h a l f b a k e r y
Ambivalent? Are you sure?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Under "Simultaneous Checkers," [po] suggested the superimposition of a chess game upon a game of checkers. So I'll take this a bit further.
First, take an odd bunch of games that can be played on a large board (14x14): Chess, Checkers, Stratego, Snakes and Ladders, and maybe Scrabble, but you can
throw in others. Naturally, some of the sub-games will not require every single square, but there should be as much overlap as possible. The objective is to win >50% of the subgames.
Players alternate turns, at the start of which they will roll a die. Now here's the kicker: after the roll, player two gets to choose which subgame player one will play. If applicable, the value on the die will be used.
I'm aware you could do this with separate boards, but it's both more ergonomic and chaotic this way.
I suppose I should mention that the pieces from one subgame have no effect on the pieces of another subgame, which was also mentioned in the annos from Simultaneous Checkers.
Read the first annotation. [Cuit_au_Four, Jan 20 2006]
I remember linking snakes & ladders with these babies which I thought was far more ingenious of me. ;)
[po, Jan 20 2006]
||Let me check I'm getting this right...
||"Kings Knight takes Pawn... Damn a snake... Back to the start again. Ah, but with my knights ended up on a Tripple Word Score... That's... Your turn to throw the dice."?
||[Double Letter Scoring Bun]
||monopoly and trial pursuit.
||take care folks, this is listable.
||The whole site lists a bit to port.
||21 Q: If you want to annotate about
simultaneous checkers you'd best do that
on that idea rather than here. In response
to your annotation, though, the pieces
have exactly the same amount of space to
move as before, since one game uses the
back squares, and the other the white