[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
One more game. I played it against myself, trying to find a forced win for black. As surprise, white won! 1. kg7 (*Bh8) Ph7 // white unpromotes bishop, there were no uncaptures possible, so a regular unmove is allowed 2. kh8 (*Pg7)?? Pf6 (*pg7)! White wins as black doesn't have any legal unmove now.
Another short game against Zillions: -1. kg7 (*Qh8) Qh4 (*rh8) ?? -2. rh7 (*Bh8)! White loses, as it can't remove check by bishop h8 to king on g7. I first thought that -1. kg7 (*Qh8) quarantees win for black, but then found the only defense: -1...Qh4(*bh8)!.
No restriction on pawn uncaptures (except that it can't be done on first or last rank) could probably lead to a too drawish game. A player just needs to delay pawn uncaptures until all other pieces are uncaptured and than try to uncapture all opponent's pawns on the same file. So, I would suggest the following rules: * Pawn uncapture is not allowed on the file where there is already pawn of the same color. For example, black can't uncapture white pawn on g-file if the file already contains another white pawn. * Uncapture is also not allowed if it produces a pawn, which is behind player's pawn. For example, black can't uncapture white pawn on g7 if there is already black pawn on g2. * A player can't uncapture more pieces then present in usual chess setup (light and dark-colored bishops are considered as different pieces). However if a player unpromotes one of his pieces, that piece becomes available for uncapture again. The game finished when: * A player reaches starting postion with his pieces (this player wins). * A player can't make a legal unmove (this player loses). There is already a ZRF file for this game without any restriction on uncaptures: 'Unplay Chess' by Karl Scherer (can be downloaded from Zillions of Games pages: http://www.zillions-of-games.com/cgi-bin/zilligames/submissions.cgi/26414?do=show;id=966 I slightly modified it to place white king on a1 and black on h8 in initial position. Here is my first game against Zillions (I played black): -1. kg8 (*Rh8) // black uncaptures white rook: kg8xh8 -1. . . . Pg7 (*rh8) ?? // white unpromotes the rook and uncaptures the black rook, undoing the move P g7xh8 R. This move loses the game. -2. rh7 (*Qh8)! // undoing rh7xh8. Black wins as white doesn't have any unmoves which wouldn't leave black king in check by queen on h8.
How's this for a rule: No Pawn may be un-captured on its player's first rank. Does anyone have others?
The game dynamics can be extremely bizarre, this was the reason I thought in a co-operative game. Following with Andrea´s variant, I have not a good idea on how can it work, because I have not played an experimental test yet. I have doubts about the playability, unless a good set of rules can be performed. Difficult task, Andreas, you have entered a very difficult problem in Games Design...
I am afraid that Pawns management is not trivial. You can 'create' enemy Pawns in theoretically impossible positions, and it should not be so evident, or construct a position in which it is impossible for both bands going back to the past. Rules for Pawns management are necessary, although I think it is not so easy!. Can be constructed a playable game with the initial ideas?. If so, it would be great!.
I am liking a lot Andrea´s variant, but it is the need of a good analysis to see if the game has ever 'solution'. If not, it is the need of a set of rules for guaranteeing it. The game, at first view, looks extremely interesting, but some refinements must be made. We all can think on it.
Un-capturing Pawns would create an interesting dynamic. For instance, forcing the opponent to make a reversed two-step move by performing a reversed en passant. Might not a player move a power piece to the far rank and demote it to a Pawn? And by putting their King in check, they could force the opponent to remove the threat. Obviously, there must be the possibility of removing such a threat. I'm beginning to really like this variant.
Another variation would be that the player, who reaches initial position first, wins. The game can start e.g. with white King on a1 and black one on h8 (or other postions to deversify the game). Then black starts with undoing the last move. As 'uncapturing' of pieces is disadvantageous and would never made otherwise, then it should be obligatory to 'uncapture', if possible. So the game could start (black moves are shown before white also in notation): -1. kg8 (*Qh8) // black uncaptures white queen, undoing the last move kg8xh8. -1. ... Qf6 (*nh8) // white undoes Qf6xh8 -2. nf7 (*Rh8) Rh1 (*bh8) -3. bg7 (*Rh8) Rh2 (*rh8) . . . etc. I need to think something more about uncapturing of pawns, but may be no restriction should be made here, so that if e.g. white leaved with doubled pawn and all black pieces already on the board, then white can't win anymore. If black in the same situation, then it is a draw. There should be probably a rule for uncapture of bishops to forbid that two bishops e.g. on light squares are produced.
Rather than competing against each other, the players are mutually participating in problem-solving. And each might either help or hinder the solution. This should be a friendly conversational game, with strong players challenging each other to create and duplicate extremely complex positions with the minimum number of moves. This also should be a nice exercise game to aid players in their ability to extrapolate positions in other games.
If the players are cooperating, why do you need two of them?
Here is a new variant: Back to the Past Chess. This is a cooperative game: in Back to the Past Chess, both players WIN or both players LOSE the game. Throw a coin, and the winner player must create a CHECKMATE position for any of both bands. The other player must specify a NUMBER OF MOVES between 20 and 60. The object of the game is back to the starting position by a sequence of inverse moves, i.e., from the end to the beginning, in a more or less logical way (a blunder is not supposed to happen, unless both players agree). If the starting position is reached in EXACTLY the number of moves, both players win the game, or if not, both players lose it. The moves one player makes can not be announced or discussed with the other player, but the other player can only say: 'I disagree', in this case, the player who moves can make another move. The maximum number of take-backs must be specified at first. I have tried it yesterday. It is much more difficult than supposed.
13 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.