So, let’s say that black controls blue, who controls pink, who controls green, who controls purple (all under black’s control). If white takes the black piece controlling blue, white would control ALL of those colours. That’s insane.
@@connorschultz380 yes but let's be honest here, what's the point? It is difficult to have an innate understanding of chess (looking crazily far ahead without calculating) pretty much impossible to have that understanding of 5D, the same with multiverse time travel and sovereign. To make multiverseD sovereign chess would be impossible^3
@@Kushenable I think you misunderstand me, Theres a game called 5D chess with multiverse time travel and I meant I was imagining a version of that game for this version of chess.
If you are white and transmute to the king to blue, then the blue pieces are your new main pieces and white pieces would function as those of the subkingdoms. This means black could put a piece in a white square and then control your former white pieces.
@@arturocevallossoto5203 Oh so if you change you king to blue then you don't lose control of your king when the piece (you control) goes off any of the blue squares
@@theofficialwoohoogamers Yes. If you're Black, then promote a pawn to a Blue king, you're now permanently in control of the Blue "kingdom", and Black becomes just another "vassal". This has interesting implications. If you promote to a different color, you could _lose_ control of your original color unless you planned ahead and put a "vassal" piece on a square of your original color. And depending on how your "chain of command" is set up, promoting to the wrong colored king could actually _break_ the chain, potentially allowing your opponent to swoop in and steal your whole empire!
Thanks for giving this game some visibility! i bought a game and even got a note from Mark Bates himself when I asked for a black king (as I'd been given an extra queen instead). It's really fun!
@@Puschit1from what I understand, changing its color would allow you to have permanent control of that king's colored faction while your original faction (black or white) turns neutral and can be controlled by your opponent.
The reason there is no “en passant” in this game is because the pawns are moving in the same direction as their neighbor pawns. If one pawn jumps over a possible capturing square, the other pawn can always “catch up” to capture it, unlike traditional chess…
And then, by the rules of promotion, one faction can manage to wrangle enough power to de facto (or de jure, if you interpret the King changing color as him joining the faction outright) control the country, while the original ruling party becomes a secondary power within its own government, a power that could either reclaim its original authority or even be subverted by a foreign enemy agent and convinced to fight against its "corrupted" former leader.
Historically speaking, we've had hundreds of variants. The one we know simply as "chess" now, is from the late 1400s. Check out Courier Chess and or Cambodian/Khmer Chess for some historical variants which vary quite a bit from "regular" chess
@@NikolajLepka Or Shogi and the other East Asian versions! Western Chess is just one version of a game that originated in India! Its really interesting.
chess rules are very basic, the endless possibilities they generate are what makes calculating the right option fun, hard and engaging. Just like a string of ones and zeros can be decoded into a poem, so can the rules of chess be translated into another game
I like mounted chess more, where you can mount pawns, bishops, Queens and Kings on top of knights and create combination pieces to mobilise more effectively and then unmount again. And you can mount rooks to create immobile fortresses which can take adjacent pieces without moving.
I'd love to see how the recorded moves (like you'd do in regular chess) would look. I'd love to see all the different colours, how takeovers / King swaps would look, etc.!
I've seen two changes to notation for this game that some use and some don't. (I'm gonna keep to the changes, and assume everyone who knows this knows standard notation) First, gaining and losing piece control rotated by [x>y], replacing x and y with single letter notation for their respective colors. Secondly, the length that someone goes to to mark the different colors and their controllers. I've seen the single letter notation for the color being used in front of the pieces', so BQa2-c4[G>P] would be for a blue queen moving from a2 to c4, that somehow caused their controller to lose green control and take pink control.
@@deadersurvival4716 I think here, unlike regular chess, having the "P" for a pawn move would be easier. And I was going to ask about colours that start with the same letter, but it appears they thought of that as well... White Black Ash Slate Red Orange Yellow Green Cyan Pink Navy (instead of Blue) Violet (instead of Purple)
I came up with color,piece,original square, new square, capture if any. It’s a lot but it seems like the most logical way of keeping track of moves in this game. A gray rook taking a purple piece would be gaRA13B13x. The x being the captures and the ga being for gray because of green.
