How to play Star Trek Tridimensional Chess

[@gamer-iz3sf]

“The rules are the same as chess, except for these changes.” Never gets old.

[@vioslavia]

Lmao!

[@thomasb7237]

that statement undersells the number of additional rules. In the end, it's like a completely new game.

[@andrebrynkus2055]

Hey, it's either that or spend twenty minutes explaining every piece and special moves like castling or passant before even starting.

[@JamieAllen1977]

about minute seven I thought to my self, "The same as chess," forced my hand - have to at least watch the video complete; even though now I officially hate four d chess and that's canon.

[@JamieAllen1977]

i think "The first player to check mate his opponent wins" might be most refreshing

[@ethanotto5062]

these are the clearest, most concise instructions for tri-dimensional chess, no contest. This man has found his niche, and he RULES it!

[@iamhub2736]

Ba dum tss

[@peepeepoopoo1092]

But what about attack squares

[@glyphicgames7591]

@@peepeepoopoo1092 *S H U T*

[@МихаилРозов-ю9п]

When three players four-dimesional real-time omega blind bear version with fortresses, can be expected? 🤔

[@koloth5139]

I agree clear and concise. And yet tri-dimensional chess is still confusing.

[@Tehom1]

This is the best description of Star Trek chess. I have read another description but it left a lot of the gameplay ambiguous. It was like "Either player can move an attack board on their turn. That's all." With this, I feel like it's a playable game.

[@alexanderbrady5486]

Unfortunately, the "official" rules are ambiguous and contradictory. I have tracked down multiple "official" rulebooks and they just are not clear. This ruleset is nicely concise and clear. However, this ruleset (and the most available commercial versions in general) are not compatible with the Star Trek TV show. In the show attack boards are clearly shown upside down. The original Star Trek Chess rulebook had (complex and ambiguous) rules for flipping attack boards upside down. But with the commercially available versions the attack boards are just held up by a small peg that will not hold the attack boards in place if they are upside down. As such, the commercial sets can never recreate the positions seen in the show. Star Trek Chess unfortunately can also be disappointing to play. A single king on an attack board is incredibly mobile, such that an opposing king+queen combo cannot deliver checkmate.

[@Tehom1]

@@alexanderbrady5486 Yes, I did notice that the attack boards were never upside with these rules. Maybe an upside down attack board is legal but doesn't make any difference.

[@stickyfox]

I'm pretty sure the original rules of the game involved drinking 4-5 martinis and leaning provocatively against a table while pondering your next move. The technical details, the pieces and their moves... are more open to expression.

[@theomelettecuber5458]

I think I will have trouble distinguishing the bishops and the pawns. This variant is great overall, the attack boards is truly a unique feature.

[@maxomega3]

the piece designs are all way too similar, except the knights, which stick out like sore thumbs

[@theomelettecuber5458]

@@maxomega3 yep

[@theomelettecuber5458]

@@maxomega3 u can say that again.

[@erickpoorbaugh6728]

Too many chess sets make the bishops big pawns. Readability is more important than stylishness.

[@tonyngc]

The pieces are modeled after a set that appears in the original series.

[@TheyDarthElmo]

while not the intention, I found this as an interesting bit of world building, since in star trek you need to think in 3d space for ship combat. it makes sense that they would have a game to help train that way of thinking.

[@cujoedaman]

That's how Kirk beat Khan :D

[@markusa3803]

Yet, in the show, they seem to always move their ships on a seemingly flat plane with a universal "up" direction, both during combat and when ships simply "park" next to each other. Curious.

[@johnm3907]

@@markusa3803 yeah they just stand there slugging it out.

[@watchm4ker]

@@markusa3803 Limitation of the writers. They're focussed on the characters, not the choreography.

[@markusa3803]

@@watchm4ker I think that's too cut and dry of an answer. The writers were incredibly imaginative and quite bold with the concepts they brought into the Star Trek universe. I think it's more likely specifically chosen for viewers to be able to enjoy and grasp the action.

[@adarshmohapatra5058]

True 3-d chess. Only the 5-d multiversal chess with time travel surpasses this.

