Does anyone else have a set of this variant?
It really didn't catch on.
Here's what I just typed in another thread.
I have a chess variant with a 9x9 board.
In this one, there are queens on each side of the king.
I think it is called Minister's Chess.
I will look in the closet if anyone is interested.
Basically, we would end up trading one set of queens and playing regular chess.
Originally posted by greenpawn34If you thought that was an eye soar, look at this one. hehe
Paul, It's taken half a lifetime to try and master chess 8x8.
Don't get me started on 9x9.
Also - what on earth is that you have for an avatar??
I am raising a 'fair play' ticket against your avatar - Suggesting a
Forum ban till you design a new one. 😉
I was just fooling around with the paint on my computer.
...er Paul....have a word with this guy.
User 145666
I think all those book reviews have flipped your lid 😉
On a more serious note:
Regarding another thread. Can you think of an opening blunder
that is now accepted theory.
I recall a Dely game from the 60's - an early d5 for Black
in the Sicilain. Dely lost and the world poo-poo'd it.
20 years later Kasparov used it against Karpov and won brilliantly.
But there is another one (more famous) and it's bugging me.
I'm off air now till late - have to follow the Olympiad games.
I can think of tons of openings that used to be considered dubious and vice versa.
As for thought good but actually bad, there is that Acclerated Dragon line that Fischer refuted against Reshevsky.
You meant the other way around though.
Even the Sveshnikov Sicilian had a bad reputation for years and years.
1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 c5 (!) wasn't considered good until 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.e5 Ng4 8.e6 fxe6 9.Ng5 Bxb5 10.Nxe6 Bxd4 !! was discovered. (11.Nxd8 Bf2+ draw)
I'll think of some more.
I remember the Kasparov game. Post game analysis showed it still didn't quite hit the mark. Fischer's use of Nh3 was something, but it wasn't considered a blunder. The Estrin-Berliner game with the Fritz/Ulvestad Two Knights was amazing too. I'll try to think of an old line that was thought to be refuted though.
Kasparov reviving the Tarrasch defense !!! Polugayevsky's Najdorf 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 b5 !?.
The list goes on and on. I seem to remember a wild Poisoned Pawn Najdorf, perhaps between Spassky and Fischer, that shook things up as well. I am trying to think of a variation where the original analyst said and mates ... but the mate was never found.
I didn't post this under this thread too!
I might as well.
I don't work for this site. This is not a plug.
Here is a picture of it, so you know I didn't make it up.
http://www.yesteryeargames.com/item/ministers_chess_set
I guess I bought my set around 1996 or so.
It is just one of those cheap $6 plastic sets with an extra pawn and queen on each side.
The board is folding cardboard.
One one side is a regular board.
On the flipside, is the 9x9 board.
If we could get one variant to take over, look at all the possibilites.
New opening variations !!!!!
New names for all the lines !!!
A new market for opening manuals (including Basmans treatment of 1.I3 🙂 )
The possibilities are endless.
In fact, chess authors are losing money every minute these variants are not becomming popular. 🙂