Check out Grant Acedrex, our featured variant for April, 2024.

Enter Your Reply

The Comment You're Replying To
Carlos Cetina wrote on Thu, Jul 19, 2012 05:52 AM UTC:
Fergus,

I would like to know your opinion about this variant. I find it interesting enough but feel the rules need some clarification.

I'm playtesting it with Nicholas Wolff and Jochen Mueller. With both have rise to some differences of interpretation in some points.

If we [all those involved in playing and studying CVs] do not get a consensus on its rules, will we declare it unplayable?

If it is playable, it would be possible to enforce the rules to the preset?

Why this variant is not more known and popular?

The following position correspond to the game I'm playing with Jochen.

White to move. 23rd turn.

1) Is the pawn on d5 checking White's king?
2) Is the knight on h6 checking White's king?

Nicholas, Jochen and me have agreed in moving knight first one orthogonal step followed by one diagonal [outward] step. If the passing by orthogonal square were inexistent, the knight will follow moving orthogonally to the next existent square; if the landing diagonal square were inexistent, it will move to the next diagonal [outward] existent square.

This way of movement differs from the mentioned by Charles Gilman in his first comment, where the knight would move like nightrider if the square (1,2) away from the starting one were inexistent.

Both ways are logical and playable... which of them we will choose as the legal? Which we will consider the best, the most reasonable?

Regarding if the d5-pawn is checking to White's king or not, my opinion is that not. From the Red viewpoint it's check but from White's does not, because for White e4 is existent and therefore the [capturing] action of the pawn does not reach to f3.

Thanks Kevin Whyte for putting our neurons to work!

Christine, Joe, Charles (Gilman), Hans (Bodlaender)... what do you say?


Edit Form

Comment on the page Relativistic Chess

Conduct Guidelines
This is a Chess variants website, not a general forum.
Please limit your comments to Chess variants or the operation of this site.
Keep this website a safe space for Chess variant hobbyists of all stripes.
Because we want people to feel comfortable here no matter what their political or religious beliefs might be, we ask you to avoid discussing politics, religion, or other controversial subjects here. No matter how passionately you feel about any of these subjects, just take it someplace else.
Quick Markdown Guide

By default, new comments may be entered as Markdown, simple markup syntax designed to be readable and not look like markup. Comments stored as Markdown will be converted to HTML by Parsedown before displaying them. This follows the Github Flavored Markdown Spec with support for Markdown Extra. For a good overview of Markdown in general, check out the Markdown Guide. Here is a quick comparison of some commonly used Markdown with the rendered result:

Top level header: <H1>

Block quote

Second paragraph in block quote

First Paragraph of response. Italics, bold, and bold italics.

Second Paragraph after blank line. Here is some HTML code mixed in with the Markdown, and here is the same <U>HTML code</U> enclosed by backticks.

Secondary Header: <H2>

  • Unordered list item
  • Second unordered list item
  • New unordered list
    • Nested list item

Third Level header <H3>

  1. An ordered list item.
  2. A second ordered list item with the same number.
  3. A third ordered list item.
Here is some preformatted text.
  This line begins with some indentation.
    This begins with even more indentation.
And this line has no indentation.

Alt text for a graphic image

A definition list
A list of terms, each with one or more definitions following it.
An HTML construct using the tags <DL>, <DT> and <DD>.
A term
Its definition after a colon.
A second definition.
A third definition.
Another term following a blank line
The definition of that term.