Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 26 Sep '07 09:43
    Has anyone here ever played this before? I never heard of it until 5 mins ago when I stumbled upon it doing a search for the 2007 world chess championship and found this link for the 2007 circular chess world championship http://www.circularchess.co.uk/gameorigins.htm
  2. 26 Sep '07 10:07
    I went to university with a former world champion names Michael Jones, he was always quite keen to get people into it but I am more a believer in mastering the real chess game before inventing new crazy varients.
  3. 26 Sep '07 10:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
    I went to university with a former world champion names Michael Jones, he was always quite keen to get people into it but I am more a believer in mastering the real chess game before inventing new crazy varients.
    Wait a moment I know who you are! you are obvioulsy Dr Who! who else would refer to a game dating back to the 12th century as 'new' Yes to be fair it seems to have fizzled out at some point and as was resurected in the 80's

    It does actually look like fun, but I do wonder if it would be a detremental distraction from the 'real' game? I find it intriguing that you attack (and defend) on 2 fronts.
  4. 26 Sep '07 10:39
    Well there are some very big differences with the pieces, rooks are extremely powerful now and exchange sacrificing is not reccomended. Bishops are relatively weak as they have a very limited range.

    Kings are also a bit harder to mate, with there being no corner for them to be chased into, some usual mates like B+B N+B and even rook checkmates are not possible by force.
  5. 26 Sep '07 10:56
    Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
    Well there are some very big differences with the pieces, rooks are extremely powerful now and exchange sacrificing is not reccomended. Bishops are relatively weak as they have a very limited range.

    Kings are also a bit harder to mate, with there being no corner for them to be chased into, some usual mates like B+B N+B and even rook checkmates are not possible by force.
    Have you played a few games? after thinking about it (for only 5 mins), my thoughts were:

    2 fronts wow does some thought have to be given to one piece defending pawns on 2 fronts from the middle

    Bishops (as you say) limited range

    The board is only 4 squares wide, is it then easy to blockade, does this make knights more valuable i.e. to break through

    I might try and somehow play a game but maybe I would have to develope a schitzo chess personality to get better at it without it hurting my normal chess. I also note that a few world champions ( I haven't looked to far down the list of ex champions) were only around 120 ecf so it's not played at a higher level.
  6. 26 Sep '07 11:57
    I have only played it once, and lost. Mike explained the intricacies of the game to me in several attempts to get me to play again but, since I have no natrual aptitude for games and have to learn everything about them by experience, I didnt really want to commit to spending a long time getting good at a new game.
  7. 26 Sep '07 12:43
    Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
    I have only played it once, and lost. Mike explained the intricacies of the game to me in several attempts to get me to play again but, since I have no natrual aptitude for games and have to learn everything about them by experience, I didnt really want to commit to spending a long time getting good at a new game.
    I take back what I said earlier (about higher rated players not playing) as I see David Howell won the world championship is 2002 when he was rated 203 ecf. This is what he said:

    This is the first time I have played in a circular chess contest and it was difficult.

    "Circular chess is a lot harder to play than square chess. Every time you or your opponent makes a move, you have to think about what is happening on the other side of the board."

    I was actually suprised to see that he played in the tournament as it was also the year that he got a draw against Kramnik, but I suppose as an 11 year old he thought it would just be a bit of fun.
  8. 26 Sep '07 12:55
    It is suprisingly well funded - I think the first prize is either £200 or £500 which is more then you would get in most weekend events, and also you only have a handful of players who play it so the competition is less difficult.

    I think Li wu won it once, he is quite a strong player - about 2300.
  9. 26 Sep '07 19:32
    There are many chess variants out there - I am surprised, more people are not interested.

    An interesting one I found is at:
    http://chess.computerwebservices.net/birds.php

    It is a 10x10 board with 4 extra squares sort of similar to Omega chess but it has a piece that flies over rather than a wizard.
  10. 27 Sep '07 07:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zin23
    There are many chess variants out there - I am surprised, more people are not interested.

    An interesting one I found is at:
    http://chess.computerwebservices.net/birds.php

    It is a 10x10 board with 4 extra squares sort of similar to Omega chess but it has a piece that flies over rather than a wizard.
    It looks too 'gimicky' and much more distant to original square chess to me, but I suppose it's very subjective. I could understand players saying the same about circular chess. But I quite like the idea that the pieces move the same way and there are two fronts to attack/defend. But even that creates major differences for example you obvioulsy cannot corner the king so mating pattens/material will be completely different
  11. 27 Sep '07 17:02 / 2 edits
    I am not sure I understand. Are you referring to Circular chess, birds and Ninjas or Omega chess when you say king cannot be cornered?

    In omega chess a rook and king cannot mate a lone king, but in Birds and Ninjas they can, and the patterns are very similar to regular chess.

    The only thing new in these games (birds, omega) are the two pairs of pieces. I initially liked the wizard in omega chess, but the flying bomber thing seems cool too.
  12. 27 Sep '07 18:31
    Originally posted by zin23
    I am not sure I understand. Are you referring to Circular chess, birds and Ninjas or Omega chess when you say king cannot be cornered?

    In omega chess a rook and king cannot mate a lone king, but in Birds and Ninjas they can, and the patterns are very similar to regular chess.

    The only thing new in these games (birds, omega) are the two pairs of pieces. I initially liked the wizard in omega chess, but the flying bomber thing seems cool too.
    There are no corners on a circular chess board, so the king cannot be cornered, I do not ahve any interest as I said in the other 'gimmicky chess offshoots
  13. 27 Sep '07 19:26
    I think chess as is, takes years to master, I would not want to even consider playing any f the gimmicky variation games out there, you could spend years learning how to play on a circular board then years finding an opponent!
    No i havent tried it.
  14. 27 Sep '07 19:46
    Circular chess is probably a bit too different, but the other two games are actually far superior games simply because they improve on the original. There is nothing 'gimmicky' in them. Omega chess is a commercial variants so they are trying to sell it. The other game birds and ninjas is open for evaluation, play and sales just like standard chess - freeware if you will.
    There are many different variants on chessvariants.org, where you can also play them.
    I hate to think of chess dying because people think it is played out. There are so many variants out there that can continue the tradition of chess. Being close minded to great games out there does not bode well for the future for chess.
  15. 27 Sep '07 19:50
    Ok I retract my "gimmicky" statement, I can believe that they require just as much skill as regular chess to play, but chess is centuries old, I believe in keeping it the way it is, you also have a good point on everything already been played out, I started a thread recently on whether it is necessary to study openings as I find it dull and too planned for my tastes, I like wild unpredictable games, they are more fun, I may be made of suck and lose most of my games but they are at least fun from the general trade down to end game, if poss go a pawn up blah blah.