[@ЗолотойЗомби-г2о]

How about... Start Trek chess with multiverse time travel?!

[@davidguthary8147]

@@ЗолотойЗомби-г2о That would make it ACTUAL 5D chess.

[@Pegglemafia]

5d diplomacy with multiverse spock travel

[@unliving_ball_of_gas]

@@davidguthary8147 Hmm, wouldn't it only be 4D since time adds another dimension?

[@davidguthary8147]

@@unliving_ball_of_gas "5D Chess with Multiversal Time Travel" is played in four dimensions: two standard, one time travel, one multiverse travel. Applying those last two dimensions to this game would bring the total to five dimensions.

[@WackoMcGoose]

Honestly, this actually feels like a legitimately playable game, and not just "move pieces around randomly to give something interesting to look at while the characters share space gossip".

[@scaper8]

Even more impressive when you consider that the rules were pieced together (pun intended) by fans, one guy in particular with others smoothing things out later, based around that "move[d] pieces around randomly" set-ups. They were only later pseudo-canonized into this game.

[@gegor41311]

the fact that they could adapt a background element into an actual game seems amazing even though I never watched startrek.

[@AircraftFTW]

@@gegor41311 It helps that it was built on a already existing game. Since the mechanics of Chess were simply manipulated in conjunction with the prop. Figuring out starting placement was probably the hardest part, that and the use of the hovering "attack" plates.

[@CaptainWizard3000]

The way you animated the squares in the void was so clear and concise. Great video.

[@theinacircleoftheancientpu492]

I think I like this variant, for the simple reason that it adds complexity to the game without making it completely incomprehensible or something. At least if it is explained as well as you have!

[@UltimateDurzan]

Nah, its still way more confusing than it should be.

[@mikeymcmikeface5599]

As a 700 elo, I think regular chess is compicated enough...

[@dylanhuculak8458]

This isn't just a 'how to play' video. This is a how-to for making how-to videos. Amazingly well done.

[@honeyjuice219]

the attack board concept is pretty good, plus it's a long video, almost a plus. but why is bishops are just taller pawns?

[@theomelettecuber5458]

The bishops and the pawns are already look alike in normal chess, and then they just make this game with the bishops and the pawns are siblings.

[@honeyjuice219]

@@theomelettecuber5458 at least normal chess makes bishops more thinner and slender and added that gap than this variant which just makes it *L O N G*

[@EdKolis]

Probably because Gene Roddenberry hated religion? 😛

[@L1M.L4M]

@The Omelette Cuber Bishops are thinner, and have a slit most of þe time. I legit had "þ" on accident, but it's still the same so I'm keeping it

[@mydudestudios6244]

Anoþer þ enjoyer i see

[@matthewvicksell6539]

By the en passant your rules provide, a double capture becomes possible if the attack square chosen happens to also contain an opponent's piece.

[@arkkane9726]

How would it, a pawn just passed by

[@dombowombo3076]

@@arkkane9726 It could stand on the upper platform when the pawn was moved on the lower one.

[@collinhauger5018]

@@dombowombo3076 en passant can't wait a turn. It's a "now or never" type thing.

[@matthewvicksell6539]

@@arkkane9726 suppose a knight sits on the neutral board at a player's third rank, and the opposing pawn moves to attack said knight. If the player then pushes a pawn two squares on their own board (along the same file but a different plane than the knight), the opposing pawn takes both the knight and pawn (with en passant) by capturing the knight.

[@MichaelOnines]

@Muffinconsumer4 It is not forced, it is an option to capture a double-move pawn during the double move. Prior to the double-move rule for pawns from their starting position a pawn advanced to the 5th rank could control pawns still in the starting spaces by capturing them if they moved from the 7th to 6th rank. When the double-move became commonly accepted, pawns on the 5th rank were suddenly weaker because they could be bypassed with the double-move. En passant restored the strength of the position by allowing the player to interrupt the double move by taking the pawn while on the 6th rank. In execution the double move pawn is advanced to the 5th rank and then the responding player captures en passant as if it were still on the 6th rank. Once you allow the double-move pawn to stay on the board for a turn you no longer have the option of interrupting the double move.

