[QUOTE=Chronos]
Myself, I’ve never liked the rule that the game ends in checkmate. It seems to reflect an antiquated notion about the propriety of kings on a battlefield. I say, just capture the king like any other piece.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with this; I’ve always thought this was a bit odd. It seems much more natural to actually capture the king, and not require that a player get out of check.
The current rule seems no more logical than to end the game when a mate in 1 (or 2 or 3) is on the board. Or to make it illegal to move into mate in 1 (or 2 or 3), just like it’s now illegal to move into check.
There is one house rule variation I play. When you get your pawn to the other end of the board, it does NOT get promoted to a Queen. Instead, you trade it in for one of your captured pieces. Not only does it stop a pawn-strategist from getting too powerful, but it eliminates trying to keep track of a non-standard piece on the board.
Myself, I’ve never liked the rule that the game ends in checkmate. It seems to reflect an antiquated notion about the propriety of kings on a battlefield. I say, just capture the king like any other piece. Of course, your opponent will never let you do so, so long as he has any other option, so the actual gameplay would remain unchanged (at least in regular chess). But I like the flavor more, and it does actually make a difference in many chess variants. For instance, in many-player variants, you might choose to end your turn in check, and hope that one of your other opponents will take care of it for you.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right, this is actually genuinely stupid. If the opponent can’t move without getting his king into the line of fire, it’s a draw? wtf?
[QUOTE=glee]
So the only answer to e4 is e6? Yup, it’s a ‘single path’ game all right!
[/QUOTE]
That it is only one move from one player that is single path…
Besides other moves are possible, I just suspect this is the best.
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
I was thinking rankings. Queen beats bishops beats knight beats rook etc.
[/quote]
Or the double move leaves one (or even both) players in check?
[/QUOTE]
Then both are in check and must move their king to leave it.
[/QUOTE]
I was going to post the same thing (simultanious movement) but pieces to the same square result in a bounce and three bounces in a row are a stalemate.
[QUOTE=WF Tomba]
This is a variant I invented and have actually played. When you have one of your rooks immediately in front of one of your pawns, you may move the pawn forward and place it on top of the rook. On your next turn (if the rook-pawn has not been captured) you may send the pawn flying in any direction by flicking it with your finger. The pawn and any pieces it knocks down (of either color) are considered captured. If a king is knocked over, that player loses; if both kings are felled, it’s a draw.
[/QUOTE]
You should have a look at drinking chess. :eek:
When you capture a piece, you have to have an alcoholic drink (there are versions where more important pieces lead to more alcoholic drinks!).
It’s a fine balance between winning and staying sober enough.
[QUOTE=borschevsky]
I agree with this; I’ve always thought this was a bit odd. It seems much more natural to actually capture the king, and not require that a player get out of check.
The current rule seems no more logical than to end the game when a mate in 1 (or 2 or 3) is on the board. Or to make it illegal to move into mate in 1 (or 2 or 3), just like it’s now illegal to move into check.
[/QUOTE]
I suppose this is like the rule in professional snooker that when one player is ahead by more than 7 points (the value of the Black ball), and only the Black ball is left, the game is over. The idea is that the professional will not foul with only one ball left.
As I said earlier, in competitive chess you don’t announce check - it’s assumed your opponent will see it automatically.
However in 5 minute chess, the usual rule is that a king left in check is captured - ending the game. (The exception is presumably because both players are rushed.)
I once put a Grandmaster in check; he replied by checking me; I got out of check :smack: ; he checked me about 5 more times; then I suddenly realised what had happened, captured his King and won. :o
[QUOTE=MacSpon]
A friend and I (the friend went on to become an international master) once invented Toroidal Chess, a variation of cylindrical chess. Not only are the two sides of the board joined (so you can move off the left and onto the right), but so are the two ends of the board. Thus, the board is effectively a doughnut shape, or torus.
[/QUOTE]
Chess problemists were using the torus in the 1920s.
‘Cylinder boards were very popular in the first half of the 20th century. The vertical cylinder has the a and h-files joined, while the horizontal cylinder has the 1st and 8th ranks joined. The combination of both is called the anchor ring or torus.’
The same link includes a vertical cylinder problem from 1928.
[QUOTE=glee]
You should have a look at drinking chess. :eek:
When you capture a piece, you have to have an alcoholic drink (there are versions where more important pieces lead to more alcoholic drinks!).
It’s a fine balance between winning and staying sober enough.
[/QUOTE]
Or my variation, where if you take a person’s pawn, they take a shot. If you capture a knight or a bishop, that is equal to 3(?) shots (or the value in relation to a pawn), etc. It gives new perspective to the value of losing your queen!
Trust me, in my version of the game, **NO ONE ** brings the queen out too early!
[QUOTE=fusoya]
There is one house rule variation I play. When you get your pawn to the other end of the board, it does NOT get promoted to a Queen. Instead, you trade it in for one of your captured pieces. Not only does it stop a pawn-strategist from getting too powerful, but it eliminates trying to keep track of a non-standard piece on the board.
[/QUOTE]
What is a ‘pawn-strategist’?!
How do you cope if a pawn reaches the end without one of your pieces being captured?
[QUOTE=Chronos]
En passant is a pretty silly rule… But lack of en passant is actually even sillier. The situation seldom comes up, precisely because of the en passant rule, but without it, a pawn could slip past the enemy pawns which would otherwise threaten to capture it by making its two-space initial move.
