Games that are almost but not entirely unlike chess

The replacement of pieces in Exchange Chess reminds me of the game of
Japanese Chess, properly called Shogi, the generals' game. The flat
pieces are marked with kanji characters that are confusing for most people
brought up with the Roman alphabet, but I do own a German-made version
of the game which uses pieces marked with their powers of movement.

You can play a Shogi-style game of chess with reversible counters:

Ethan and I last week discussed Chinese Chess, xiang-qi, the Elephant
Game. Again, the traditional flat pieces have traditional Chinese
characters, but can be substituted by other symbols or even 3-D symbolic

Previously I have discussed Luzhangqi, the Land Army Game, with Ethan
and Edmund and Taylor.

Edmund and Taylor were speculating about a version of chess with the
rule that a lesser piece cannot take a greater piece - a rule that is
part of many games, including another Chinese game, Do Shou Qi,
sometimes called Jungle Chess. I haven't found a Luzhangqi set that is
easy for a native English speaker to play, but the game has several
Westernised derivatives, including Stratego and the Tri-Tactics

My favourite of all the more-or-less-chess-like variants is Don't Take
the Brain
, where Ninnies and Numbskulls do battle on a curious board. I
have the German version, called Schlaukopf (featuring pieces like the
Dumm-Kopf and the Schlitz-Ohr), and have made a couple of sets using counters.

Chess Quotes

"A lot of the difference between an IM and GM is a seriousness to the game. The GM is willing to go through all this. He's willing to put up with anything. This shows his dedication. One other thing is the GMs superiority in tactics. For example Christiansen can find tactics in any position. If you're a GM you should be able to overpower the IM tactically. The GM will often blow out the IM in this area. "
— Nick de FIRMIAN, in How To Get Better at Chess : Chess Masters on Their Art by GM Larry Evans, IM Jeremy B Silman and Betty Roberts

EDITORIAL NOTE: This of course contradicts David Norwood's view. While David's opinion is based on research, I think Nick's is the correct one. I have a wonderful proof of this theorem, but unfortunately this page is too small to hold it. - Dr.Dave.