[@danielyuan9862]

I like how the last clip is almost not checkmate since the king can move down to the red square on the level below it, but there is part of a white bishop visible on the level below attacking that square.

[@Endless-fire]

The knight actually. through the void even.

[@D4rk0t]

Finally, The Interdimensional En Passant.

[@paulmunn9430]

A few years back I wrote a Python program to play this variant. I was working with a couple of guys who were training a robot to recognize chess pieces and move them around the board, but we never got as far as connecting my software to their robot. I'm sure I could find the code if anyone's interested

[@duccky3331s]

yes

[@cloudbounc3]

Is it 2 player? If so that would be so cool to play on

[@johntilghman]

And I make one more interested.

[@juancamilogutman164]

@@johntilghman me too please!

[@johntilghman]

@@juancamilogutman164 Not my code, but I was hoping to get a copy for sure.

[@darkshadow-1613]

Honestly, this is probably the best explanation to tridimensional chess, I have a board, and this got rid of confusion with certain moves

[@permeus2nd]

i love how what started as just something that looks interesting in the background have been fleshed out into a full game.

[@warshrike666]

Dude that was brilliant i am a ok chess player and have always wanted to have a go at tri but could never get all the rules down it was the attack boards confused me no end. Mate you are legend thank you that was so simple i am gonna bust out my board and set it up and have a go now been sitting there 20 years lol.

[@jamjar1726]

there should be a chess variant that focuses on attack boards.

[@TheCheesyNachos]

literally taking en passant to the next level, nice

[@crystalheart9]

I know very little about playing chess but the first time I saw the Tridimensional Chess board on Star Trek I thought it was so beautiful. This was very interesting and you did a great job explaining how it works. I would like one of these just for a decor piece. Probably one in blue, my favorite color.

[@TheFalconerNZ]

Thanks for the very clear instructions on how Star Trek Chess works is a game (l had to rewind a few times to get a few rules clear but that's just my slow brain), l have always wondered how it worked since seeing it when l was a kid & seeing it on the show. Shame that while l can play chess, l am no good at it so this doesn't really help me but l do know a few people that do play chess really well and might like the new challenge.

[@theneb5728]

This is the most nerdy thing ever and I'm all for it.

[@chasecollins3263]

Opening move, the crusade: Set up, move a pawn and out on your base level and move the queen diagonally out to the edge of your base. Castle on queen side and move your attack board toward the neutral board. Early- mid game, assuming you're opponent doesn't queen side castle as well, push you're holy crusade attack board of two rooks and two pawns into the neutral part of the board and dominate middle from there.

[@reuvencooper8170]

You can only move an attack board with one piece on it. He said that in the video.

[@completelyferrouschemist6776]

I realized that the reason that the Federation uses this kind of Chess is because it promotes 3-dimensional thinking, which is important in space-combat or in times when there is no gravity.

[@andrewmadilecy5704]

That's not even a good way the think of it. The way the pieces move isn't even 3 dimensional. It's fancy 2 dimensional chess! Theres real 3D chess variants that promote 3 dimensional thinking much better then this trash.

[@patricktilton5377]

Khan, with his supposedly 'superior intellect', obviously didn't play 3D Chess, as Spock says he exhibits "two-dimensional" thinking . . . prompting Kirk to order a Full-Stop then to have the Helm go "Z minus 10,000 meters" etc. I wonder how a Chess Master like Stanley Kubrick would have done playing 3D Chess, and if he ever saw STAR TREK and knew about this occasional plot element and wondered about trying it out back in the '60s . . . ?

[@josephmanno4514]

@@andrewmadilecy5704 It's "to think of it," "than this trash.," and "there're." If you're going to criticize something, try using the language properly.

[@Venator12345]

Calling this masterpiece of strategy and imagination combined together with humanity's most historic game of war and intellect "trash", is objectively wrong. Add on top how it manages to reimagine the game without destroying, but somehow adding to ancient principles this game is closer to genius if not for the marketing potential alone.. alas the ignorant do not appreciate what is too complicated for them to grasp.

[@Smartness_itself]

Traditional chess is already tridimensional.

[@user-dpscriberz]

"The rules are the same as regular chess, except for these changes"

[@jacencade4019]

That joke never gets old.

