New True 3D Chess

I made checkers in 3d because they are fairly easy to generalize to higher dimensions do not change the rules but the difficulty of playing. (And here's the point) when it comes to chess I'm not an expert and I wonder why there are so many variants of this game in the third dimension and why is it so difficult? It seems easy, especially when it comes to movement figures. Can anyone answer a few sentences?

.. In terms, of 'chess' variants.. Not, that there's necessarily, 'money-to-be-made'.. But, incorporating, the 'Shogi'.. aka. 'Japanese chess', 'parachute' drop, of an opponents, 'captured piece'.. {in place, of moving one's Own 'piece', on a given move}.. Even, in a conventional, 'western' chess game.. Could prove, {as it has long since, been the case, with 'shogi'}.. Quite addictive, as a game, concept - Once one becomes more acquainted, with the theory involved !

Dusts Mothballs Off Old Project.

Alright I'm just going to admit I can't understand the last few posts with all the numbers, but given that my project basically starts with an interface for 3D chess that's less complex than looking at well, that...I'm going to push through that then collaborate further.

 To  Princefan:  My board was created for checkers (that's why 10x10x10) but it's easy to convert to 7x7x7 ....Play checkers in 3D is quite demanding already ...   

Hi, s23bog.I can't joining you in your project due to my busy activity.However,i could give you suggestions if necessary.

The LED display is quite interesting and whether it is easy to be played may need exercise for someone to play it.

But if we interested in field chess,then the glass room 3D chess as i propose in post #58 may be entertaining and will be a sport as it need physical activity to play it.Two players will go around this aquarium alternately.Moreover,the space battle is truly a real big 3D chess.

With our current technology,we could make it.

Dam this is complicated

black bishops occupy triagonals and i have nicknamed assassins, the black king is a prince (assassin+bishop) and the black queen is princess (assassin + rook). A queen is still just bishop + rook, and the king... it could either be a 1 square queen or simply 1 square any direction, though in the latter case it's a bit of a slippery bugger, having 26 directions to roam. Obviously, there is a layer of 64 pawns above in this view. I'm not sure how balanced it is - in fact it probably isn't balanced at all, but its probably the closest to a direct translation to 3d, which was the whole point! I look forward to the day I either get round to coding the damn thing, actually making a physical version, or someone puts me out of my misery by doing either 

In Chess, opponents are on opposite sides. After you mark two faces, there are none that are opposite to both. In other words, you have created a 3d chess variant, not a direct analogue to chess. I'm not arguing over which is better, just which is a more accurate rendition of a higher dimensional version of chess.

Oh I'm well aware of how it works. However, in standard chess the two players are not on both of the two axis, rather opposite sides.

I believe I said:

"I'm not arguing over which is better, just which is a more accurate rendition of a higher dimensional version of chess."

I am not attacking anyone or anything, just questioning your use of "natural" for 3 players in 3d chess. Geometrically speaking, I wouldn't call it natural. Your 3d variant does look interesting, and no doubt plays far better than a direct analogue - which is what I showed. I even mentioned how mine probably wouldn't play well. Its just one of a number of ideas for chess variants I have spent time on. I did it out of curiosity ages ago, happened to see this thread, and went "that reminds me". I wasn't in the least actually referring to your variant initially.

If you were to create a 3d analogue of chess as close as possible to the original, it would not have 3 players. If your purpose is not to be an analogue, that's fine, but your usage of 'natural' and your responses suggest otherwise. Let me be clear: adding a dimension does not create an extra player by default. This is easily mathematically provable. That is literally all I'm arguing about. There is nothing wrong with 3 player 3d chess at all, or your variant. Yes I'm pedantic, I study maths and physics and get constantly irritated when people misuse terminology. It's my and many other people's weakness: https://xkcd.com/386/

Have you understood anything I have written? I have not said anything against you or your variant.

How much time you have spent is irrelevant when I'm simply correcting your use of words. For the last time, for a pure geometrical extension of chess, in any dimensions, 1, 3, 6, 42 etc, the numbers of players are two. The number of players is completely independent from the number of axes. This is mathematical fact, not opinion. This is not criticising your variant. The only thing I've done is praise it: "Your 3d variant does look interesting, and no doubt plays far better than a direct analogue"

This does not mean that it is bad to have more than two players, or that you are wrong to do so. It literally means that a direct geometrical extension would always have two. Understand?

Once again, I just posted what a direct analogue would look like. I don't even support mine! All power to people trying to make a 3d version viable.

.. A, Non- sequitur. -- I had to drop this off, somewhere !  [ ; .. {'youtube' uploaded, April, 23, 2017}.

Have you already tried our new 3d-chess experience? https://www.chess.com/3d-chess  

how do i play 3d chess is there a app for it?

I am in the process of building a physical 3D chess game. I have chosen a mathematical approach to defining each piece's movement .

Rooks move through the 6 faces of a cube. A rook can visit all cubes in the game. Bishops move through the 12 edges and visit half of the cubes. You need two types of bishops. Cannons (search musketeer modern  chess pieces) move through the 8 corners of a cube. Cannons can visit a quarter of the cubes and you need 4 types of cannon.

In 2d chess knights visit those squares of a 5 by 5 array that are not visited by rook or bishop. In 3d the 5 by 5 by 5 cube has 72 cubes that are not visited by either rook, bishop or cannon. These divide into three types: 24 permutations of 210, or regular knights; 24 permutations of 211 for which again I have coopted the musketeer chess piece leopard ; 24 permutations of 221 for which I use the musketeer hawk piece.

Leopard or 211 visits half the cubes so you need two types. Queen is rook plus bishop plys cannon . King moves to the 26 neighboring cubes, ie. a single move queen.

I am interested in a game that might actually be playable. In order to do this the game is 4 player, which means that I give each player 27 major pieces ina 3 by 3 by 3 cube with 37 pawns covering them  27 plus 37 = 64 or 4 by 4 by 4.

Players set up in the corners 000, 110, 101 and 011.

Pawns move through the 3 forward edges of their cube and capture through the 4 forward corners of a cube--the ones on either side of a movement edge.