You are on the backup site for Chessvariants.com. Any posts, moves, or other changes you make here will not be permanent, because the pages and database from the main site will be backed up here every midnight EST. Additionally, things may not be working right, because this site is also a testbed for newer system software. So, if you are not here to test, develop, or merely read this site, you may want to change .org to .com in the navigation bar and go to the main site.



The Chess Variant Pages




[ 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 by Bn Em

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Fantastic XIII. (Updated!) A bizarre large odd chess variant with the weirdest men from Cazaux's family.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Bn Em wrote on 2022-01-17 UTC

‘Idk’ and the others are indeed abbreviations: ‘Idk’ itself is ‘I don't know’; ‘Afaik’ ‘as far as I know’; ‘Ofc’ ‘Of course’; and ‘Iirc’ ‘if I recall correctly’.

As for trivially making up, a pawn on the central rank stops the opponent's pawn from making the same move (as that space is now occupied) and the opponent can't immediately do anything equivalent, and so has won a (potentially) better position with little effort — and since White can force this more easily than Black, the argument goes that normal pawns of an odd‐file board might give White more of an advantage. Here is the formal write‐up of Hutnik's idea, which he first proposed here, and the first few comments on Elven Chess(/Elven Shogi) also touch on it.

I seem to remember the old versions of some of your larger games (Gigachess ⁊c.) had the Ship, before you updated them. And ofc I wasn't accusing you of ‘stealing’ the ship ;) just noting that it also exists where the snaketongue was first named (I expect Eric probably got it from there, though it's certainly possible he came up with it independently).


Bn Em wrote on 2022-01-15 UTC

At a first couple glances, this looks nice!

It's nice to see the Ship back again after you took it out of your mainline larger games, and ofc the snake fits logically with it. The Cheetah (aka the Beaver for those who are into Gilman) is nice too (and much rarer than the squirrel) and the Sabre‐tooth I've never seen before — it's kinda terrifying!

A couple of notes: afaik the name snaketongue (whence iirc your shortened snake) goes back to Betza's Bent Riders article — which also mentions the ship (under the name twin tower — arguably in bad taste but acknowledged as such in the original version; I think Greg accidentally(?) removed that when he added his own footnotes).

And regarding your question at the beginning, one argument for even ranks is that otherwise a pawn reaching the middle rank has an advantage over its counterpart that can't be trivially made up for. Idk if i've seen it said this way round (maybe in the comments on H.G.'s Elven Chess) but certainly there was a proposal by Rich Hutnik that on boards with odd ranks the pawn should be able to capture straight forwards to balance that advantage (by discouraging a move to the middle rank). Ofc that hasn't stopped people, and it may well matter less than it was made out to. And indeed (other than a kind of symmetry) there's nothing in particular to suggest any advantage for even files.


Game Courier Developer's Guide. Learn how to design and program Chess variants for Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Bn Em wrote on 2022-01-13 UTC

I believe you want checkaride instead of checkride — the latter checks all directions symmetrically (making a full gryphon plus conditional wazir moves), while the former is asymmetric.

Presumably if your suggestion for the Ship is otherwise correct, the snaketongue would similarly be:

def G fn (checkaride #0 #1 1 1 and empty #0)
    where #0 0 1
    #1
    or fn (checkaride #0 #1 -1 1 and empty #0)
    where #0 0 1
    #1
    or fn (checkaride #0 #1 1 -1 and empty #0)
    where #0 0 -1
    #1
    or fn (checkaride #0 #1 -1 -1 and empty #0)
    where #0 0 -1
    #1
    or checkleap #0 #1 1 0;

def GL mergeall
    leaps #0 1 0
    ray where #0 0 1 1 1
    ray where #0 0 -1 1 -1
    ray where #0 0 1 -1 1
    ray where #0 0 -1 -1 -1;

Ideas for future of chess variants[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Bn Em wrote on 2022-01-11 UTC

Chu does have quite a few short‐range pieces, like (Sho) Shōgi; it's not exactly devoid of longer‐range ones though: Rook, Bishop, Queen, as well as Dragon Horse and ‐King are the more conventional ones (and all but the queen in pairs), and it even has, to Western eyes, weird things like side‐/vertical movers and their promotions. And even with the short‐range ones, at first sight the variety of very similar moves might seem confusing just as several long‐range pieces might.