[@yeetionary]

@@jacencade4019 the joke is the same as regular jokes, except for these changes

[@kernelpultpvz]

​@@yeetionaryfor a refresher of those jokes, check out this video

[@markt1964]

Unless I am missing something, it appears to me that the rook's pawns in this chess variant are immobile until either there is a piece it can attack on the diagonal below it or until the attack board containing the pawn is moved, which evidently requires all of the other pieces to vacate it first. This is peculiar, because in ordinary chess, any pawn is initially free to move.

[@CorwinTheOneAndOnly]

You'd have to move the attack board and rotate it to get that pawn into play

[@markt1964]

@@CorwinTheOneAndOnly Right, but the initial configuration of the pieces on the main boards and attack boards means that the only pieces which may be initially moved are either the knights' or bishops' pawns or the knights themselves, meaning there are just 6 possible pieces initially available to be moved at the start of a game, while in regular chess there are 10 (any pawn or else either knight) With fewer pieces to initially move, this strongly suggests that there may be fewer interesting opening variations overall as well, this can effectively reduce the overall strategic complexity of the game compared to regular chess, since with apparently less variation on interesting openings, there would also be less variation in strategic mid-game play.

[@travisporco]

@@markt1964 I'll bet this could get tactically wild. Would be fun to train an engine to play it.

[@markt1964]

​@@travisporco I don't know... In regular chess, any one of the 8 pawns can be advanced in an opening. Most notably, advancing the kings pawn in an opening move in regular chess opens up the diagonals for the king's bishop and the queen, so they are free to move into the board early and develop an attack from a distance in the 2nd move of the game. This game only allows 4 of the pawns to have the ability to move at opening, and while advancing either bishop's pawn does open up the other bishop's ability to swiftly move into the board the next turn, the queen cannot be mobilized until at least the 3rd or 4th move in the game. Finally, there is almost no way at all in this version of the game to move the rook pawn into play until you can move the attack board that pawn is on, which requires that all of the other pieces must have vacated that attack board, which would take a number of moves to accomplish. The slower pace at which you can develop your pieces in this game, and especially the fact that some non-pawn pieces need to be moved before you can even move certain other pawns strongly means that it can be more difficult to develop strong openings, and I feel like the outcome of the game may depend more on luck than on skill and strength of positioning. I have thought of what I think may be a fix for this problem, however: I think a slight addition to the rules that allows pawns on attack boards in their opening position to optionally and additionally be permitted to move diagonally for their opening move (either one or two squares), and for their initial move only, be able to dodge pieces that might be blocking their way to a destination square just like a knight does, thereafter adopting the normal 1 square forward move at a time except to attack as a normal pawn move. This move option only applies to the pawns in their initial position on an attack board and does not apply to any other pawns. This additional move option would allow any of the 8 pawns to be developed and moved into play immediately, and creates more initial variance in possible openings, and more opportunity to develop effective long terms strategies that are enabled by those openings.

[@LtFoodstamp]

​@@markt1964Less openings, sure. But the mid-game would be incredibly complex considering that the Board itself can change configuration!

[@RandomAmerican3000]

Now for a much harder tutorial, how to find someone else who wants to play tridimensional chess.

[@favioferreira8921]

This is the one I’ve been waiting for.

[@rh3280]

I'm just waiting for some madman, to combine this with 5d multiverse chess

[@captaineflowchapka5535]

well it would be finaly closer to the name acheiving 5 D bcs for the momend is 4D

[@Kenfren]

@@captaineflowchapka5535 there is a 3rd dimension, but only the knighrs have access to it. That's how they jump over other pieces, are least according to 5d chess

[@Oxygen1004]

Small boards, lots of small boards and have the rules on hand, that's all you'd need

[@bitrr3482]

@Hoppeankirk that actually makes so much sense because when moving knight over piece you move it over a piece (in 3d)

[@QueenoftheSkunks]

This is the best explanation of it ever... And I'm still confused 😂💀 this is truly one of the most complex variants, only beat by 5d time travelling chess

[@potssnpanns8418]

I absolutely love how the pawns work in conjunction with the attack boards

[@stevenzheng5459]

Wow, this is one trippy board game! Never knew 3D chess had rotating and moving attack boards. Must drive every newbie nuts!

