Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

This seems like a really cool idea from the late Problemist

As far as admin is concerned, I assume it desirable to have a link to this as Kazan Chess (the original name), and to credit Grolman as the inventor? Since it looks like you've done a bit of filling in the details, it's at your discretion whether you wish to take coïnvention credit.

Since it originates as a problem theme, two further questions arise:

• How does it actually play as a game? I imagine it's very different in flavour from Orthochess but I wonder whether it might tend to be a bit chaotic.
• Would it be worth including a problem or two on this page? I don't know if there would be copyright issues with including the original 1995 Problemist composition, but your Mate in 2 is pleasantly illustrative

I imagine there are more interesting ways to resolve the Castling issue than simply disallowing it outright (other pieces either have to fill both vacated squares where possible, or just the king's one as Castling seems to be a K move by problem convention (see the discussion of Half‐Neutral pieces in the same Problemist issue), and we could consider a K or R unmoved if it has only moved involuntarily), but this solution works too

Lovely

Here is a link to Grolman Chess on Wikipedia (in Russian) https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сказочные_шахматы_Грольмана

As you can see there is only a meager description of Grolman's main idea.

To get a playable version of the game, I had to slightly expand the rules regarding check and checkmate. It would not be entirely correct on my part to take credit for co-authorship, because the rules that I described here and on chessdotcom follow from pure logic.

Regarding castling. It is not prohibited, but simply impossible. During the game there cannot be a situation where there are no pieces for castling between the king and the rook. The chess pieces are in a constant state of movement. Either the king or the rook will definitely make a move by the time the opportunity for castling arises.

You ask, "How does it actually play as a game?" The game is absolutely playable and is not chaotic at all. The fewer chess pieces left on the board, the more the game leans toward classic chess, while retaining a little of the magic from the chain reaction of chess pieces moving.

I don’t know whether it’s worth including Groman chess problems in the description of the rules. Perhaps just a link to The Problemist or to my blog on chessdotcom is enough.

I was wondering how this rule could be used on a giant CV, Bigorra for example. It could be a way to accelerate the game, no?  Is there anyone who had tried this already?

Maybe the priority (to choose which friendly piece to move) has to be cancelled in order to keep the game as simple as possible.

Grolman's idea can be applied to almost any variation of chess. I think it would look amazing on larger boards with a lot of different pieces.

Here is a link to Grolman Chess on Wikipedia (in Russian)

My Russian is alas extremely limited (i.e. isolated words), but it does look like about as much detail as in Problemist, i.e. extremely sketchy.

Regarding castling. It is not prohibited, but simply impossible. During the game there cannot be a situation where there are no pieces for castling between the king and the rook. The chess pieces are in a constant state of movement. Either the king or the rook will definitely make a move by the time the opportunity for castling arises.

Depends on whether you count moves made only automatically as K/R moves. Otherwise the following sequence of White moves, f.ex., would position the white K and K‐side R appropriately:

1. e4(Ne2,Rg1)
2. Ng3(Be2,Rf1)
3. Bh4(Ne2,g3)
4. Bg6
5. g4(Ng3,Qe2,Kd1,Re1)
6. Nh1
7. Ng3(Rh1,Ke1,Qd1), ending in this position

Hardly a good sequence of moves, even if Black allows it, but neither K nor R have made any voluntary moves and the space between them is empty. A matter of opinion perhaps whether this kind of edge case is worth catering for.

Of course, there are various extended forms of castling in use (general two‐space K move, or Fischer Castling) which might be considered appropriate for a game even though it's not conventional in the Problem world, but it makes sense that at least the canonical version would forgo this.

The game is absolutely playable and is not chaotic at all

Pushing pieces around trying to contrive the above sequence leads me tentatively to agree, though of course nothing would substitute for actual play

I don’t know whether it’s worth including Grolman chess problems in the description of the rules

It'd be perfect for the Notes section, though ;‌) And whilst it's less common nowadays, there are plenty of pages here with illustrative problems or example games; I believe that kind of thing is still considered a positive

Now that you mention the possibility, it does bear a certain resemblance to one of the mechanisms in Regimental Chess (we have a link page but the link is broken; you're better off doing a web search and checking out some of the videos they made) exactly for this purpose.

The difference there (if I remember correctly) is that like pieces follow like, rather than always going in order of strength or allowing free choice. And it may or may not be optional there.

The author, Вадря Покштя, has updated this page.

"Depends on whether you count moves made only automatically as K/R moves. Otherwise the following sequence of White moves, f.ex., would position the white K and K‐side R appropriately:

1. e4(Ne2,Rg1)
2. Ng3(Be2,Rf1)
3. Bh4(Ne2,g3)
4. Bg6
5. g4(Ng3,Qe2,Kd1,Re1)
6. Nh1
7. Ng3(Rh1,Ke1,Qd1), ending in this position"

According to the rules of standard chess, if a move is made with the king or rook, castling is impossible. Don't forget that the game is played as close as possible to standard chess.

@Bn Em: I have not understood this "The difference there is that like pieces follow like"?

What do you mean?

if a move is made with the king or rook

The ambiguity lies in how exactly this is interpreted, and in particular whether passive moves (here, f.ex., being dragged along by another piece) count.

There is precedent in the very Problemist issue this variant was introduced in: Petkov's discussion of ‘Half‐neutral’ pieces includes an exaample where a HN R in white phase (see the article for further details) can castle with the white K, implicitly without changing to its neutral phase (as would happen if the R moved on its own) and thereby giving check; thus at least in that context Castling is explicitly treated as an K move which only incidentally causes the R to change position too.

Standard Chess leaves this kind of situation entirely unspecified as relevant situations can never arise: the only (potentially) passive move is castling, and once that's happened the K has moved and so further castling is prohibited.

In Grolman/Kazan Chess, if a piece moves from a square where it is protected, the protecting piece follows. In Regimental Ch., from what I remember (I saw a video several years ago), if you move a piece protected by another piece of the same kind, the protector may follow. In both games this applies recursively so pieces can form chains.

So instead of the weakest available piece, it's only pieces of the same type (or maybe pieces that share moves?) that can form these kinds of chains.

My submission is ready for publication.

(Мой полный тёзка, кстати…)

:)

Он был блестящим шахматным композитором. Этот вариант, на мой взгляд, просто жемчужина среди всех вариантов шахмат.