@@RGC_animation maybe by controlling a color which is that king's current color eg: you occupy a cyan square and your opponent is using a cyan king at that time
@@rew_mate if you phrase it as 'you can move the entire board length in one turn', down to ' you can move 8 spaces', it seems more reasonable that the game just plays well with 8 moves being the correct tuning for balance. Otherwise pieces like knights and pawns would become much less useful due to being way slower than all other pieces by comparison
I like that with this it eliminates the traditional Chess principles of well studied openings as its far too chaotic, meaning it relies entirely on adaptability and actual critical thinking because you can't just memorise objectively correct opening sequences
I've loved playing chess since I was 12 (self taught, I understand the rules 100% but I'm not exactly amazing at the game) and this looks incredibly interesting and fun! I think I'm just drawn to complicated looking stuff like this and it's exciting me just how much I understand it! Now there's only one issue. Much like traditional chess, it's going to be very difficult locating an opponent to play this with. Obviously this'll be harder to find an opponent for lmao. But if I find someone who knows chess, this should be fairly easy for them to get as well! I love this!
Suppose I change my king's color to blue, then my opponent gains control of blue. Does he immediately win the game? (If so, is there ever a case where changing the color of your king is a good idea?) EDIT: this is explained at 2:55 - having a blue king gives you overriding control of blue. But I suppose you would then lose overriding control of your original color if the opponent had a good central position.
This reminds me about when my friend group was playing spades all the time during the 90s. We played so much that we made house rules that made the game harder. In other words this chess is for people that the game is too easy for. Pretty cool but i don’t play chess enough these days so I think I’ll stick to classic chess.
Well, games like Warhammer have 100+ page rule books ... it's only important if the rules are intuitive or arbitrary. It's easy to remember that you control blue pieces when you control a blue square for example and many of the things he says are more like clarification and consequences of the actual rule and not additional rules.
I was following, and even starting to think of basic stratagies, right up until taking control of a pawn and promoting it to a king, and changing your controled army to a completely different colour. I can't think of any reason to go from black to blue unless I'd already run through almost all of the black pieces. And now the only things I can think of are the times when it's best to move a pawn and promote it to king vs the times it's best to just hotswap your king.
Don’t hate the game based on the rules and besides, 1) there are other chess variants that en passant aren’t allowed. And 2) if you never tried, you may never know
I gotta admit, as chaotic as this all sounds, I’d love to try it. I wouldn’t be able to plan so meticulously as some chess players, but the chaos this game brings sounds so fun!
Well now we can play chess variants where players can start off with 48 to 56 pieces. Add all the pieces from faerie chess and other chess variants, people will be able to have the most intense and entertaining chess games of all time. Plus more ideas and variants to add into knightmare chess.
I love your chess content its so fun seeing how much creativity can be put into such an old and simple yet (for newcomers) complex game Sorry if that made no sense to you
Although this seems like a load of fun, it seems like there is a bit much going on for practical or casual play. I'd love to see a simplified version I can play with just about anyone :)
it's not that en passant isn't allowed, it's that it's realistically impossible. pawns have to cross through the middle area, and if they do so they must promote, so there's no way you'd ever even reach the opponent's side and be able to perform an en passant. sure, you might be in a situation where a side-pawn does a double step next to your pawn, but how are en passants supposed to work in that scenario?
Don’t hate the game based on the rules and besides, 1) there are other chess variants that en passant aren’t allowed. And 2) if you never tried, you may never know
@@citronvannalemon there’s just too many rules to keep track of imo for it to be a good table top game. You’re going to forget a rule at some point and bungle the game. You need the assistance of software, at least for when you’re learning it.
Chess: The other 5 universes(5d) Chess: The Fourth wall(4d) Chess: In the temporary universe(2d) Chess: The End of the beginning (1d) And now... Chess: The final dimensions clashing
Just to be clear about the en passant not allowed thing, the brown lines are effectively barriers that don't let enemy pawns through in the first place, and the pawns in the same regions are gonna be moving in the same directions either way
@@ivanvalencia5785 it means the same thing. and you phrase it like one is bad and the other us good. it's good to have a complicated game and it's also bad to have a complex game
I'm confused about a thing: 2:45 "When you move a piece to a square that is the same color as your opponent's king, you do not gain control of their pieces." (Black moves knight to white square, but opponent has White king, so Black doesn't gain control) Ok, I'm with you so far... 2:55 "Pieces that are the same color as a player's king may never be controlled by their opponent." (Shows orange king, blue bishop on orange square, attempted move of orange pawn (by blue's controller?) is marked illegal) I am mainly confused by the "a player"s king" because there's only one king per player and it's not orange, but that's not true, controlling a color gives you more kings. (If you parsed it as "a [player's king]" and not "[a player's] king" then you might get it better.) I think I would have said "Pieces that are the same color as *any of a player's controlled kings* may never be controlled by *that player"s* opponent." to clarify this.
