Gunnery Chess (8x10)
big-board chess with cannon
pawns

Introduction
The initial setup holds standard pieces plus two Mastodons per
side. The pawns move as in orthodox chess, inclusive of the initial double-step
and en passant. Castling exists, but the King jumps three squares
instead of two. As usual, the Rook ends up beside the King. Promotion rules are
the same as in orthodox chess (with the addition of the Mastodon). Otherwise
normal chess rules apply except for the following. By the term 'piece' I mean
all pieces, including pawns. Any pawn situated on the same file as a friendly
piece, with zero or more empty squares in between, can leap forwards over the
latter and land on an enemy piece standing on the same file, provided that there
is just one friendly piece in between. The pawn can land on all enemy pieces on
the file, but not on empty squares. However, enemy pieces positioned behind an
enemy pawn (or yet another friendly piece) cannot be reached, although the enemy
pawn, in itself, can be captured. When the pawn lands it behaves like a cannon
shell and "explodes", that is, it is removed together with the enemy
piece.
This pawn movement functions similarly as a cannon. It opens up
interesting tactical and strategical possibilities during all phases of the
game. One such possibilty is to exchange a pawn on the same file in order to
open the file for continued attack. Pawns that fulfil the requirements for
making a jump are referred to as "cannons". The cannon move seems to
quicken the pace of the game, something which could be desirable in big board
variants.
Weakening the f-file in the opening by moving the pawn two steps
could be dangerous, while it compromises the King's position. Despite the
obvious tactical dangers, the positional qualities of the game are retained. But
the risk of draw is probably lessened since opening of files for attack is
facilitated.
One could argue that the value of the pawn is higher in Gunnery Chess
(8x10) than in regular chess. However, the cannon capability belongs equally
much to the other pieces, because it is a cooperative move. In the images below,
which piece generates the cannon move? Is it the knight or the pawn behind it?
As the cannon move increases the power of all pieces, I believe that the
relative value of the pieces is retained.
The cannon move is less
brutal than one would expect. This is because the leaping pawn also annihilates
itself. In practical endgames one could put the king in front of a pawn, and let
the pawn leap over the board to capture an enemy pawn. But the result is only
that both pawns are removed. Such maneuvers cost time, and the gain could be
nil. This fact, and the fact that pawns can protect friendly pieces from cannon
attacks, assures that the positional soundness of the game is retained. The
introduction of the cannon move does not degrade the game to a tactical turmoil,
but it clearly enhances the tactical nature of the game.
The Mastodon
jumps one or two steps diagonally or orthogonally. It has roughly the same value
as Rook + Pawn. The Mastodon jump complements the jump move of the Knight. A
Mastodon, together with a King, can give mate to a lonely King. Rook and
Mastodon cooperate effectively in the attack on the enemy king. It is a piece
which is easily mastered, very suited for the congested environment in a game
with many pieces and pawns. It is very suited for cooperating with the cannon
pawn.
The Mastodon jumps
one
or two steps diagonally
or orthogonally.
According to the dictionary the term gunnery
refers to the use of guns; esp: the science of the flight of projectiles and of
the effective use of guns. Gunnery Chess (8x10) was invented and
implemented by undersigned, June 2006.
Examples
|
|
Here white's pawn cannot reach any
of the black pieces.
|
For more examples, see
Gunnery Chess (8x8).
You can download my free
Gunnery Chess (8x10) program
here, but you must own the software
Zillions of Games to be able to
run it.
Try playing
Gunnery Chess (8x10) per e-mail, against a human opponent,
here. Don't miss my other
chess variants. |
© M.
Winther 2006