Gross Chess is popular here among CV fans; that speaks, no doubt, to its playability and potential popularity — and may well indicate it as a good candidate for a successor — but says very little imo about how 12×12 might fare among a more lay audience — while Chu demonstrates that it's possible for it to hold that status.

The point about game length is potentially a concern once the board gets bigger (and is almost certainly, alongside tractability, once of the limiting factors for going to e.g. 14×14 and beyond as anything ore than a novelty), though I'd've expected at least games with plenty of long‐range pieces to balance that somewhat. I wonder how long the average game of Gross or Metamachy (of which I've been playing a fair bit against Jocly's AI recently) is, esp. compared to Chu.


Bn Em wrote on 2022-01-10 UTC

A possible counterargument to 12×12 being too much for a ‘standard’ might be Chu Shōgi — after all, it was the most popular Chess in Japan before the introduction of drops to its smaller brother.

I'd expect a ‘Next Chess’ would be likely to at least have a single set of basic rules (i.e. regarding check, promotion, winning conditions, ⁊c.), probably the FIDE ones, though arguably even there there is some tweaking that might be worth doing; I would be very much in favour, though, of a poker‐like situation where multiple games (probably just different piece sets, in practice) enjoyed comparable popularity — and might even be mixed regularly in both casual and tournament play.


Merry Christmas 2021[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Bn Em wrote on 2022-01-01 UTC

Merry (belated) Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all!


Synchess. Synchess is the chess that inspiration by regional variation in Europe and Asia, that have concept from regional variation.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Bn Em wrote on 2021-12-30 UTC

Aside from the grammatical issues that have been raised wrt some of your previous submissions, I have the following comments on the page:

  • If only pawns can promote (as according to the Pieces section), why do you include rules and notation for promoted pieces?
  • As in some of your other submissions, the choices of name and image are sometimes confusing: in particular you here have, assuming the notation in the Setup section is correct, a piece that moves like a western Bishop represented by a different symbol, while the symbol for the bishop represents a piece with a different move entirely. (Calling the angle‐mover an elephant, while not unpardonable give its ancestry and usage in other languages, is also odd given that that name is more common for what you call the Elephant General; ‘archer’is perhaps also an odd name for a piece with only short‐range moves)
  • The Rules section (Gen. Rule 4) mentions two lions but neither non‐royal general. I assume that's a redrafting error?
  • Have you played this much? If not, the Guide section is probably not much use, especially since the only really potentially meaningful bits are the piece values (which I suspect are unlikely to be very accurate) and the assertion about tempo. I'd suggest you either add more detailed information or simply remove that bit entirely — play analysis is ofc always nice to have, but plenty of pages get by without and imo tokenism isn't of much value in this respect.

Treyshah. A commercial three-player hexagonal variant with 23 pieces a side. (Cells: 210) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Bn Em wrote on 2021-12-16 UTC

the same trouble with the bishop and queen.

It's not entirely clear what the analogous ‘error’ would be. In the REX King's and Glinski Pawns' cases it's using orthogonal moves to the exclusion of hex‐diagonal ones, while this knight apparently just miscounted the diagonal portion, resulting in a piece (which Charles Gilman terms a Student) which is analogous to the square‐cell Zebra.

A queen analogous to the REX king just becomes a rook, but that leaves the bishop completely unaccounted for.

Ofc, there are a few variants which take this version of king and queen as their basis and build the rest of the pieces around them: the oldest is Sigmund Wellisch's 3‐player game (for which this site unfortunately has only a Java Applet, though a more complete description is available e.g. on John Savard's page); the king moves one orthogonally, the knight to any nearest square that the king can't reach (there is a certain logic to calling the hex diagonals ‘leaps’, given that the relevant cells don't actually touch), the rook slides orthogonally, the queen moves as rook or knight (technically a marshal analogue therefore), and the pawn in either of the forwardmost directions (the board being oriented as in Fergus' Hex Shogis).