@@ConnorJC3 Oh, thanks, I missed this. The initial config has queens. When the shot I pointed to showed up, it seemed to have a king in the general region where a colored set is initially placed, but I forgot what was actually placed there.
@@ConnorJC3 ...feel like he could have explained how you get a different colored king before saying this segment about color king control preventing the opponent from taking control of that color. but idk.
The blocking color squares and no self captures rules make it impossible to put the board in an invalid state of who controls what. Let’s assume these rules didn’t exist for the example: I have my piece on an orange square, then move an orange piece to a blue square. So whoever controls orange also controls blue. On my next turn I move a blue piece to the other orange square. Lastly, I move my original piece off the first orange square. I still maintain control of both colors because the orange pieces give me control of the blue pieces and the blue pieces give me control of the orange pieces. To prevent that, you can’t occupy a colored space if the other space is occupied. But what if instead of moving to the opposite space, I use the blue piece to capture my original piece on the orange square? It’s the same loop again of blue giving me orange because I have orange. So the rule of not being able to capture different colored pieces you control prevents the loop
All of this could also be avoided with a rule saying "The color of your king is your main color. Controlling a color by controlling another color in a chain (of any length) must trace back to your main color at all times, otherwise you immediately lose control of that color" Also maybe there are other issues without the two rules you mentioned, but the issues you presented could still be avoided with this simple rule.
@@ComDenox You literally just made the same rule. Except you reintroduced a loophole where both players could have a color by occupying both of it's different spaces.
I got confused when king colors were mentioned, but the comments cleared it up: You are always in control of the color that your king is. You can change king color, and you only control colors of spaces you occupy. Essentially, if your king is white, you can put a white piece on orange, and control orange. If your king changes to orange, you become orange as a whole, and lose control of white unless you have an orange on white.
Imagine turning Sovereign Chess into Sovereign Paco Šako (Peace Chess); if you're interested in what Paco Šako is played like, simply search for it. Instead of capturing a piece, they will unite with it. You can chain moves. And your goal will be to make one of the pieces controlled or owned by you unite with the opponent's king. The fun part of this is that no piece will be removed from the board, unless a pawn promotes or a king changes regime. The only problem with this concept could be the change of control over a piece within a union, but creative ruling could solve this.
I unironically thought this was very straightforward until they mentioned promoting to a king, and then I realized the game was intended to be complicated.
the way you described caslting was incorrect. its not to any vacant sqaure between the rook and the king, the king moves two spaces and then the rook goes behhind it
So, let’s say that black controls blue, who controls pink, who controls green, who controls purple (all under black’s control).
If white takes the black piece controlling blue, white would control ALL of those colours.
That’s insane.
Medieval politics be like that
yes, yes they will
That's called sovereignty. Take down one piece and you control all.
@@vuedanto8576 oh so that's where the name comes from
Exactly...that's how it was designed!
Initially I thought this was a 4-player game; it isn't. It is for 2 players, and there's so much to think about.
There is a four player mode actually!
Imagine combining the rules of sovergier chess with progressive chess...
@@coreyeverett5500 How does it work?
@@peculiarjack617 Now that would be confusing.
Initially I thought this was a 10-player game with 1 color per player
This is both NEEDLESSLY COMPLICATED and really elegant. I kind of need this.
I can't find it.
It's like a cool little "What if" idea that had to be completely developped to leave no ambiguity.
@@mooshroommoonbuddy it's in the description
It seemed incredibly obtuse, but suddenly just clicked as the rules went on. Pretty impressive.
Now I'm trying to imagine 5d sovereign chess with multiverse time travel and I can feel my brain melting
Oh no
That's where my brain went too, mod for the game from steam? You could add most of those variants to 5d chess with a mod
@@connorschultz380 yes but let's be honest here, what's the point? It is difficult to have an innate understanding of chess (looking crazily far ahead without calculating) pretty much impossible to have that understanding of 5D, the same with multiverse time travel and sovereign. To make multiverseD sovereign chess would be impossible^3
@@Sphagetti__ it be fun, it be wild. I already play chess 1 turn at a time, so it be wild
@@Kushenable I think you misunderstand me, Theres a game called 5D chess with multiverse time travel and I meant I was imagining a version of that game for this version of chess.
