The first thing I'd note is that there are mates in 2D on 8x8 that apparently can't be done on a 16x16, for example, although I'd have to ask a couple experts on that sort of thing to give specific examples. They do involve variant chesspieces, but, by definition, 4D pieces are variant, and it's probable that K+Q vs K mates which work on a 4x4x4x4 will not work so easily on a 10x10x10x10, say, which gives more sidestepping room. The 4x4x4x4 is the smallest 4D board which allows more or less standard chess pieces, like the knight, to function as intended. It is exceedingly cramped for a chess board, and prevents running, so facilitating checkmate by the 4D king and queen combination.

However, that leads to the opposite problem: on such a small board, how do you prevent checkmate? A 4D queen is pretty tough; stick her on one of the 16 central locations on a 4x4x4x4, and how many other locations on the board does she not reach? So where do you set her up in the beginning? Someplace where the enemy king is not in check, and the enemy queen is not en prise?

This takes us to the entire initial setup and questions of piece density. What sort of setup is required for fully 4D pieces? Here you should, I think, consider the role of pawns in standard chess. The pawns both protect and block the power pieces, and the 2 sets of them form a pretty stable wall around which the longrange pieces work. What do fully 4D pieces require in the way of pawn protection/blockade for the game to have even such a thing as an opening phase? And what does this do to the playability?

At this point, I'm not convinced that any of the answers, including my own, is adequate. But if you look at the "gladiator kings" idea, it is actually a refinement of "cripple the king". [As an aside, couple that idea with "bare king", and you might be closer to giving achievable victory conditions.] And under the right conditions, it might work very well indeed. Consider that rule for a 3D game, for example, or on a 4x4x6x6, where it should be easier to get to the other side's "king level, because it has more destination squares. Or add a piece - or set of them - that acts as a non-royal king to hold the other side's king in place. Whether it is also held, or free, is a method of "tuning" the piece to aid game balance. Well, anyway, any general idea is subject to refinement [you can see the gladiator idea as providing transient 'fortress' areas, too, for example] in many different directions, I suppose, and that's what I was getting at in this paragraph in my usual roundabout way. [It would probably work better if I didn't leave out so many of the in-between steps…]

I'm looking forward to the next developments.

Just off the top of my head, VR Parton, LL Smith, and Dan Troyka have all done higher than 4D chess variants, Dan's 6D on a board with only 64 "squares", 2x2x2x2x2x2.

Have you had the opportunity to play a 4D game? Even the simple ones are likely very instructive. Pushing pieces gives you a much better feel for the "nuances" of multi-D design. But simpler is better, I believe, to start off. It gives you some feel for the game and its potential. On the other hand, Aiken's Chesseract has been played a lot, unlike my Hyperchess, and his game is notably more complex than mine. So I could be a minority opinion.

Joe

2. Having different formations, that meet guidelines, as is seen here:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSmultipleformat

3. Categorizing a standard set of rules variations, in the form of mutators. JP Neto explores this here:
http://homepages.di.fc.ul.pt/~jpn/cv/mutators.htm

4. Standardize a list of the names of pieces that fit certain move types.

These are just a few. I am fairly certain some others have slipped my mind.

Any leader can issue orders but cannot itself move unless it is within range of a higher-level leader.
So the highest level leader cannot move?

Cheers
Graeme

Good luck to all.

I am up for changing the terms and conditions of it so it is more flexible to use, without losing that it will build communication rather than fragment, and people can use it for commercial purposes, such as bundling the rules in books they are working on or with pieces they sell. I definitely interested in having it changed and mutate it over time, as is best determined. It is meant to start with FIDE Chess also and provide a logical flow into variants. It is a starting point for the discussion, but not the only thing. It is meant in order to have variants taken seriously also, and legitimize tournaments in them, and give credibility to people who play variants.

So, to this end, I would want to see who else wants to get involved here. Please speak up on this. I would like to hear it. Please take this as not myself wanting to take things over, but the community to take ownership of the environment and help make it more reflective of their wishes.

To this end, I will look to push for ONE rule to be added to all future versions of chess. That rule states that your game equipment must map to your rules. Physical versions of future chess should not have people flipping rooks to make them into queens and so on. This is fine when you just have a queen. But what happens when you have new Capablanca pieces, exactly what does the rook represent? Do people want to codify that a flipped rook is a new wildcard piece that represents whatever people want it to be in the game? Fine, I would then ask that get put into the rules. I would like to add my take that this hole in normal chess rules is a barrier for adoption of variants. Here is a chance to have variant pieces get into chess, and the flip rook (not in the rules) is automatically set to a queen. Anyhow, that is my take on this. I would like others to speak up. And this is the point of the "Chess of Tomorrow" project. It isn't one person's voice, but what the community can agree to.

The idea of gating is to have a subset of a drop that is distinct enough and to cover games like Bosworth, B-Class+ IAGO Chess, or Seirawan chess. It has to do with either a piece teleporting or droping another piece in from reserve. Please discuss and review. When tied to a drop, the drop is connected to an onboard piece somehow. If it doesn't have this connection, it is a straight drop. One can argue this really isn't new, and that is true. Promotion is arguably a form of gating, as would be castling.

NB original posted by Rich Hutnik and moved here by Grayhawke

The idea of gating is to have a subset of a drop that is distinct enough and to cover games like Bosworth, B-Class+ IAGO Chess, or Seirawan chess. It has to do with either a piece teleporting or droping another piece in from reserve. Please discuss and review. When tied to a drop, the drop is connected to an onboard piece somehow. If it doesn't have this connection, it is a straight drop. One can argue this really isn't new, and that is true. Promotion is arguably a form of gating, as would be castling.

Your game looks interesting, moving the power from the FIDE strong pieces to the weak ones. Have you played it yet? I started to make a preset, but didn't find all the pieces, so this is as far as I got: Equs
I modified my Short Chess preset for it. Are your other icons in the Alfaerie set, so we can use them [though the guard *is* a 1-step queen, so that icon is technically correct], or do they need to be put into Alfaerie? You might also consider putting this game in with the 8x8 variants, as it fits nicely there.

Joe

I do think a simple version of DHT for the beginning of the piece description would be doable. "Size", "Movement", and "Capture" would be the [first] 3 categories I'd consider/use, and put those 3 titles in every description. Then, it's obvious that in the description:
"Size: 4; 2x2; rectangular. Movement: 1-4 squares …"
that "2x2; rectangular" refers to size and not movement [because I *know* there are people who will otherwise swear that it means the piece must move in a square pattern, ending up on its starting point if it moves 4].

The objection to this is that my 3 proposed "beginner categories" cross the 5 Taxonomy categories. I don't think that will be a big deal, because this aspect of the piecelopedia can only be a guide to looking up pieces. The easy description will narrow a search considerably, and the piece-by-piece descriptions will nail it down, so to speak. Your expansion of straight and curved moves, for example, is exactly what the final classifications will need, Linneaus. ;-) Hey, at least one of us has to be old Carl, and unless we can recruit David Howe for this part [which, if he's fully rational, won't happen, but we can hope…]

We need easily searchable pieces, too. The page tags are the best way to do it in this wiki setup that I know of. The tags will have to be the descriptions, or a condensed version of them - "AF" could be the tag for the elephant, the oliphant, the shaman, and the twisted knight in my shatranj stuff alone. The digits, 0 thru 9, could be the size tags. That sort of thing. I'm obviously the one that will take first crack at that, based on the tried-and-true princilpe of "you saw it, it's your problem".

Wow, this is a bit of a skullcracker, but I still think it's doable. Okay, dude, it's your turn to fire back.

Enjoy,
Joe