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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
What is a ‘pawn-strategist’?!
How do you cope if a pawn reaches the end without one of your pieces being captured?
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.
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. 
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?
More of an aside than a hyjack. Have any of you played Nightmare Chess? It’s regular chess with cards that change the rules, it’s good fun.
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.
Dark Chess is an odd but clever variant, where you only see the squares that you can legally attack. 
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”)
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:
(11. bxa8=Q+ is not as good…)
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.
Have a look at Kriegspiel!
‘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!
I’ve taught all standards, including beginners, for 30 years. 
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…)
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)