Up until the rules about changing King colours it seemed fairly straight forward
Even that is fairly straight forward.
From what I understand... you basically... switch who you're playing as which potentially has a lot of use in terms of positioning.
If you are white and transmute to the king to blue, then the blue pieces are your new main pieces and white pieces would function as those of the subkingdoms. This means black could put a piece in a white square and then control your former white pieces.
@@arturocevallossoto5203 Oh so if you change you king to blue then you don't lose control of your king when the piece (you control) goes off any of the blue squares
@@theofficialwoohoogamers Yes. If you're Black, then promote a pawn to a Blue king, you're now permanently in control of the Blue "kingdom", and Black becomes just another "vassal".
This has interesting implications. If you promote to a different color, you could _lose_ control of your original color unless you planned ahead and put a "vassal" piece on a square of your original color. And depending on how your "chain of command" is set up, promoting to the wrong colored king could actually _break_ the chain, potentially allowing your opponent to swoop in and steal your whole empire!
Thanks for giving this game some visibility! i bought a game and even got a note from Mark Bates himself when I asked for a black king (as I'd been given an extra queen instead). It's really fun!
A disciple of master Bates?
@@viporal7898, ...
@@viporal7898 who?
Wow very interesting, what are some of the strategies?
@@mihailmilev9909 asked
This looks and sounds SO complicated, but really, all of the new rules are consistent and common-sense. Seems like a fun variation!
Well, the king replacement is confusing
@@Puschit1from what I understand, changing its color would allow you to have permanent control of that king's colored faction while your original faction (black or white) turns neutral and can be controlled by your opponent.
The reason there is no “en passant” in this game is because the pawns are moving in the same direction as their neighbor pawns. If one pawn jumps over a possible capturing square, the other pawn can always “catch up” to capture it, unlike traditional chess…
En passant isnt even a real rule in traditional chess
Kyaru Momochi it's a real rule in FIDE chess, which is what most people play.
@@kyarumomochi5146 but its forced so....?
@@SolaceCafe Does it apply to ALL chess games?
Then its not a true rule
Its still argued if it should be a true rule or not
@@kyarumomochi5146 tempting the fate of Gary Chess and his brick I see. You are braver than I
This looks like it takes a couple games to get used to, but that looks like so much fun
So essentially each colour is it's own faction and black & white both rival kingdoms who compete for the favour of these factions
City-states on Civilization, basically
Thats called a Feodal states.
Its basically a civil war to elect the next king of the nation, and you need to control duchy for that. Neat
Yes, until the king decides to change color
That comparison helped me understand it a lot actually
And then, by the rules of promotion, one faction can manage to wrangle enough power to de facto (or de jure, if you interpret the King changing color as him joining the faction outright) control the country, while the original ruling party becomes a secondary power within its own government, a power that could either reclaim its original authority or even be subverted by a foreign enemy agent and convinced to fight against its "corrupted" former leader.
At this point chess rules is flexible enough to allow this many variants to exist
Historically speaking, we've had hundreds of variants. The one we know simply as "chess" now, is from the late 1400s.
Check out Courier Chess and or Cambodian/Khmer Chess for some historical variants which vary quite a bit from "regular" chess
@@NikolajLepka Or Shogi and the other East Asian versions! Western Chess is just one version of a game that originated in India! Its really interesting.
@@syro33 it absolutely is! I own a Xiangqi set (chinese variant), and honestly I recommend it over the regular western kind
chess rules are very basic, the endless possibilities they generate are what makes calculating the right option fun, hard and engaging. Just like a string of ones and zeros can be decoded into a poem, so can the rules of chess be translated into another game
think of it as using mods for your game
I am still confused about this game, but this seems like fun!
It looks very interesting, so many things to keep track of
I like mounted chess more, where you can mount pawns, bishops, Queens and Kings on top of knights and create combination pieces to mobilise more effectively and then unmount again. And you can mount rooks to create immobile fortresses which can take adjacent pieces without moving.
How about mounted sovereign chess? Did you think about that?
@@SorchaSublime how about mounted 5d multiverse with time travel soverain chess?
