Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Excellent game concept.  I would suggest a rule change.  Like many
non-Poker games that use Poker hands, the relative values of different
hand types get distorted.  It is always harder to get three of a kind than a pair, 
but a straight or flush may or may not be harder to get than three
of a kind.  So why not use Poker hands with the provision that straights
and flushes don't count?  

A amusing variant might be to play for high hand on turns 1-5, say, and
play for low hand on 6-10, etc.  For the endgame, if a player doesn't have
5 cards, a missing card ranks low. So in playing for low hand, K-7-5 beats
K-7-5-2 (which is logical, since the latter hand wins playing for high).
Of course the five turn alternation frequency can be changed as well.

I had an idea for a fiendishly complex variant of Poker Chess, borrowing an
idea from Extinction Chess. 

1. In ranking Poker hands, straights and flushes don't count and aces are
always high.

2. If one player has fewer cards than the other, the missing cards rank
below the opponents low cards. Thus  A-7-5-3 is higher than A-7-5 but
lower than A-8.  A hand with no cards is lowest of all.

3. There are five species of pieces:  Royals (King and Queen), Rooks,
Bishops, Knights, and Pawns.  For each species represented in a player's
army, he must choose one card from a square containing a piece of that
species if possible (he doesn't choose a card for a species if and only if
all his pieces of that species are on squares that don't have cards
associated with them). 

4. The objective may be to have the high hand, or to have the low hand. 
At the start of the game, the objective is to have the high hand.

5. After each hand the loser may if he chooses change the objective for
the next hand. If he does so, the winner scores an extra point. In the
case of a tie, the objective remains unchanged.

Rule 5 gives the player a tool to break a long string of wins, but it is
costly to use.

If it's easy for one player to get a flush or straight, it's also easy for
the opponent to do so, and it evens out.

In my predesigned deals, players start with 2 pairs, and making a flush
requires you to lose 2 hands. In a random deal, both players might start
with a flush, which would cause near-paralysis of the major piees, or both
players might start with weak hands, allowing a flush rush. In either
case, what's the problem?

The card you get from the Pawns is somewhat like a wild card, which of
course makes flushes and straights easier to get.

Segregating the suits was done to ensure fairness, but of course that does
make flushes more likely. The alternative would be a fully random deal,
unequal cards, but either player can reject the deal before the game
starts.

I see we already have two variants of Poker Chess. I am surprised that
neither is based on Night Baseball.

So does white or black have the advantage in this game?

Being able to see how good your opponent's hand will be each time before
you move seems like a significant advantage.

Doug Chatham says 'If you want to balance out the colors in a random
draw,'

I thought of that overnight, but you wrote it here first. I believe it is
the correct solution.

Whether flushes are a great worry, I still question. Until you've tried
it, and spent some time trying to find moves, and spent some time trying
to anticipate moves, I don't think one can appreciate how the poker aspect
limits one's choice of moves.

Why do you say ' a random draw'? Is that better poker terminology than 'a
random deal'?

I've played lots of poker, but not at a professional level by any means
(more like FIDE 1300 players, where I shine). I may very well have gotten
a few poker terms wrong.

Peter Hatch asks 'white or black have the advantage'?

That's a good question, and it would explain why Black, in the opening
position I analyzed, always seemed to spring back when I thought he was
crushed. (Even tho W did win a bit...)

If knowing the opponent's cards gives an advantage (and it must), of
course the advantage increases with smaller wipeout limits.

Michael Nelson suggests 'loser chooses who moves first the next turn?'

As the author of the 'Fair First Move Rule', how could I object?

I object. Sort of, anyway.

Although this is very likely to be a good rule for low-wipeout-limit
games, it merely complicates the rules (I would guess) for high limits.

If the limit is 7, Black's knowledge-advantage is not as important.

But maybe I guessed wrong about the standard limit. Certainly a low limit
is better for analyzing a short opening; but I thought most ppl would find
limit 3 or less too tactical.

Once again, I point out that you really need to try this game to
understand it.

Have you considered a variant of this, Blackjack Chess? Reduce the number
of 'card pieces' to three, and try to form the higher hand without going
over 21. The restriction of keeping to 21 or less could make for some
interesting play. Maybe a limited number of 'busts' per game could be
allowed per player.

Of course, there's the 'Kriegspiel' Indian Feather variant of Poker Chess.
The players see all the pieces, but don't know what cards are on the
board. A single piece acts as the card-pointer. The referee tells the
players who wins each hand.

Goofy ideas, to be sure. :)

A new, very different kind of PokerChess, involving two decks of cards and poker chips:

http://www.pokerchess.com