[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by Rodrigo Zanotelli
This is not exactly a variant. Just 2 chess teams, they work with the usual chess rules, but with changes I said on my text. Anyway, I didnt even said what team is black or white, to not influence the values of the team. King is said to have infinite value, so those 2 teams came into my mind, one doenst have the queen (but can still promote to queen) and the other have an new king in the place of the queen. So one lost -9 points and one "gained infinite points".
Which one of those 2 chess teams is the better one? Team 1= Like usual but dont have the queen, but pawns can still promote to a queen Team 2= Have another king, that is on the place of the queen, pawns can stll promote to queen. New king can also castle (obviously respecting his new position), castling is a rook and king move. Team 2 lose if any of his kings are mated, he cant leave or put any of his kings in check
People say normal torus dont work, because of the setup position. But on usual chess, the enemy piece is as far as possible from you. This not happen on normal chess setup with torus rules. An solution would be to have white on usual places, and black on 6 and 5 instead of 7 and 8. With this you would follow more the spirit of chess But then you would have an new problem, you have pawns that are some sort of wall, but on this variant you have this sort of wall on just one side.
One question. If double step (double step version of knight moves, being able to capture with it) was added to white piece (the piece is able to be captured en passant by pawn) would this change the game enought to increase white player odds?
A cool variant would be one that only allow you to turn piece X into a royal one, if this piece X attack piece Y, that is curently royal and piece X is not attacked by a friendly piece. You could maybe turn self rules capture on.
Arm said: "This is only a technicality really, but there's another way to think about the camel movement to put it in perspective. To use an analogy: A camel is to a bishop as a knight is to a rook. That is, a knight moves in an orthogonal L-shape while a camel moves in a diagonal L-shape. While it works exactly the same way to say the camel does a (3,1) leap, it makes the camel fit better into the chess schema to think of it as a diagonal analogue of a knight. Whatev, though." If I am right, another way to think about camel is to think he moves to the closest square from the one he is, excluding the one he is in and the ones that rook, bishop and knight can move to. Anyway, following those idea, If you wanted to make a variant with leapers only (and assuming you consider bishop a leaper). You could do this Rook = Fide Bishop moves Bishop = rider version of Fide Knight Knight = Camel King = A mix of fide knight and ferz Queen = Fide bishop and rider version of fide knight Pawn = Ferz moves thad advance as move only and knight moves that advance as capture moves. If you dont consider Bishop a rider you can do Rook = rider version of fide Knight Bishop = rider version of camel Knight = moves as a (3,2) and a (1,4) leaper Queen = Rider version of camel + rider version of fide knight king = camel + fide knight Pawn = Fide knight moves that advance but only as move, and moves of camel that advance but only as capture.
kuyan its possible to think about knight as a piece that moves to "the closest square to him, not on rook lines and bishop lines"
Wow. Cool. Didnt understood the relation it has with ppu but its cool. Try to do with others consoles GPUs
Maybe could be done this way. Dont know if it would work Player can select any piece to put on the board, but as some example the amount of kings that can exist on the board can be only (2 times the amount of rooks on the board) minus 1
"2)Make promotion cycled! Kings do turn back to pawns. However, kings still can't move into check (but thereafter became none-royal again)." In theory the king should be allowed to move at check with this rule (but can't stay into check). The idea of check is to make impossible to some player make some mistake move that will end the game. If the king will turn into a non royal piece, then by making the moving and puting this non royal piece into check, he will not end the game and lose by a mistake.
Help me with something: With this variant you capture a piece X that is attacking your piece Y, by using piece X capture moves with this Y piece? OR If you can attack a piece X with your piece Y, using your normal fide capture move AND ALSO attack piece X using piece X capture move. You can capture the piece X using piece X capture move (and only this move).
Its usually said that pawn double step rule is to make chess faster. On normal chess, there are 6 squares between pawn and promotion, and with those 6 squares between them, the double step rule is needed. With 5 squares betwen them it would not be needed or the pawns would be allowed to make the double step move after moving only one step on first move, to make the game faster. Said that I think the double step rule should be changed to something like that: "If there are 6 or more squares between the square that you are and the promotion squares, you are able to make the 2 steps move" Well, this rule will fix most problems. But you will have problems if you play one variant where there are promotion squares at different distances (6 or more squares between the closest promotion square, 6 or more squares between the furtherst promotion square?).You will also have problems with variants where the pawn can jump or do something else that will make him move more than one square naturally (so, 6 or more squares between him and the promotion square? 6 or more moves between him and the promotion square? 6 or more turns [if you can move more than one time in a turn] between him and the promotion square? Anyway I think this "variant" needs more rules: 1-Castling is a move of the king or a move of the royal piece? (On my opinion its a royal piece move) 2-How check/mate works on a game with 2+ royal pieces? You need to mate only one piece to win? Mate both on same turn? Check/mates rules only take effect after there is only one royal piece on the team? Mate means enemy have no way to make all his royal pieces not be consecutively captured on next moves? 3-How promotion works? The piece that pawn (or another piece) promotes to is a new piece or a changed pawn? This would help to check if a royal pawn keep royalty and if the pawn moves go to the new piece (and so if the piece will be able to castle or not) 4-What happens when pawn start at a promoted square? Player promote before game start or on his first turn?