This is what you call wargames
I can't find rules for that, google just tries to sell me wall mounted chess and I'm too tired to argue with it.
@@ICountFrom0 the closest version I could find is horseman's chess
More the confusion,chaos and strategy, I like it
This one's just wild, especially the transmutating kings
The different color concept is interesting, but as somebody who is colorblind, I’m going to confuse the colors of the pieces too often.
BRO just see colors. Like its so easy. Im seeing colors as I type this out lmao
@@TheDevilockedzombie Nice b8 m8.
ohhh man i feel so bad for colorblind people :( maybe theyll add like shapes or an indicator to show which color it is!
@@TheDevilockedzombie ah yes why cant the colorblind person see colors
@@sophieyu2697 add a guide section and a marker to show what color each piece is.
Ah, yes. As if regular chess wasn't complex enough. 😂
I'd love to see the GMs of old react to this.
Capablanca famously thought chess would be "figured out" to a point where players always draw, so he loved variants as a way to keep the game fresh!
@@arcaears to be fair it is theoretically possible for chess to be "solved", but no human would really be able to take advantage of that.
This is why I believe those with photographic memories will always have an unfair advantage over us mere mortals. 😂
@@FloatingSunfish eh, day to day photographic memory sounds hellish. Imagine being unable to forget literally anything ever
@@SorchaSublime that's not how it works
This is so complicated!
Thinking ahead in normal chess is hard, but this...
Where would you even begin?
I'd love to see some people play this!
I'd love to see how the recorded moves (like you'd do in regular chess) would look.
I'd love to see all the different colours, how takeovers / King swaps would look, etc.!
I've seen two changes to notation for this game that some use and some don't. (I'm gonna keep to the changes, and assume everyone who knows this knows standard notation)
First, gaining and losing piece control rotated by [x>y], replacing x and y with single letter notation for their respective colors.
Secondly, the length that someone goes to to mark the different colors and their controllers. I've seen the single letter notation for the color being used in front of the pieces', so BQa2-c4[G>P] would be for a blue queen moving from a2 to c4, that somehow caused their controller to lose green control and take pink control.
Ive used standard and forsyth-edwards. Both with color fonts to denote color pieces.
@@deadersurvival4716 I think here, unlike regular chess, having the "P" for a pawn move would be easier.
And I was going to ask about colours that start with the same letter, but it appears they thought of that as well...
White
Black
Ash
Slate
Red
Orange
Yellow
Green
Cyan
Pink
Navy (instead of Blue)
Violet (instead of Purple)
@@ngarcia103 I mean, algebraic notation outright omits a letter for pawn moves, so anything with a single letter is identifying the colored pawn.
I came up with color,piece,original square, new square, capture if any. It’s a lot but it seems like the most logical way of keeping track of moves in this game. A gray rook taking a purple piece would be gaRA13B13x. The x being the captures and the ga being for gray because of green.
Learned about this game last month, glad to see a video! I thought that checkmate wasn't the only way to win, though...
How else would you win?
@@RGC_animation maybe by controlling a color which is that king's current color
eg: you occupy a cyan square and your opponent is using a cyan king at that time
@@boiledicetea 2:46 (when you move a piece to a square that has the same color as your opponents king, you do not gain control of this color.)
@@Mpg0907 i never said you could control them :)
@@boiledicetea that would be so unfair that the whole game would be a race to getting one piece on your opponent's color
In normal chess, you can move to 7 spoces away. In this game its up to 8
Good point. I wonder if this is an oversight?
8 is the length of a standard chess board.
@@NateConklin Yes, 8 is the length of the chessboard, so you can only ever move 7 spaces away, since the square you start on is one too.
@@rew_mate if you phrase it as 'you can move the entire board length in one turn', down to ' you can move 8 spaces', it seems more reasonable that the game just plays well with 8 moves being the correct tuning for balance. Otherwise pieces like knights and pawns would become much less useful due to being way slower than all other pieces by comparison
I like that with this it eliminates the traditional Chess principles of well studied openings as its far too chaotic, meaning it relies entirely on adaptability and actual critical thinking because you can't just memorise objectively correct opening sequences
Just like real war.
I wouldn't say so; I think if we played this game for a few thousand years we'd understand a few openings quite well.
