How about another question?
When you manage to get a pawn onto your oponents side of the board and you still have your queen, what do you exchange the pawn for? What about getting a second pawn there as well - a second queen?
Jonbooi, I don’t get it. Are you asking which piece you are allowed to choose for the promotion? Any piece (except a pawn - I’m pretty sure that chess rules dictate that you must promote it to either a knight, bishop, rook or queen); but if you need more than one queen to beat your adversary then you’re a wimp. 
I do remember though one game I played as a teenager where I accumulated six queens, to the great mortification of my opponent. 
(edited to correct smiley error)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 02-13-2001 at 04:41 PM]
I still remember the last tournament game I ever played--a very stupid result. I was paired against a much weaker player for some reason. After a major battle, I was left with a queen and three pawns, he had nothing. He still didn't resign, though.
I was tired and didn't feel like bothering with a king & queen mate with the pawns in the way, I took the lazy way out and pushed a pawn, intending to get another queen. Stalemate!Loren - Déjà vécu! Let me expand a little on the “six queen” game.
My friend and I started playing a speed chess game but through a stupid mistake he lost his queen almost right away. I said “game over” but he said “I can get a tie.” I took up his challenge and we agreed to continue the game at normal speeds. To further humiliate him I decided to promote as many pawns as I could, but after my sixth queen, I ended up with a stalemate, so he had the last laugh.
Here is a very good chess variant site.
Bill
I hesitate to drag up such an old thread, but I just got the email today with reference to the Monopoly variation. Actual grandmaster games have been played with several queens on both sides. I don’t know what the record is, but IIRC I’ve seen games with six queens. Hey, if your opponent has six and you have only five, it wouldn’t hurt to get another. Don’t ask me why checkmate wasn’t delivered earlier.
Did anyone ever play hexagonal chess? I had a set, but no worthy opponent.
How did you stalemate with a six queen advantage?
Here’s a chess variant I invented:
Points chess
Each player starts the game with one hundred points.
Each player secretly divides up his points and assigns them to twenty categories. The player can assign as many of his points as he wishs to any category. Each player keeps his list secret from his opponent.
Sixteen categories are the individual pieces. Each individual piece has its own category even if it’s a duplicate piece like a rook or pawn. Mark the pieces to identify them if you think it’s going to be a problem.
The other four categories are check points, capture points, intelligence points, and universal points.
Every time a piece is moved, the player must use one of his points to move it. Ordinarily the player will use one of the points from that piece’s category. For example, if you assign the queen six points before the start of the game, you have the ability to move your queen six times.
Points cannot be reassigned during the game. If a piece is captured with any points still in its category those points are lost.
Check points - A check point can be used to move any piece if the player is moving to put his opponent into check (or checkmate) or is moving to get himself out of check.
Capture points - A capture point can be used to move any piece if that piece is capturing an opposing piece.
Intelligence point - On any move, a player can use an intelligence point. He uses the point and asks his opponent to reveal what the current amount of points he has in any one category. A player can only use one intelligence point per turn. Using an intelligence point does not count as a move itself and the player can than make his regular move.
Universal points - A universal point can be used in place of any other type of point at any time. But it costs a player five regular points before the start of the game to buy one universal point.
There are times when a player has a choice of different types of points which he could use to make a move. In such situations the player can choose to use whichever point he wishs.
A piece that has run out of points in its category cannot normally move. But it remains on the board and a player does not have to tell his opponent it’s immobilized. The piece can still be moved using capture, check, or universal points if the other conditions for using these points are met.
Castling - When a player castles, he can charge the move to either piece. He does not have to use two points.
If a player runs out of usable points and cannot make any move, he must resign the game.
All other rules are the same as the traditional game.
The Martian variant of chess is not very playable at all. I tried as a teen. The problem is the game is won either by capturing the opponents Princess (Queen) or by having your king capture the opponenet’s. Now this latter would rarely happen. Any time player A’s king can capture player B’s king, then either player B could have captured player A’s king with his own or he just moved it to a square next to A’s king. Since that’s an immediate loss, the only reason to do so is to capture a piece that could capture the princess. But the princess has a once per game “escape” move which allows it great freedom of movement. (I forget the exact rule, but it was to virtually any square on the board.) The games were quite long and boring as I recall.
Another difficulty is that the description of the moves is ambiguous.