Alternatively, Gilman's Alternate Orthogonals Hex Chesses do exactly what the name suggests: assign alternate orthogonals as analogous to the square‐board directions, giving a REX king and Glinski pawns together with Wellisch knights, a rook as a ‘queen’, and ‘rooks’ and ‘bishops’ which have each other's move but backwards — albeit this being Charles Gilman, the pieces all have ifferent names. This one had quite a positive reception, and it does preserve some aspects of square‐cell chess that other analogies lack (some of which are touched on in its comments) — it's certainly worth a look


Game Courier. PHP script for playing Chess variants online.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Bn Em wrote on 2021-12-12 UTC

@Max

Game Courier doesn't (currently?) support games for more than two players. Idk how those four‐player variants were done, though it wouldn't surprise me if it's in teams where each player is suppoesd to control both armies in each team. (presumably these are not rule‐enforcing)

I feel like multiplayer games may technically be on Fergus' list of things to Maybe Eventually Add to GC (istr him mentioning it though I wouldn't hold him to that) but there's no support now and iirc probably requires a fairlyfundamental refactor at the very least


Betza notation (extended). The powerful XBetza extension to Betza's funny notation.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Bn Em wrote on 2021-12-11 UTC

that initial legs would behave differently from only legs.

The behaviour is the same if you stipulate that all slider legs are potentially 0‐length but null moves are disallowed unless explicitly specified

Perhaps we have different intuition

May well be :) And fwiw I'm fine with either system in practice

When 0 steps is allowed, you would need [F-fF-fB] for the Tamerlane Picket

Or simply [nA-fB], which to me looks more natural as an alfil extension (istr Gilman classes it that way too). [F-fB] is ofc a bit odd as a Bishop description, but there are always going to be strange ways of notating things

BTW, [W?sfNN], and even [W?sfCC] work now. All through using a new, undocumented (and quite horrible) extension of XBetza.

That's pretty cool :) (and agreed, the repeating ys are… not pretty). I can even get an offset giraffe‐rider (or even zemel‐rider — presumably longer ones work too, if they'd fit on the board), even though normal giraffe‐riders (FXFX?) are apparently unsupported!

But the y extension still fails for e.g. [W?sfZZ] (also shouldn't that be fsNN ⁊c?), let alone pathological things like [C?fsZZ], so if we're making an effort to support direction‐type changes it probably deserves to be more general.

Also speaking of the Z, [Z?sfB] currently gives me Zebra‐then‐Rook, and vice‐versa


Bn Em wrote on 2021-12-11 UTC

True, but isn't 'intuitiveness' all about catering to human peculiarities?

I think here it depends strongly on which humans and in which context; after all most multi‐leg movers with slider components do have the option of zero‐length stages — GraTiA's gryphon/anchorite and Mideast/Rennchess' duke/cavalier are very much the exception afaik, so from a design (and usage) perspective the 0‐step leg option seems to be the more intuitive. The case with reading descriptions is slightly different, because you have to say both stages of the move and consciously we count starting from 1 (unless we're mathematicians or programmers), so it often requires being explicit in the verbal description.

[…] that in all kind of other cases people will get extra moves because they did not count on a slider leg also eliminating itself by taking 0 steps.

Oþoh I can see the other case where someone expects to simply be able to write e.g. [B-fW] for a transcendental prelate/contramanticore, and is confused by the fact that it disallows the W squares; ofc in this case it's simple to add them by hand (the ? notation doesn't handle this case) but with more complex moves it may not be. Whereas imo in the opposite case, where the contramanticore has to make at least a knight's move, it's likely to be more readliy apparent that an extra F step is needed at the beginning to force that (or indeed two or three extra such steps if necessary). And surely it's more intuitive to specify three initial W steps (after the F one ofc) for the Tamerlane giraffe (“one diagonal and then after that at least three straight”) than only two?

Reminds me a bit of regexps; the Kleene star * there does explicitly specify 0 or more and if you want a minimum n^r of repetitions you have to specify them explicitly (or use syntax extensions like +)


Bn Em wrote on 2021-12-11 UTC

But the F and D moves of the Fox are a rather non-intuitive consequence of the general description, so I would not consider it bad if it needed to be mentioned separately. (As the textual description indeed does!)

Imo the explicit mention in the description (which is also erroneous as it omits the nD move — though the diagram includes it) is only because humans aren't used to counting to (or from) 0(!) — after all he does call it a length‐0 bishop move, so from the piece design POV it probably is the more intuitive.

(and perhaps after C and Z?)

At that point surely it's not much harder just to support an arbitrary leaper atom as the first stage?

For Q after N we would have a problem, as it is not clear anymore whether the most-outward direction is the adjacent diagonal or orthogonal slide.