@@awkwardcultismfwiw, the version of chess played today has only been around since the 1400s, not thousands of years
@@jojbenedoot7459 There has been numerous change since then, so the version we use is even more recent
@@jojbenedoot7459 Also we got computers now, so analysing games is now way easier and quicker
I've loved playing chess since I was 12 (self taught, I understand the rules 100% but I'm not exactly amazing at the game) and this looks incredibly interesting and fun! I think I'm just drawn to complicated looking stuff like this and it's exciting me just how much I understand it! Now there's only one issue. Much like traditional chess, it's going to be very difficult locating an opponent to play this with. Obviously this'll be harder to find an opponent for lmao. But if I find someone who knows chess, this should be fairly easy for them to get as well! I love this!
Suppose I change my king's color to blue, then my opponent gains control of blue. Does he immediately win the game? (If so, is there ever a case where changing the color of your king is a good idea?)
EDIT: this is explained at 2:55 - having a blue king gives you overriding control of blue. But I suppose you would then lose overriding control of your original color if the opponent had a good central position.
Yup! That's why the white and black squares are there. Under normal circumstances, you aren't allowed to go on those squares.
It might be good if you current king is trapped
I understood that the enemy cannot occupy the color of your current king. As such they cannot win by controling them.
Nothing happens.
@@sir.atombro3752 The enemy _can_ occupy those squares, but all they gain is that the occupying piece becomes uncapturable by pieces of that color.
Chess isn't that complicated but this takes it to a whole new level, so many rules, so many factors to think about.
I’ll never fully understand this but it definitely looks interesting to play.
Finally solid entry to claim the title of Chess 2
Yeah, now we just need to add the extra dimensions, mulitverse aspect, and time travel to make it complete.
@@dannypipewrench533 that's ultimate chess 3 & knuckles
@@Scrubermensch True.
You are both wrong, 5D chess is obviously chess 5
@@dziewiaty Perhaps.
This reminds me about when my friend group was playing spades all the time during the 90s. We played so much that we made house rules that made the game harder. In other words this chess is for people that the game is too easy for. Pretty cool but i don’t play chess enough these days so I think I’ll stick to classic chess.
You know it is going to be confusing when you realize the video length is 5 minutes
Well, games like Warhammer have 100+ page rule books ... it's only important if the rules are intuitive or arbitrary. It's easy to remember that you control blue pieces when you control a blue square for example and many of the things he says are more like clarification and consequences of the actual rule and not additional rules.
The designer never stopped to ask themselves "is this too much?".
I was following, and even starting to think of basic stratagies, right up until taking control of a pawn and promoting it to a king, and changing your controled army to a completely different colour.
I can't think of any reason to go from black to blue unless I'd already run through almost all of the black pieces.
And now the only things I can think of are the times when it's best to move a pawn and promote it to king vs the times it's best to just hotswap your king.
Holy heck this is such a complicated yet such a potentially fun game.
check out 5d multidimentional time traveling chess
Aside from the rules being convoluted, at first, this is a REALLY cool way of playing Chess! I may have to find this set.
And people claim time travel chess is complicated! wow, this is a really big game; it seems amazing.
Now we need 5d sovereign chess with multidimensional timetravel.
@@gulgaffel and fairy chess pieces
No 5d chess is waaaaay more confusing
I'd take sovereign chess over 5d any day!!!
Chess: Politically Accurate Edition.
*F E U D A L I S M*
@@dannypipewrench533 tomato, tomato...
@@gaaberu5728 I do not believe there were any tomatoes or tomatoes in Europe during the Middle Ages.
Declining en-passant requires you to bring bricks to the table then.
Don’t hate the game based on the rules and besides, 1) there are other chess variants that en passant aren’t allowed. And 2) if you never tried, you may never know
@@ivanvalencia5785 joke?
@@josiahsimonalcantara3086 I was asking myself the same question.
I gotta admit, as chaotic as this all sounds, I’d love to try it. I wouldn’t be able to plan so meticulously as some chess players, but the chaos this game brings sounds so fun!
At last, after hundreds of years without any news...
They released Chess 2
2 major powers and a bjillion minor ones being thrown around
Bought 1 last year. So much fun. Instructions also offer rules for a 4 way last king standing free for all.
Well now we can play chess variants where players can start off with 48 to 56 pieces. Add all the pieces from faerie chess and other chess variants, people will be able to have the most intense and entertaining chess games of all time. Plus more ideas and variants to add into knightmare chess.
PUN CITY
'Knight'mare chess... Something to do with knights?