[@kevino13]

7:07 That's not really how castling should work, the queen-side rook should take the square next to the king, not the original square of the king. But, I guess there is no position next to the king since they're on the attack boards... Whatever, castling is annoying enough already in 2D chess.

[@igrim4777]

Omg it's like it is how castling should work since it's on a differently shared play area.

[@cillumagellan]

I'm gonna save this video for whenever I feel like I'm full of myself and my smartness.

[@TripleSGames]

🤣

[@MURDERPILLOW.]

Saving this video & comment for when i feel the opposite

[@ProjectRevoltNow]

Anyone else remember seeing this Chess board on the cartoon "Recess"? Vince was embarrassed by how nerdy his older brother was lol. They called it 4D chess on the show I think.

[@tyressawigglebottoms]

Gotta love these chess videos i would like to see more

[@Kafj302]

Now imagine if someone put this into 5d chess. Imagine being able to move an attack board back in time.

[@wilbing8465]

What a weird recommendation from KZbin but a good one. bought this board like 7 years ago. Play weekly with my daughter. Does everyone here play? I have never met anyone else that actually plays.

[@merikmalhads1676]

Ahhh, I always wondered because it clearly isn't standard 3D chess based on the structure of the boards; it appears to be more of a vectored 2D system

[@jasonc2784]

Ohh. I thought that you could never have pieces above or below each other except during setup. I don't remember The star trek 25th anniversary rulebook being very good. Thank you.

[@pitchvantablack7005]

Sounds unreasonably complicated. I love it!

[@smallminionboy8663]

i have seen this game played in the big bang theory, and thats the whole reason why i clicked on this video

[@sorenbaek9626]

Oh I see that all makes complete sense and I fully understood the whole game and every rule and during this explanation i most certainly did not lose the will to live at all. Its bollocks Jim but not as we know it.

[@danieltetreault9863]

I wanted to thank you since this is the most clear and concise explanation of the rules I've found online and I've done thorough research. Your video I of course watched first and everything else was supplemental but, returning to your video everything makes the most since. That being said I have one question. Why don't you discuss Inverting attack boards at all?

[@igrim4777]

Because there are so many versions of the rules and most of the ones I've seen don't allow pendant boards.

[@asmithgames5926]

This is a great video series. You should add another where you play each of these variants, with each player learning the game so there is a sufficient amount of strategy and skill.

[@DrewsterRooster37]

I've been waiting for this for so long

[@crackerjaq9974]

I'm a bit confused on a rule. At 5:02, when discussing the rules on a "wall of pieces blocking the path," there's a bit of ambiguity on how one is allowed to move. 1. In the example given, the piece moves two void squares (one directly under the pawns, one directly behind) before jumping up. From what I understand, they are only allowed one void square. Is this correct? If so, would the rook (following that rule) be allowed to move to the white space directly behind the pawns, or is that not allowed? 2. Would the rook be allowed to jump "through" a piece anyway? Say the top pawn were not present. Would the rook be able to move into said space despite there being an entire layer between the spaces, a layer where a pawn is present? Would a piece even be able to jump two layers at once in the first place, or must they move through them one layer at a time? 3. How thick is a "wall" of pieces? If an attack board were in the pin in the space occupied by the top pawn (thus adding another layer to the equation), would the rook be able to move to the attack board space in line with the other two pawns? Would he be able to move past the pawns now that there is another layer? And another rule that I feel was not explained well: could one cause or escape check by moving an attack board? Or does one have to move a piece to do so? For example, could I move an attack board to cause check to my opponent? And inversely, if my king were in check, but was the only piece on an attack board, could I move the attack board to escape? Sorry if all of that is too confusing or verbose, I tried to be as clear as possible as to avoid confusion. If anyone could help explain this, that would be greatly appreciated.

[@reuvencooper8170]

I don't believe the took can move past the pawns at all, they are blocking the one void space it can use (it could definetly take one of the pawns though). And yeah, I think if it was only one pawn or there was an additional attack board I think the rook could jump over and move two boards up at once. No idea about the attack boards and check it wasn't discussed at all.

