Comments by Thomas

I take it that a hunter can't be adjacent to an opponent's hunter, thus can never capture another hunter. But hunters are natural predators of other hunters. Does that mean that you don't control a red square by a hunter if the opponent still has a hunter?
Do you control a red square by, say, a cat when the opponent has no cat and no dog but has a mouse that may later promote to cat or dog?

Thank you. I have to think about it and experiment a bit.
I wonder if it would suffice to check the legality of the newest move only.
As I understand it, every time a player makes a move a program containing all previous moves is built, with the newest move at the end, then executed. Usually the legality is checked in the post-move part, thus all older moves are checked again and again, after every move made by a player.
Wouldn't it be enough to test the legality of a move only once, directly after it is made, in the post-game part, just assuming that all previous moves are legal?

Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.

Some years ago I read about a similar variant proposal in a forum of a game site. The author named it 'stale chess':
Win by stalemating the opponent; it is forbidden to give check.

Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.

Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.

It seems that, since about one week ago, the short description of a newly submitted game is not stored. I submitted two games in this week, and both don't show the description (and I'm sure I didn't forget to enter one).
Since some days I can't create a new game page. After filling out the form and clicking on "step2" it only says:
"adding item entry..."
but nothing happens. The game page doesn't show up in my unreviewed submissions. Clearing the browser cache didn't help.
BTW: what should I enter in the "Rows", "Cols" and "Cells" fields of the form if I want to post a chess variant on an infinite board or on a board whose number of cells/squares can change during the game?

I played this on brainking.com many times and it is fun, even if the outcome is more dependent on luck than on skill.

The current description is not so good. Can an editor please change it to:
"The total distance a piece can travel is limited."
Many thanks.

Could an editor please add this description:
"Squares can be visited a limited number of times."
Many thanks.

How can I edit the description of a page already created? I mean the description that shows in the listings of pages.
Specifically I want to add a description to Square Attrition Chess so that it does no longer show the bold "Missing description".



I uploaded the zillions file (with piece graphics) now. I tested it and think it works correctly. Please tell me if you should find any bugs or issues.

Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.

I edited the rules a bit to make them more clear. No effective rule changes.


But why the limitation to set up queen and archbishop on different coloured squares, when they can change the square colour by moving like rook resp. knight?

It seems to me that the rules need clarification with respect to stalemate. It is easy to create ambiguities when messing with the king rule :/
The basic idea of this variant is to enhance the king rule. After a side moved, not only must their king be not attacked, but there must also be a square next to the king not attacked by the opponent and not occupied by a friendly piece.
The game ends if a side cannot make a legal move. Here this means: if there is no pseudolegal move which fulfils both demands of the enhanced king rule. Then it is either checkmate and the opponent wins, or it is stalemate and the game is a draw.
In orthodox chess, checkmate is when the king of the side to move is threatened, i. e. attacked. But here, the concept of the king being threatened may be enhanced, as the enhanced king rule suggests: the king is threatened if one of the two demands of the king rule is not fulfilled. That would mean that stalemate does no longer exist. If both demands are fulfilled, i.e. the king is not threatened, then the king has a square to move to and there is a legal move (because the king is, after the move, adjacent to the square he just moved away from so that the second demand is again fulfilled).
But one could also stay with the usual definition of "threatened". Then, if the king is not attacked and has no square to move to and no other piece can legally move, it would be stalemate and a draw.
The former appeals more to me, and I'm going to clarify the rules accordingly.
BTW the "adjacent to queen" rule is also interesting, it would solve the problem of black being checkmated at the very beginning of the game. But it is not really necessary. I want to keep it as simple as possible and just declare the beginning of the game an exception.
I have added the content now.
Some time ago I started to create the page but cancelled it because I wanted to think again about the rules. But somehow the page was created anyways.

I have added the initial setup squares to the piece description. Also I have slightly altered the setup so that all pawns are defended at the beginning of the game.

Is it possible to use other pieces from the alfaerie set than those 26 which are displayed and acessible by one letter? I tried around with braces, e.g. {squirrel} or {bsquirrel.gif} but it doesn't work.

Presto Chess: "The first player that gives check with a piece that cannot be taken wins the game."
This leaves it unclear if the checking piece must actually be taken or if it's enough to be able to capture it, and one may instead move the king away or a piece in between. And in the second case: must the capturing move be legal or need it be only pseudolegal?
Another variant of this family:
Like orthodox chess, but a side in check must not move their king. If the check cannot be defended by capturing the checking piece (by a different piece than the king) or moving in between, that side is checkmated and loses. When not in check, one may move the king as usual. Might be called "paralysed king chess".
A milder variant: like above, but the king is allowed to capture a piece attacking him, if it is not a double check.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I'm not happy with this King swap. I think I should think up something else.