That was sophisticated. 💀
I love your chess content its so fun seeing how much creativity can be put into such an old and simple yet (for newcomers) complex game
Sorry if that made no sense to you
Finally! Chess 2 is here!
Although this seems like a load of fun, it seems like there is a bit much going on for practical or casual play. I'd love to see a simplified version I can play with just about anyone :)
So complicated, but it seems really fun. The king changing colors would allow for endless fuckery.
2:06 would have been a very cool en passant if it was allowed
Oh we need a computer or app version of this game!
It would take me a while to figure out, but this looks rather fun
Finally!!! Chess battlefield with capturing points and a loooot of fun.
I was actually considering playing this until you said “en passant is not allowed”.
it's not that en passant isn't allowed, it's that it's realistically impossible.
pawns have to cross through the middle area, and if they do so they must promote, so there's no way you'd ever even reach the opponent's side and be able to perform an en passant.
sure, you might be in a situation where a side-pawn does a double step next to your pawn, but how are en passants supposed to work in that scenario?
My not allowed i mean not really possible
Me, who didn't even know en passant or castling was a thing: ...
Don’t hate the game based on the rules and besides, 1) there are other chess variants that en passant aren’t allowed. And 2) if you never tried, you may never know
Yeah same makes this chess variant unplayable
This is in fact simple to understand and a really genius idea
That’s a HUGE chess board!!!
Imagine a 4 player 5D chess variant of this but with Faerie pieces and Promotions for every piece like in Shogi...... YEAH!
Sounds very complex, but interesting!
I never heard of this game before but I would like to play this game.
I just checked it out and I don't have enough money right now, I will one day
This is insane. I want to play a software version of this game first to get a feel for all the rules and dynamics
I'm pretty sure someone's insane enough to make a site like that exist.
@@citronvannalemon there’s just too many rules to keep track of imo for it to be a good table top game. You’re going to forget a rule at some point and bungle the game. You need the assistance of software, at least for when you’re learning it.
This channel is like board gamer comfort food.
At first, I thought I understood this, but then we started talking about if your king’s color changes and is now controlling other sections and… yeah.
@@KingiLikesActualJessica Chess and Undertale are both popular games, enjoyed by nerdy people.
Wow, that's so cool.
That's so funky and fun, I love it so much.
And this channel! I'm gonna check this out.
2:16
Literally unplayable.
REEEEEEEE-
I know right? Rigged
This looks absolutely insane. I want it.
Great. Now i know the rules of a board game I'm never going to buy.
4:44
Black King: i can teleport.
White queen: i checkmated you but now you teleported to the other side.
The pawns: 😮
This + faerie chess pieces for even more layers of complexity
That could be very interesting with making different colors have different faerie pieces
what about musketeer chess pieces?
Chess: The other 5 universes(5d)
Chess: The Fourth wall(4d)
Chess: In the temporary universe(2d)
Chess: The End of the beginning (1d)
And now...
Chess: The final dimensions clashing
Slightly confusing though I feel like I'd get it after 1 or 2 games. Looks like allot of fun though!
Just to be clear about the en passant not allowed thing, the brown lines are effectively barriers that don't let enemy pawns through in the first place, and the pawns in the same regions are gonna be moving in the same directions either way
Now that is complex.
Add Faerie pieces, time travel and boom - most complex game ever!
Don't forget alternate universes, and maybe other boards, and maybe exploding pieces?
Wtfffff this is so trippy I like it 👌
Sovereign Chess enthusiasts…
“There are dozens of us! Dozens!”
Rather complicated/confusing rules but you gotta love all the pretty colors!
This wasn't too bad. Until the whole switching kings thing came in
Just bought it through your link. Can’t wait to play.
so basically this game allows you to take color crowns on the board. very complicated but for some reason still makes sense
It’s complex but NOT complicated
@@ivanvalencia5785 it means the same thing. and you phrase it like one is bad and the other us good. it's good to have a complicated game and it's also bad to have a complex game
@@honeyjuice219 oh
I will never recover from this video.
So its basically chess but now with vassals and mercenaries? That's pretty cool, and also a little mind melting.
Wow. This is very interesting. I may just buy one
Na this ain’t chess this is advanced wars
This sounds like absolute chaos and I love it
I'm confused about a thing:
2:45
"When you move a piece to a square that is the same color as your opponent's king, you do not gain control of their pieces."
