does not necessarily change the foundation of the game (i.e. core rules, move patterns, board size just like the variation in question does) and this was the thing I was referring to.

This is basically the same as the point above. Just because variations are not something you have thought of personally does not mean they are not variations. A metal wheel with spokes and rubber tyres is a huge improvement over a crude stone block, even though the shape is essentially the same. Similarly, as I already explained, you can keep the basic rules of chess the same while still making huge changes to the game.

You may be more versed in the game than I am but no need to be a rude twat.

Perhaps if you didn't start out by being a condescending twat arguing about something you admit to not actually understanding, I wouldn't be rude in return.

If you're going to play a more strategic, larger scale chess... then you might as well go for Go, aka Igo(japan), Weiqi(China), or Baduk(Korea).

19x19 board, black and white stones, whoeever holds the largest territory at the end wins. Surround opposing stones to defeat them, build a formation with at least 2 separate spaces inside and it can no longer be killed. Very simple rules, very complex game. The epitome of easy to learn, hard to master.
image

Kahani:

james.sponge:
You mean we improved the shape?

What does that have to do with anything. You didn't say anything about shape, you simply said that we can't make wheels better. That claim was not true.

well it does, I was referring to the concept of the wheel not material it was made from and that's the root of our misunderstanding.

You may be more versed in the game than I am but no need to be a rude twat.

Perhaps if you didn't start out by being a condescending twat arguing about something you admit to not actually understanding, I wouldn't be rude in return.

Well sorry for that, have a cookie.

james.sponge:
This seems fun for a short period of time, why reinvent the wheel though? Chess is a perfect game.

Chess is most certainly not a perfect game. It is extremely popular in western culture, but extremely popular is not the same thing as perfect. There are a number of reasons why chess is not a perfect game. Many have even argued it is a bad game.

For example, Chess is a game that ends in a draw 55% of the time at the professional level. You don't want a competitive game to end in a draw more than 50% of the time. Can you imagine if football was this way and every other year the Superbowl game ended in a draw? Or what about in an esport, such as Starcrat?

Another example, high level Chess is a game that is more about applying previously memorized patters than critical thinking. This is why chess was one of the first games where we programmed computers to be better than people. Your phone is a better chess player than Bobby Fischer ever was. This is because you don't need to be smart or creative to be successful at chess. All you need to do is memorize patterns and apply them.

Now, don't get me wrong. Chess is a really good game, especially at amateur levels where all the bullshit of high level chess does not come into play. But it is not perfect.

OT: This looks like a really interesting variation on the game. I might have to try it some time.

MrPhyntch:
As it stands, this "mathematically perfect" game is boring as hell, both to watch, and to play, unless you're REALLY into chess.

I have to disagree. I think just because most people are just (pardon my language) too stupid to think of strategies because it's "boring" doesn't mean the game in itself is. Such things as "boring" or "fun" are entirely subjective appreciations, but saying a game is boring because it envolves actual thinking instead of chance is just... really dumb.

Kahani:

Johnny Novgorod:
Chess is mathematically perfect.

Noughts and crosses and connect 4 are both also purely games of skill. They're both also shit. Just because a game doesn't involve chance doesn't mean it's somehow perfect.

Yes, it means it's mathematically perfect. There are no odds and lose ends tipping the game either way save for the initial coin toss. Once you clear that out, it's all about skill. And to device a game where skill is the foremost - if not the only - deciding factor in the outcome sounds as close to mathematical perfection as you can get. Anyone who wins a game of chess has done so purely on skill.

Johnny Novgorod:
Chess is mathematically perfect. It's purely a game of skill. Chance only factors in who plays which pieces.

You can say that about every adversarial game on even footing, from rock paper scissors to League of Legends.

Johnny Novgorod:
Stapling six boards together and throwing in more pieces doesn't seem like a terribly fetching variation.

That's because it's not a variation, it's a completely different game.

DjinnFor:

Johnny Novgorod:
Chess is mathematically perfect. It's purely a game of skill. Chance only factors in who plays which pieces.

You can say that about every adversarial game on even footing, from rock paper scissors to League of Legends.

I could say that if rock paper scissors featured any sort of strategy, or if League of Legends maps, spawns and player position weren't completely randomized every round.

Johnny Novgorod:
I could say that if rock paper scissors featured any sort of strategy

No qualifiers required. Rock paper scissors is mathematically perfect and purely a game of skill. Your original statements had absolutely no reference to "strategy", just some vaguely defined notion of "skill".

Johnny Novgorod:
or if League of Legends maps, spawns and player position weren't completely randomized every round.

...except, they already aren't? The only thing that differs from one side or the other is pick order.

DjinnFor:

Johnny Novgorod:
I could say that if rock paper scissors featured any sort of strategy

No qualifiers required. Rock paper scissors is mathematically perfect and purely a game of skill. Your original statements had absolutely no reference to "strategy", just some vaguely defined notion of "skill".

My vague notion of skill is the same vague notion the dictionary has of the word, i.e. "the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc". Rock papers scissors is a guessing game relying solely on luck and requiring no ability, knowledge, practice or aptitude.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here