Since both Rook and Bishop each have an outwardmost move after N, wouldn't it make sense at that point to just treat Q as a compound of R and B? So that [N?fQ] (I quite like the question mark too) would be a slip‐gorgon (slip‐gryphon + GA Unicorn=slip‌‐manticore). Presumably the diagram would have to do the dissociation ‘by hand’ and oddities like [K-fC-fQ] stop behaving intuitively unless one preserves state from the K step by also decomposing C (differently depending on how the K starts — though a human would probably be confused by this one too!)

(N and B are not 'commensurate' atoms, and it would use NN in the second leg)

I'm guessing the likes of [W-NN] are out of scope for now? :P let alone [W-CC] which camel moves can't emulate at all…


Bn Em wrote on 2021-12-11 UTC

I think Betza suggested also other uses for the brackets, like z[F,W] for a slider that alternats W and F steps in a crooked way, but this distinction could also have been made by using other separators than comma for that, e.g. [W/F].

He did indeed. The alternation modifier was in fact a, contrasting q which alternated circularly if followed by a set of brackets; t is also defined there, as is g (for ‘go’ — equivalent to the proposed [X-Y] to t[]'s [X~Y]) which covers the mao case (though conflicts with the Grasshopper usage).

writing the Griffon as F&fR or [F-fR] assumes the move can also be terminated without making all its legs, after just the F step.

There is technically another interpretation which would not conflict with the mao (and would obviate the need for Betzan g[] in the common case — though the original rhino (mao+wazir) would still need either the distinction or expliit compounding), which you've mentioned before: consider slider legs to move 0 or more rather than 1 or more, while leapers are still exactly 1. The arguably more complex piece that follows a gryphon's path but must move at least two spaces then gets a suitably more complex notation (e.g. Betza‐style t[FWR] or the like). This would also allow e.g. Tim Stiles' doubly‐bent Fox to be trivially t[WBW]. Of course with still more complex paths (t[WFR]?) the same considerations apply, though counting to 3 or more starts to be complicated for humans too so more specific notations of the likes of what are being discussed here are probably in order anyway.

What if doubling a direction made it absolute instead of relative?

As HG points out, duplication is already in use for other things; but in principle one could add a punctuation mark (maybe an apostrophe or an exclemation mark) to mark a direction as absolute rather than relative, which would be roughly equivalent

considering a certain grouped sequence of directional modifiers plus atoms as a 'crooked atom'

This is the interpretation I've been coming to for most chess‐variant pieces in general. Some kind of (for me, radial‐step — Nightriders have more in common with Dabbabariders than with Rooks imo) path and, independently, a set of constraints on that path, be it leaping, limited range, skipping squares, hopping, etc. And modality (movement, capture, or other special effects such as relaying or rifle‐capture) as a third factor on top of that. Works for most of the pieces people actually use afaict.

So the Ship would be the 'Narrow Griffon', like vN is the Narrow Knight.

I second this and the v[F-R]‐or‐equivalent notation, if a bracket‐style notation is being adopted, and if it's easy p[F‐R] and the like look nice too.

Worth noting as well that Betza also made a similar extrapolation in defining the a[WF]4 on the above page (just above the Two Sets, Four Boards heading)


Bn Em wrote on 2021-12-08 UTC

smpyasW […] looks like "sympa"

Well the ship is certainly a sympathic piece ;‌)

FvmpasyazW: doesn't work. Strange pattern: B+incomplete Manticore

Sounds like a Crooked Rook (=Girlscout) move to me, which would make sense in the old/non‐continuation‐leg interpretation of z. It gives me a Ship when I try it; maybe try refreshing your Cache? (Ctrl–Shift–R)


Bn Em wrote on 2021-12-08 UTC

The Snaketongue is simple: a vertical W step followed by the outward turn is simply vWvyafsW (same as the manticore but with v prepended to each component).