Does “one straight and one diagonal mean”
.O.O.
O...O
..X..
O...O
.O.O.
or does it mean
.O.O.
O.O.O
.OXO.
O.O.O
.O.O.
?
*‘All the Kings Horses’ * and it can be found in the Anthology Welcome to the Monkey House.
Slight nitpick, Pi Ying is described as a ‘Communist Guerrilla Chief’, the Plane’s destination was India, and Pi Ying had a Russian advisor who winds up finishing the game. I don’t think they were in Korea, but it’s not really specified.
I’ve played chess for decades, worked for a National Chess Federation, teach chess professionally and have a keen interest in variants including chess problems.
I’ve never heard of this!
(I can’t see much use for it either.)
While I’m here…
Yes indeed. I would guess around 1490.
I agree, especially at international level.
This is called ‘living chess’. I’ve done it with the local scout pack providing costumes and players. A fine spectacle, but the pieces just leave the board politely when captured.
Allegedly a Mogul Emperor used to play this with elephants…
These are about 80 years old. A chess problem composer called T.R. Dawson probably invented them.
Also with King, bishop + knight. However King + 2 knights cannot force mate.
There’s a famous game by Alekhine with 5 queens, but it’s fake:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess/al5q.htm
However there are two genuine games with 5:
Belov - Prohorov, Chelyabinsk 1991
Mackic - Maksimenko, Yugoslavia 1994
http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/records/records.htm#Most%20queens
Living Chess with the chessmen fighting for the squares is common – almost de rigueur – at Renaissance Faires. Usually, the game is scripted, and includes a few “fights” along the lines of “insults at 20 paces”, but if you have 32 fighting actors who have drilled with each other, it is possible to do an unscripted match under the direction of players taken from the audience.
A game of living chess is, of course, featured in The Prisoner, in the episode Checkmate.
Of course, with Martian chess, it’s worth noting that although the board game is boring, the living variation has actual combat for control of each square (the attacker does not always win). So if each Emperor thinks he can defeat the other (this seems to be fairly common, among Barsoomian males), an Emperor-takes-Emperor endgame is not unlikely.
There’s also the interesting twist that if any piece other than an Emperor takes an Emperor, the game is over and tied. Effectively, this makes Emperors involiate against all but other Emperors, since no Barsoomian worth his testosterone would ever settle for a tie.
Does this mean that at Renaissance Faires, a player who tries to make a capture can lose his piece instead?
Blasphemy! :eek:
There’s a living chess game fragment in ‘Alice in Wonderland’, (though I think the moves are very weak!), and also I’ve seen a Mr. Harold Potter (a talented school pupil) have a go against a magical opponent…
If it is a real game with drilled “chessmen”, the convention is normally that the attacker always wins. If it is scripted, that may or may not be the case, depending on what makes a good 1/2-hour show. There may even be barefaced cheating. 2003’s game at the New Jersey Renaissance Kingdom included an exchange along the following lines:
Piece: I’m tired of this. I’m moving here!
Player: But, Dame Prudence, it isn’t our turn!
Piece: Listen, I’ve been playing in these chess games of yours for thirteen years. I’ll move when I damn well please!
(“Dame Prudence”, by the way, was telling the truth; she actually has been in every NJRK chess game since 1991, and the show usually broke for applause at that point.)
That’s Through the Looking Glass, if you please.
Mr. Potter recieves quite enough acclamation on his own merits, thank you. There’s no need to give him credit properly due to Mr. Ronald Weasley. It’s my suspicion, incidentally, that the transfigured pieces deliberately played into a position where Mr. Weasley’s sacrifice could win the game: They were, after all, produced by the head of Griffindor house, that being the house which values bravery.
The only chess variant I’ve played more than once or twice is one with reflecting bishops. The bishops have the capabilty to reflect off the side of the board at a 90 degree angle. This gives them the ability to end up on their starting square after completely circumnavigating the board.
There was a chess-like PC game called Archon which used this idea. When a player moved a piece into an occupied square, the game shifted to another screen where the two pieces fought for possession of the square. Another interesting variation of this game was that the game proceeded through a cycle of turns going through day and night and back. The two sides were supposed to be good and evil and their powers varied based on light or dark it was during the current turn. So a capture that might be easy at “noon” would probably fail at “midnight”.