Check out Alice Chess, our featured variant for June, 2024.

[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
Chessgi. Drop the pieces you take from your opponent. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Paulowich wrote on Tue, May 9, 2023 07:09 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

In the the diagram below White has five pieces on the board and a single Rook "in hand". All the other pieces belong to Black. Suppose White drops this Rook on (b2) and Black advances his Pawn to (c3). This "blockade stalemate" has resulted in a drawn game.


ATTENTION EDITORS: This Chessgi problem also provides an answer to the Patricia Stalemate Puzzle. I recently constructed another stalemate position with fewer pieces than this one and would like to add a suitable diagram to the puzzle solution page.

Kevin Pacey wrote on Thu, Mar 1, 2018 07:32 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Though this variant may never be as popular as its close cousin (and better known variant) Crazyhouse, it is equally excellent on its own merits.

H. G. Muller wrote on Thu, Oct 22, 2015 06:15 PM UTC:
"All rules of normal Chess apply"... But how should we interpret them in the context of possibilities not existing in normal Chess? E.g. the Pawn double-push: are Pawns allowed to move two steps forward because they are on second rank, or because they have not moved before? In orthodox Chess this is the same, but here they can be dropped back on the second rank. And how about Pawns on the first rank? Do these also have a double-move? (And can they be e.p. captured then?) What if they take a single step to the second rank, do they have a double-push too?

panderson wrote on Sun, Jul 25, 2010 11:44 AM UTC:
This is an excellent game: like Shogi is IMO one layer of complexity above
regular chess. 
I suppose that because of the dropping rule, the endgame is never going to
be reached really, and the board will be always relatively crowded.
This implies that the pieces values are different. Here's my bet

Regular chess: Q>R>B=K>P
Chessgi: Q=K>P (they can be dropped on the 7th)>B>R

Am I right?


Paolo Anderson

[email protected]

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Mon, Mar 15, 2004 01:41 AM UTC:
The person who said that Crazyhouse is better was surely referring to a well-known game that is only slightly different from Chessgi. Crazyhouse is played like Chessgi with two differences. Besides Chessgi's restriction against dropping Pawns on the last rank, Crazyhouse has a further restriction against dropping Pawns on the first rank. Also, whenever you capture a promoted Pawn, it demotes back to a Pawn in Crazyhouse, while it remains whatever it promoted to in Chessgi. I suspect the reason anyone would prefer Crazyhouse is that it diminishes the power of the pieces one may hold in hand. But this is not such a strong reason as one might think. Although it's possible that someone could hold several Queens in hand in Chessgi, it's also unlikely, because the threat of having your promoted Pawn captured may often lead Chessgi players to promote to something weaker than a Queen.

gnohmon wrote on Sun, Apr 14, 2002 04:11 AM UTC:
'But crazyhouse is better' -- interesting comment.

What you call Crazyhouse is, I think, the 'Double Bughouse chess' to which
the mimeographed magazine 'New England Double Bughouse Chess' was devoted
in the 1970s. (That's how people communicated then. Inconvenient, slow, and
expensive compared to the internet, but would you believe it people
communicated with each other even before there was an internet! What a
mindblowing idea, no?)

Funny thing is, your comment makes me think that the last time I played
that game you hadn't been born yet. Stalling was a bad consequence of the
rules as they were then; have they fixed this?

If you say it's better, you should say why you think it's better. By
providing reasons, you might get people to respond with counter arguments,
and once in a while they would convince you you were wrong and once in a
while you would convince them and most of the time you'd have fun arguing
but you wouldn't get anywhere. Welcome to the internet.

Does the game you call crazyhouse require 4 players? Did you know that in
the 1970s I described how you could play it with 2 teams of 100 players?

Brady wrote on Fri, Apr 12, 2002 10:20 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
It's ok but crazyhouse is better.

Chad wrote on Tue, Apr 2, 2002 08:33 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
You can play this game at <a href=''></a>.

8 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.