The ship is trickier, as the first step can be in any direction and by the second step there's no way to specify which is the right twist (as there hasn't been a bend yet and l and r are relative). It may be worth special‐casing z and q here too(?) but meanwhile it can be done in a slightly hacky way involving the mp modality trick (i.e. a square that can either be empty or a mount, so it doesn't matter what's there). That gives two solutions: FvmpasyazW which (other than the F step) moves one forward, ignoring wahatever is there, turns 90° for another W step, then turns 90° again for the rest of the Rook move; or alternatively smpyasW which steps one space sideways, ignores what's there, then turns 90° and continues, now vertically, as a rook (note this latter one already includes the F step)

@HG:

quite incidentally while trying some of these, I input yafqF as a move, which seems to give a pandacub (Gilman's name for the forward‐only Slip‐rook, ft[WDD]) for some reason? Not sure exactly what I expected (though sth gryphon‐like would have made sense I think?) but it definitely wasn't that.


MSchess-with-different-queens[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Bn Em wrote on 2021-11-23 UTC

a King, a Xiangqi Elephant, a Xiangqi Horse and a two-path lame Dabbabah (XBetza KaFafsW).

From the description (both here and of the Sliding General), shouldn't it be a three‐path lame dabbabah? Including the possibility of two consecutive same‐direction Wazir steps. That'd give KaFafsfW or KaFafsWnD


Sin-yeon-sang-gi (新演象棋). I dramatized Sin-yeon-sang-hui (新演象戱), one of the variations of the Joseon Dynasty, in Xiangqi style.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Bn Em wrote on 2021-11-19 UTC

Afaict, it looks like Sin-yeon-sang-hui is a historical Janggi variant (though my Korean is nonexistent so I can't confirm any of what Daphne posted), and this is a back‐formation (‘dramatised’ is probably Google Translate or equivalent) of an an equivalent Xiàngqì‐derived variant.

Presumably the Korean original has no river and Korean‐style cannons/advisors/generals


Simple Mideast Chess. Game with simple rules, no promotion, no nonstandard move or capture, no asymetric pieces, and no check, checkmate or stalemate.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Bn Em wrote on 2021-11-17 UTC

Afaict, the page hasn't yet been accepted, and the spelling/grammar issues that Fergus raised persist which means it's still unlikely to be published as‐is.

Besides the issues already mentioned (‘rules’ 4 and 5 would be better as notes, if deemed necessary at all), I'd note that it doesn't seem necessary to separate out win/draw rules from the rest, and that the layout of the Setup section takes up far too much space imo (quadruple‐spacing? Really?) to convey information that could be given much more concisely by including a piece image next to each piece's name in the following section. The latter suggestion might even help alleviate the naming‐confusion issue a little (which, whilst it doesn't bother me as much personally (after all, irl players can call the pieces whatever they want), would still be nice to have an explanation for).

Also, below the diagram in the Setup section, the game is still referred to by the name Grand Chess


Gwangsanghui(광상희). A large, historical variant of Janggi, with two more generals that lead each flank and 6 more kinds of pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Bn Em wrote on 2021-11-12 UTC

I have ‘未’=‘not yet’, ‘交’=‘meet’/‘cross’ without apparent suggestion of offense, and ‘相間’ (second sentence) quite explicitly as ‘alternate’. The latter would at least explain where people got the idea from.

“The spearman upon going out does not cross [something?] yet” seems possible, though still a bit obscure; if it's a restriction on crossing into the enemy camp on their first move that'd explain the statement (if the next sentence is indeed such) that they are not mutually en prise


Bn Em wrote on 2021-11-11 UTC

Given reference to an opening phase, I assume that was addressed to me? Since I posited that as a possible interpretation of your (JL's) translation (specifically “before the soldiers lines have crossed each other, no capture can be made”).

I've been having a look after all at the original Chinese (as given in the first Korean link you (Jeyoon) gave) — I can't claim any expertise in the language but I have had the opportunity to study Mandarin enough to be able to find my way around with a dictionary. I now agree that an opening phase is probably unlikely, but the restriction on Spearmen/Vanguards capturing each other still seems an odd reading to me; for one thing (though perhaps a weak argument) it seems like the kind of thing that'd have been mentioned earlier. It looks a bit like “前鋒不相殺” could be a clarifying statement about the previous rule — Vanguards don't threaten each other (in the opening position, contrary to how it might look). Though a sensible meaning for “前鋒出兵未交” (lit. “Until the Vanguard dispatches troops they [who?] don't meet” afaict?) in isolation (as suggested by the full stops) eludes me on a first attempt. It's probably not really an opening phase but something of the kind may not be entirely out of the question

Incidentally re the position of the infantry and cavalry, “步與騎相間” does seem to mean “infantry and cavalry alternate”…


Bn Em wrote on 2021-11-09 UTC

Infantry and Cavalry units are posted separately, by groups of three, on the columns on the left and on the right of the doors, keeping the East and the West.