Why not make a game with 2 separated boards. One player is white on one board and the other is white on the other board. With that no player will have first-move advantage. Of course one rule to see who will win need to be decided. If the first one that mate the enemy (on any of the boards) win, being fast at mating would be more important than just mating, this is a not wanted thing. Maybe do like that. If one guy win on both boards, he win the game. He both players win on one board, they play again.
I had some similar ideas when seeing some battle chess computer game. But with my variant (duel chess), the only difference from fide chess is that if you capture with the same piece 2 times, on the second time the piece is also removed from the game
With all paws being on their original positions, all players having 31 points to spend (and having to spend exactly 31 points), players being able to choose at max 3 rooks (to not mess with castling rules) and being able to choose at max 7 pieces (the back rank): Each player would be able to choose 7 different ways of starting the game. The math and the positions on wolfram alpha: http://tinyurl.com/bzodn2c Of course this assumes that choosing the same pieces, will produce the same starting position. With players that brought the pieces being able to choose where each piece will start this number will be higher.
"All `double move' variants, I had known until then allowed the player to move different pieces." I am almost sure there are 2 moves variants that only allow you to move the same piece. But YES they aren't 100% like your variant. If I remember one variant I saw allowed the player to make just one move (instead of the 2 ones) if he wanted.
If both rook needed to be at least 3 squares one the left (and the other on the right) side of king how many positions would we have?
"Capturing by a draughtsman or a damka is compulsory. However, when there are different alternative captures, the player can choose which capture to make." In theory, by logic capturing with draughtsman or danka should be forced even if the other pieces are possible to capture. In draughts pieces have forced capture while in chess they dont: So you can: 1-Assume this is a rule of draughts and while doing a crossover with chess and so do A or B: A- use this rule (all pieces have forced capture) B - not use it (and so use the chess rules, no pieces have forced capture). OR 2-Assume this is a rule of the draughts pieces, and so only the draughts pieces will have this rule. He assumed 2 (since the draughts pieces have forced captures and the chess ones dont). So, this would means draughts pieces MUST capture if possible, period.
"Keller, in his 10th issue of World Game Review mentions the following paradox: what if, say white checks black, such that blacks only move is to check white, but in that position, whites only move is to check black, and so on and so on." How this would happen in checkless chess? The rules say that you can only mate the enemy king, not check him. In fact this is the main idea of the variant.
Try madcap chess http://www.pathguy.com/chess/MadcapCh.htm The idea you are thinking, not exactly because you can also win by enemy having a bare king.
One cool variant could be made where 1-You can capture your own pieces. 2-You can't capture the king 3-Its possible to put your king in check with friendly pieces. So you need to avoid it. In this variant both players would need to start by capturing their own
A new variant could be made. Maybe called Hivemind chess. 1-You can move enemy pieces that you are attacking. 1.1-You can only move those pieces to a square you are attacking. 2-You can't attack other enemy pieces or your own pieces using a enemy piece. 3-You can't put your king in check by moving a enemy piece. 4-Win by checking the enemy king. 5-All other rules as in chess. A minor sub-variant of this variant I made here, can be made here: 1-All rules as in hivemind chess. 2-While controlling a enemy piece you can use this piece to capture one of you own pieces, excluding the king, as long the enemy piece end into a attacked square after the capture is done.
One variant could be made in this way. 1-The pieces values of all enemy pieces he captured, cant be higher than 21 (promoted pawn pieces count as the value of the piece pawn promoted to). If this value gets higher than 21 the player lose. 2-When one player mate the enemy king, if value of the pieces he captured is higher than the total value of pieces the other player captured, he wins, if the value is smaller than the other player value or is higher than 21 he lose. 3-In the case of a stalemate and draw, the player with the highest amount of points wins.
If you change pawn rules to "pawns being able to move 2 steps while on second rank", this will ends with the same results because the pawns start on the second rank and will not be able to go to back to second rank later. But this doenst means the rules are the same. As a example in chess with different starting setups, where some paws are not on second rank, this would change the things.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.