
Cross Chess - tosh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Chess
======
incompatible
There's a version of draughts, Wikipedia calls it International Draughts,
which is quite popular in Europe but not very well known in English-speaking
countries, played on a 10x10 board. Apparently the world champion hasn't yet
been defeated by a computer. The world champions have always been Europeans,
with the exception of a couple from French colonies:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Draughts_World_Champio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Draughts_World_Championship_winners)

~~~
ranit
>> The world champions have always been Europeans ...

A bit of nit picking: 1956 champion is a Canadian.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Deslauriers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Deslauriers)

~~~
incompatible
From Montreal; alright, it was a former French colony by then.

------
tudorconstantin
I think chess is an appealing game because it's touted as the sport of the
brain. Once one knows the rules they imagine they have the same chance of
winning as anyone.

The truth is chess performance depends tremendously on training, practice and
number of games played. At my first job as a software developer they had an
internal chess championship which I joined expecting to be beaten badly (there
were programmers who were participating afterall), even though I spent most of
the previous summer playing chess in the local park. I won that championship,
positioning myself as a "smart guy" within the company. I don't think I was
actually smarter than them. I barely had more exercise.

I think that these chess variants can cancel most of the training one has and
level the playing field, making that chess game a brain game again.

~~~
jacquesm
> there were programmers who were participating afterall

Programmers vs mathematicians, I'd bet on the latter.

Programmers aren't all that good at chess as a rule. They universally _think_
they are.

~~~
fjsolwmv
That's a ridiculous stereotype. Mathematicians as a group would tend to be
better at chess, given similar level interest, because it takes a lot more
memory and pattern recognition to pass the filter of getting to be a
professional mathematician than a programmer. Meanwhile programming is much
more broadly accessible to all ranges.

------
nathanaldensr
Here's a huge list of chess variants:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_variants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_variants)

------
NVRM
Anyone: please make an online playable version!

------
dogruck
Vanilla chess is tremendously captivating. I think only a narrow segment of
hyper experts crave a variant.

~~~
MarcusBrutus
The problem with chess is that what makes it so addictive is the effect of
memorizing openings. Opening theory adds strategic depth, flavor, and a
landscape to what would otherwise be a dry, abstract, overly tactical game. It
also allows psychological warfare and an element of surprise which isn't
possible in variants with randomized starting positions. At the same time
however everybody bemoans the fact that you need to memorize openings. I don't
see an easy way to solve this conundrum. I understand the situation in Bridge
is somewhat similar but I know nothing about Bridge.

~~~
anacleto
Class B player chess here.

Yes and no. What would make you think that memorizing openings is so
addictive? Unless you're playing chess for a living, master 2 or 3 openings
(queen or kings side) is more than enough and usually so much more effective
than knowing superficially a wide range of openings.

Not that true also that defined openings will put the game in a more tactical
rather than strategic position. It depends on the opening, and mostly the
strategic vs. tactical approach depends on the middle game and on the type of
players. Look at Casablanca (strongly strategic) and Tal/Morphy (strongly
tactical).

While most people concentrate on memorizing as much as openings the possibly
can, I do recommend to learn more end-game variants. Even average chess
players (Class C, B, A) don't usually have a good understanding of end-games
and that's what makes the different between a good players and a very good
player (ie. IM).

~~~
jlg23
> While most people concentrate on memorizing as much as openings the possibly
> can, I do recommend to learn more end-game variants.

That cannot be emphasized enough.

I've even had players offer me a draw in a classical king vs king+rook
situation.

When I learned chess in the GDR we practiced endgames ad nauseum but openings
were left until very late.

------
clircle
Looks like the guy who invented the game also prosecuted Ted Bundy. Can't say
I expected that.

------
vivaan
There is something particularly asymmetric about the way the board looks in
this one