That almost makes it sound like it means east and west respectively, i.e. all 6 Infantry on the (player's) left and the Cavalry on their right. Is that at all plausible?

Also I note that this translation has move‐only rather than capture‐only Ambushes, which strikes me as at least equally odd.

As for the question of Spearman blocking Spearman (a few comments down) that doesn't arise at all in this translation; one would (presumably) simply capture the other. Instead, here it suggests a free‐moving opening phase without captures, that stops once both have advanced far enough (“the soldiers lines hav[ing] crossed each other” isn't exactly clear, but looks like it's suggesting this, as attested in some other old variants)

Very interesting having two translations to compare


Bn Em wrote on 2021-11-08 UTC

Yeah, having actually looked up the Korean name I found the Hanja 遊擊 (simp. 游击), indeed meaning Guerilla warfare — so that is probably accurate. From the components it looks to me less like ‘moving attack’ than something like ‘hit‐and‐run’ (or, indeed, run‐and‐hit), which seems a plausible description of Guerilla tactics. And I suppose the piece does share its boundness (it not its binding) with the other surprise‐attack‐themed piece in the array…

Though as to “military” names, what of ‘Astrologer’?


Bn Em wrote on 2021-11-07 UTC

H.G.'s comments re the Ambush make sense, though it still seems odd that it'd start so far out of the way. Maybe it's just my Western sensibilities.

游 seems to refer to Swimming, and its variant 遊 (which you originally used and has been supplanted by 游 in Simplified Chinese) seems to refer to wandering around or travelling. Ironic that a piece with a name with a meaning “to move freely” should be blockable and bound to ⅛ of the board, but oh well. Perhaps ‘wanderer’ might suit it if ‘Guerilla’ is not to your taste?


Bn Em wrote on 2021-11-06 UTC

I second the interest in a translation of the Korean analysis (or did you mean the Classical‐Chinese(?) source text? Interested either way). I'm a little skeptical of the capture‐only camel move, but my Chinese is far from good enough to offer any other plausible interpretation even if I had the text and from what you've given it does seem to be what it suggested.

The game itself certainly looks like an enlarged Xiàngqì/Janggi; much moreso than e.g. kō shōgi imo. It even retains river‐like movement restrictions (for the spearman and rear general)! Would no doubt be interesting to play.

I assume advisors appropriated by capturing a flank general remain restricted to their palaces? And does such a flank‐general capture take over whatever is currently in that 3×5 area, in which case astrologers and rear generals also remain restricted as usual? If so it's an interesting solution to the (arguable) problem of too many defense‐only pieces

Also an apparent error: your characters for spearman and rear general in the pieces section seem to be reversed wrt the diagram (either that or the spearman has to start with a long forward move after the rear and chief generals have both moved out of its way — seems less likely). Though given the meanings of the characters it's likely that the diagram, rather than the text, in in error. The character for the Guerilla also doesn't match the one in the diagram, but apparently that's just traditional–simplified differences.


Simple Mideast Chess. Game with simple rules, no promotion, no nonstandard move or capture, no asymetric pieces, and no check, checkmate or stalemate.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Bn Em wrote on 2021-11-04 UTC

stalemate is virtually non-existent

Given that there are no asymmetric pieces, I wouldn't be surprised if it were impossible to even construct a stalemate position (any piece on the outside of a cluster could simply move away). Meaning that King capture is in this case almost completely equivalent to conventional rules with Stalemate a win; the only remaining difference being that here mutual checks (with the exception of undefended kings checking each other ofc) would be legal, unlike in most games with checking rules.

I'm quite a fan of legal counter‐checking myself, though ofc I rarely get a chance to play chess that way as it's foreign to most people. Istr it was explicitly given a name as a Modest Variant but I can't seem to find that anywhere; oþoh games where mutual check is established in the setup position but may not be mutually resolved(!), such as Prisoner's Escape or (Phase 1 of) Frolov's All‐round King (as well as Parton's Contramatic Chess which has, as George Duke pointed out, two mutually‐checked Anti‐kings) have cropped up occasionally.


25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.