(Black moves knight to white square, but opponent has White king, so Black doesn't gain control)
Ok, I'm with you so far...
2:55
"Pieces that are the same color as a player's king may never be controlled by their opponent."
(Shows orange king, blue bishop on orange square, attempted move of orange pawn (by blue's controller?) is marked illegal)
I am mainly confused by the "a player"s king" because there's only one king per player and it's not orange, but that's not true, controlling a color gives you more kings. (If you parsed it as "a [player's king]" and not "[a player's] king" then you might get it better.)
I think I would have said "Pieces that are the same color as *any of a player's controlled kings* may never be controlled by *that player"s* opponent." to clarify this.
@@ConnorJC3 Oh, thanks, I missed this. The initial config has queens.
When the shot I pointed to showed up, it seemed to have a king in the general region where a colored set is initially placed, but I forgot what was actually placed there.
@@ConnorJC3 ...feel like he could have explained how you get a different colored king before saying this segment about color king control preventing the opponent from taking control of that color. but idk.
Another mindnumbing take on Chess
The blocking color squares and no self captures rules make it impossible to put the board in an invalid state of who controls what.
Let’s assume these rules didn’t exist for the example:
I have my piece on an orange square, then move an orange piece to a blue square. So whoever controls orange also controls blue.
On my next turn I move a blue piece to the other orange square.
Lastly, I move my original piece off the first orange square.
I still maintain control of both colors because the orange pieces give me control of the blue pieces and the blue pieces give me control of the orange pieces.
To prevent that, you can’t occupy a colored space if the other space is occupied.
But what if instead of moving to the opposite space, I use the blue piece to capture my original piece on the orange square? It’s the same loop again of blue giving me orange because I have orange.
So the rule of not being able to capture different colored pieces you control prevents the loop
All of this could also be avoided with a rule saying "The color of your king is your main color. Controlling a color by controlling another color in a chain (of any length) must trace back to your main color at all times, otherwise you immediately lose control of that color"
Also maybe there are other issues without the two rules you mentioned, but the issues you presented could still be avoided with this simple rule.
@@ComDenox You literally just made the same rule. Except you reintroduced a loophole where both players could have a color by occupying both of it's different spaces.
@@deadersurvival4716 it's a different rule, don't know what you've read. Just the purpose is the same.
@@ComDenox It's literally the same rule, the only thing you've done is take away the visual sanctity of having one player on one color.
@@deadersurvival4716 so it is a different rule, just with the same purpose. You just said what I said.
I got confused when king colors were mentioned, but the comments cleared it up: You are always in control of the color that your king is. You can change king color, and you only control colors of spaces you occupy.
Essentially, if your king is white, you can put a white piece on orange, and control orange. If your king changes to orange, you become orange as a whole, and lose control of white unless you have an orange on white.
Sovereign Chess, when the idea of adding multiplayer goes way to far.
If my friends ever complain about me being complicated, I'm showing them this game. I do want to play it though, it's definitely intriguing
Chess: MMO RPG
Imagine turning Sovereign Chess into Sovereign Paco Šako (Peace Chess); if you're interested in what Paco Šako is played like, simply search for it. Instead of capturing a piece, they will unite with it. You can chain moves. And your goal will be to make one of the pieces controlled or owned by you unite with the opponent's king. The fun part of this is that no piece will be removed from the board, unless a pawn promotes or a king changes regime. The only problem with this concept could be the change of control over a piece within a union, but creative ruling could solve this.
Ooh, basically mind control chess
Nope, that's Benedict Chess
I needed to watch this video 3 times in order to understand the king's promotion concept. LOL. I want to play this game so bad now.
0:05 when aren’t they to same?
what
The video literally explains the differences
I unironically thought this was very straightforward until they mentioned promoting to a king, and then I realized the game was intended to be complicated.
the way you described caslting was incorrect. its not to any vacant sqaure between the rook and the king, the king moves two spaces and then the rook goes behhind it
In traditional western, yes. Not in this variant.
Yeah, so you can castle on any open spaces between the king and rook
Complex, yet elegant
tired of not being confused by chess? PLAY THIS!
dude no way.. chess 2 is already looking so good
My brain melted just hearing the rules.
As a person who likes chess for its complexity i m very interested in this
I would love for this as a play style in 5D Chess
Please make app version for all varian of chess including this one