[@KennyGallop]

Great video! But where did you learn about Queens and Rooks being able to cross through the void? I haven’t seen that in any rule books

[@breathless792]

based on what I can gather and figure out, I think I've worked out how to move Slider pieces (rooks, bishops and queens) to another level during a move: lets say you have the follow 4 squares XY ZW they have the following properties: 1) X and W are both actually squares (not void squares) and unoccupied 2) Y and Z can be any of the following: void squares, occupied squares or unoccupied squares (however due to the nature of the board they can't both be void squares) 3)X is directly above Z and Y is directly above W 4) X and Y are next to each other (orthogonally or diagonally) 5) the level X and Y are is directly above Z and W if a piece moves to W (or starts on W) it can jump to X (regardless of the state of Y and Z according to 2) )and could go past X if the next square on the same level is empty, otherwise it stays on X

[@breathless792]

forgot to add, if a piece moves to W while moving from the opposite side of Z also a piece could go the other way towards X and go down to W and even if it could continue past X/W it can stay on that square

[@andimcc6131]

This is very interesting. Is this game actually fun? Have you/anyone tried it?

[@Qwentar]

I thought attack boards could move if they had 0 pieces, or only 1 pawn. I was unaware that you could also rotate them 180 degrees. Maybe the Android app I played had different rules.

[@igrim4777]

I don't know how well the programmer wrote the version but no matter, there are at least 4 versions of the rules floating around. Most of them are very incomplete, some of them wilfully contradict previous versions.

[@無問西東]

@@igrim4777Rules DO NOT float around!

[@LuxisAlukard]

This looks so cool and so confusing! But the instructions in this video are great, as always!

[@phenixslayer21]

Can you move an attack board if your King is in check?

[@grimcarnage4309]

Rules don't state otherwise, so I would say yes as long as doing so would move the king out of check.

[@jonathanauffarth5646]

Clear, concise…very well done. But why did this feel like it was 30 minutes long?

[@AlyssaNguyen]

Time dilation. j/k

[@R4V3-0N]

I guess you could say that this variation is out of this world.

[@erner_wisal]

Badum tss

[@TheOriginalJphyper]

I have chosen this video as the first video to be added to my Favorites list in 2023. I am hopelessly nerdy like that.

[@DaneInTheUS]

I never knew this was released. I'm going to have to try this out. Thank you

[@DillonKell]

This is awesome, aboslutely love it!

[@firstnamelastname2552]

Please do Stratagema. I need to understand.

[@brettharrison8280]

Excellent description, as always.

[@lenpalmeri6228]

Fascinating tutorial! Question: is there a standard move notation system so 3D games can be shared & studied ?

[@telldpablo]

Attack boards, in the original series and the original rules were able to also hang down giving 24 possible places to sit. Meaning all eight boards could be on one of the main 3 boards. But this isn’t touched on. 🤷‍♂️ Thanks great tutorial.

[@TheDogn]

Might have been cool if certain peices could control the attack board in different ways. For example, if the bishop were able to rotate without traveling.

[@Lucas-kt3py]

Can’t wait for how to play Yoyle chess

[@WillFredward7167]

So it is both simpler and harder than I imagined from watching the show back when I was far shorter. A single practice game might be enough to internalize the rules, but getting good might take a LONG time

[@seatspud]

Can't help but wonder if there's an instructional video for the Star Wars 3D holographic chess.

[@argonwheatbelly637]

Best video out there on this. 🎉

[@jeffrey1025]

It seems like an interesting concept, but the way I understand it doesn’t black have a clear distinct advantage? When moving attack boards vertically it would appear you have an option to choose multiple pegs descending, while white has only 1 peg space to ascend. Perhaps this is intended as a way to offset whites advantage to moving first, but I feel as if having more available moves is a much stronger advantage. Or perhaps I’m misunderstanding the game. Interesting concept though.

[@JamesMadisonsSpiritAnimal]

Ok at first I thought this game was needlessly obtuse but as you described it, it became a very cool and complex game. Very cool. If only enough ppl played it lol

[@skyephoenix801]

Since you can't castle through check in regular chess, would it be you be able to prevent a queenside castling if you threatened the void?