[/QUOTE]
That’s exactly why I dislike en passant. If a pawn is allowed to move two peices, then it’s allowed to move two peices. I understand the theory behind the rule, but I don’t see why it’s necessary. If your pawn misses a capture because the other player used a two-space move, tough shit, Sherman.
It doesn’t really change the game much either way but it’s always struck me as being a jarring, out-of-character rule that looks like it was invented by someone bitter his pawn-heavy strategy kept getting foiled by the two-space rule.
[QUOTE=glee]
You should have a look at drinking chess. :eek:
When you capture a piece, you have to have an alcoholic drink (there are versions where more important pieces lead to more alcoholic drinks!).
It’s a fine balance between winning and staying sober enough.
[/QUOTE]
My friends, back in the day, played a variant of this where the chess pieces were actually molded out of bits of hashish. You take one, you have to smoke it.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
That’s exactly why I dislike en passant. If a pawn is allowed to move two peices, then it’s allowed to move two peices. I understand the theory behind the rule, but I don’t see why it’s necessary. If your pawn misses a capture because the other player used a two-space move, tough shit, Sherman.
It doesn’t really change the game much either way but it’s always struck me as being a jarring, out-of-character rule that looks like it was invented by someone bitter his pawn-heavy strategy kept getting foiled by the two-space rule.
[/QUOTE]
The bolded part is the flaw in your argument. I’m not sure what you mean by “pawn-heavy strategy” but if you view pawns as a tiresome inconvenience that just stop the proper pieces from getting on with the game, chess strategy left you behind some centuries ago.
If your brilliant tactic of moving your pawn two spaces is undone because of the en passant rule, then tough shit Sherman. See how it cuts both ways?
How do you cope if a pawn reaches the end without one of your pieces being captured?
[/QUOTE]
It’s a term I made up for this thread. It’s somebody who focuses more on getting rid of their pawns for other upgrades than on trying to capture other pieces right away. And I’ve NEVER played a chess game where a pawn reached the other end before at least some pieces were captured. I’ve even baited my Queen, having it captured right before I moved onto the 8th row, only to get it right back.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
That’s exactly why I dislike en passant. If a pawn is allowed to move two peices, then it’s allowed to move two peices. I understand the theory behind the rule, but I don’t see why it’s necessary. If your pawn misses a capture because the other player used a two-space move, tough shit, Sherman.
It doesn’t really change the game much either way but it’s always struck me as being a jarring, out-of-character rule that looks like it was invented by someone bitter his pawn-heavy strategy kept getting foiled by the two-space rule.
[/QUOTE]
Originally a pawn was only allowed to move one square at a time:
To speed the opening up (games could start 1. e3 e6 2. e4 e5 for example), pawns were allowed to move two squares on theri first move only.
Using your logic, one could ask why pawns aren’t always allowed to move two squares…
Oh, what is a pawn-heavy strategy?
Is it based on Phildor? (“Pawns are the soul of chess”)
[QUOTE=fusoya]
It’s a term I made up for this thread. It’s somebody who focuses more on getting rid of their pawns for other upgrades than on trying to capture other pieces right away. And I’ve NEVER played a chess game where a pawn reached the other end before at least some pieces were captured. I’ve even baited my Queen, having it captured right before I moved onto the 8th row, only to get it right back.
[/QUOTE]
So you have seen players try to promote a pawn at the start of the game rather than do anything else? :eek:
I’ve threatened promoted early on, but only because of my overall strategy:
[QUOTE=glee]
Oh, what is a pawn-heavy strategy?
Is it based on Phildor? (“Pawns are the soul of chess”)
[/QUOTE]
You need to be much closer to a beginner to get what he’s saying.
Somehow, there are competing styles of play. . .one that focuses on getting your pawns to the other end, and one that focuses on capturing the other players pieces (as “wild and attacking” is a counterpoint to “passive and solid”). I don’t think it’s a distinction that someone who knows anything more than how the pieces move would make.
If I were to cut him a break, I’d say that he’s promoting playing an opening like the Gruenfeld where you might allow passed pawns for some counterplay against the king.
‘In this game each player can see their own pieces, but not those of their opponent. For this reason, it is necessary to have a third person (or computer) act as a referee, with full information about the progress of the game. When it is a player’s turn he will attempt a move, which the referee will declare to be ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’. If the move is illegal, the player tries again…’
The key to this game is to use your pawns as a shield, since you can ask about possible pawn captures. You must keep an accurate piece count and should be ready to try the odd thrust into your opponents position!
[QUOTE=Trunk]
You need to be much closer to a beginner to get what he’s saying.
[/quote]
I’ve taught all standards, including beginners, for 30 years.
[QUOTE=Trunk]
Somehow, there are competing styles of play. . .one that focuses on getting your pawns to the other end, and one that focuses on capturing the other players pieces (as “wild and attacking” is a counterpoint to “passive and solid”). I don’t think it’s a distinction that someone who knows anything more than how the pieces move would make.
[/quote]
Most beginners just check that the piece they move can’t be captured. They don’t make plans much deeper than that.
I did once see someone just advance a pawn continually, but I had only just taught him the moves!
I can’t envisage how a player would plan to promote a pawn from the opening. (The game I gave shows me refusing to promote as I had something better…)
[QUOTE=Trunk]
If I were to cut him a break, I’d say that he’s promoting playing an opening like the Gruenfeld where you might allow passed pawns for some counterplay against the king.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see a beginner knowing anything about the Gruenfeld.
Presumably you are referring to lines that include Black playing Qxa2? (e.g. Shirov-Akopian)