[@okamisansempai557]

finally...the moment have come to see, this interesting game and it did not disappointed...great explication, thou i think it's complicate it is amazing to learn a different way to play, + i like how the pieces looks really cool! Congratulations!

[@duskyrc1373]

Can you still castle after moving the attack board with the king? I would assume not, just like pawns lose their double move.

[@Sovreign071]

Very informative! As beautiful as the board is, the fact that the levels and attack platforms are just ever so slightly missaligned drives me a bit nuts. I'm sure practiced masters can ignore it just fine. But fir a Novice, it'd be headache inducing!

[@Dinglesmckringles]

Does a pawn promote if it's on the last middle spaces on the board below the attack boards?

[@captainmeow2771]

I have enough trouble keeping up with normal chess, its not for me! lol But thanks for the introduction to the rules, Ive seen this played on Arc II and Star Trek, and always wondered.

[@Eudaimonist]

There are several different rulesets for this game, even with different piece starting positions and movement rules. I'm coming up with my own ruleset.

[@antaresx.8432]

Hmm , I had been avoiding acquiring a 3d Chess set due to unsatisfactory rule sets. I might get one now 👍👍Amazing and concise video Thanks!

[@Smartness_itself]

Traditional chess is already tridimensional.

[@antaresx.8432]

🤷‍♂️ The Knight is the only piece in traditional chess that can take advantage of that so......🤷‍♂️

[@Smartness_itself]

@@antaresx.8432 The rook can also take advantage of that in the case of castling. But that doesn't change the fact that the pieces and the board are tridimensional objects. Also, you can lift the pieces in the air when you move.

[@antaresx.8432]

@@Smartness_itself Of course.

[@fsj197811]

Interesting but way above my ability to play. Thanks for sharing.

[@shutemdwn]

Ok, I'm going to have to watch this about 500 more times.

[@popularmisconception1]

This is more like a 2d chess with some tiles being stackable in a layer-wise manner. When I was reading the rules online (and neither from this video) I didn't understand how promotion works with a pawn on the a8/d8 rank with an attack board above it once the attack board is moved by the opponent. When does the pawn promote? What if the attack board contains a black king and there's a risk that such off-turn promotion puts him in check? Also I don't remember the attack board rotation rule. Can it be rotated when moving backwards? Also those rules allowed moving an empty attack board (and they were supposed to have a primary owner). And then there is this completely other version of rules with attack boards both above and below main boards. It seems the rules are still evolving.

[@Carl-Gauss]

Does anyone know whether there’s an app or website where I can practice that variant?

[@andriesuxred2154]

Anyone know where i could get the round chess pieces at 3:00?

[@Yajayg]

I love your videos so much, you are a professional board game explainer I guess?! 😆😅🥰

[@rubenlarochelle1881]

The Internet-notorious "Five-dimensional chess with multiverse time-travel" uses the 1st & 2nd dimensions to play regular chess, then the 4th dimension to travel in time and the 5th to bend timelines, meaning it technically uses 4 dimensions, although it uses up to the 5th. If only the same concept was applied not to regular chess but to 3d chess, then it would have actually been the glorious 5d chess the world deserves.

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

Is this following the rules printed by Franklin Mint, those of Parmen, or one of the other variants?

[@Johannes00]

This seems to be the old edition rules which are simpler but still fun, the new edition rules were sadly taken down in 2014 and lost to time but it went into great depth about "vertical influence factor" which made for a deeper game, imo

[@toekneemart5597]

Feels like bishops have lost alot of their value with this variation

[@Jokie155]

Fitting in a predominantly atheist setting.

[@scaper8]

@@Jokie155 That's actually a really interesting, if totally accidental, meta reason. I like it.

[@Barkas247]

@@Jokie155 I don't think that explanation makes any sense. First - the bishop is just a chess piece like any other, it has nothing to do with religion. Originally it was even an elephant (if I remember correctly), the french used "dolphins" for a while and in german the bishop is called "Läufer" (i. e. "runner"). So it has nothing to do with religion. And even if it did, it still is just a name for a game piece, not an actual bishop. Second - if religion was a concern, they should have renamed the piece as well, which they didn't. In that case they should probably also have renamed king and queen, since the Federation has neither. Which they also didn't do. So, clearly, religion was not a concern. The "nerf" comes just from the board having less space to move horizontally and diagonally, since the board is only 4 squares wide (plus the attack board, which doesn't cover the whole thing, so most of the time it's 4 squares and sometimes it may have 5 or 6). In essence all horizontal and diagonal movement lost value because of that. But that doesn't only concern the bishop, it also concerns rook and queen and to some extent even knight and king. Only the pawns are not affected (which is not actually true, since you essentially lose 2 pawns for a rather long time, as the outer pawns on the attack boards can not move until you rotate the attack board or they can take another piece).

[@TheDoctor1225]

@@Barkas247 More so because Star Trek was not a "predominantly atheist setting." Far from it, actually, especially in TOS. The Star Trek universe was one in which mankind had learned to respect the worship and beliefs of other races that they encountered as well as their own. That explanation DOESN'T make any sense, at all. You hit the nail on the head. If that's what ST has turned into, you'll have to forgive me as I haven't watched it since ST TNG was on, and that only sparingly. I had no interest in the later series and especially not in the latest ones.

[@williampapadopoulos8145]

This is much different than standard 3-D chess. In that, if you have a rook, it can move either side to side (standard movement) OR, up or down, but not both in the same move. Bishops, on the other hand, can move along diagonals through multiple levels, staying on the same color as it had started. But the bishop cannot simply move straight up to another level even if it is on its same starting color. because that is how a rook moves.

[@berserkirclaws107]

😭 Now I want to try! But who else know this🤷‍♂️ Excellent video 👍👍👍

[@sagacious03]

I wonder what the meta is for this. How do the pieces rank? What squares are better? Interesting video! Thanks for uploading!

[@andrewmadilecy5704]

The variant is generally considered trash in the chess variant community. Even variants like atomic or anti chess which have been completely solved rank higher than this trash variant.

[@sagacious03]

@@andrewmadilecy5704 I don't know much about chess & such. What makes it bad?

[@josephoyek6574]

@@andrewmadilecy5704 Is it a forced win? (I _love_ atomic.)

[@marti5420]

you know, i always assumed this would be incredibly difficult to understand, im surprised by how simple it is

[@charliedegen7894]

Video is phenomenal At 4:41 I do not understand how this rook move is legal

[@mirahsan2]

If you think about it, setting aside Star Trek. This really could be called Space Chess. While regular chess, 3 man, etc. is based on you could say classic methods of warfare, between armies, tanks, troops, ships, heck even jets to a certain extent, maybe submarines. this really applies well to a form of chess with the idea that you can literally move in all directions with a space ship. hence making sense chess going tridemensional. it fits the fictional era of star trek perfectly. Tridemensional sure, you could apply the mystery of quarks here. Maybe they don't disapear, maybe just go somewhere our science can't see yet. Similar to space chess pieces.

[@vaiburrell1521]

Is it possible for pieces of both teams to occupy the same attack board, if so can both parties move it or neither?

[@MrEsMysteriesMagicks]

If you can only change levels with a horizontal move, does this mean Bishops and Queens moving diagonally cannot change levels?

[@dennissherier3209]

I may have missed it, but there is no mention of Andrew Bartmess who wrote the rules in the STAR TREK Giant Poster Book back in the 70’s.

[@igrim4777]

There's no mention of Franz Joseph who wrote the first published set of rules and who encouraged Bartmess to publish the booklet. Both gentlemen left out many necessary rules to the point of being unplayable without players generating their own rules to compensate.

[@無問西東]

If there is a wall of pieces on the same vertical square blocking the path why does pieces not travel into the void to dodge it?

[@youuuuuuuuuuutube]

Still easier than Shogi. Good explanations!

[@Venator12345]

This is a discrepancy: regarding the en passant move option for the pawn, in your opinion, does the attacking pawn need to move to an unoccupied square following the double stepped pawn's capture? Because of the nature of 2d chess this has not ever needed to be specified.