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/Ratings for a Single Item

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Chess. The rules of chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
John Ayer wrote on 2010-04-08 UTC
What you and your friend choose to do is, of course, up to the two of you. I have looked up the rules of chess, which say that if an illegal move has been made, the game must go back to the position before the illegal move and resume from there. If the exact position cannot be recreated, the last known legal position must be re-established, and the game played from there. It appears to me that in an extreme case this could mean going back to the starting position.

M Winther wrote on 2010-02-28 UTC
No, a game cannot be annulled. Generally, the play simply continues. It is the competetive aspect that must be emphasized. One doesn't slavishly hold to rules.
/Mats

John Ayer wrote on 2010-02-28 UTC
I think the formal rule is that the game must be returned to the point where the illegal move was played and a legal one played instead, and if that is not possible, the game must be annulled.

M Winther wrote on 2010-02-26 UTC
In casual games and in rapid chess one normally just continues playing, moving the king out of check. If both players agree, however, they can go back to the earlier position. In tournament games, if only a few moves have been made, one would typically go back to the checked position and continue from there. As moves are recorded it's easier. However, if one player has achieved a winning advantage many moves later, one cannot go back, but must play on.
/Mats

Anonymous wrote on 2010-02-25 UTC
We're playing a game and my opponent checks me I move but I move into
check but me or my opponent don't realize it so we continue playing three
moves later he realizes that that first move I made to get out of check I
was still in check how does the game go do we continue to play after the
mistake wasn't caught until 3 moves later

Rookayah Hassim` wrote on 2010-02-18 UTCGood ★★★★
Thank you for your response Nicholas.
I think the 21 move rule was invented by somebody....as my kids at school
were using it for a while now.
Lucky that I checked with you before any more damage was done!
Any specials tricks that you could teach me are most welcome.
I run a chess club at my school.
I'll keep in touch.

Nicholas Wolff wrote on 2010-02-10 UTC
Hey Rookayah!

There is no 21 move rule for a win, but there IS a 50 move rule and a 3 move repetition rule for a draw.  Here is how they work:

50 move rule
---
If 50 moves are made by both sides without a pawn move or capture, then one of the players can claim a draw.

3 move repetition
---
If the same position is repeated throughout the entirety of the game three times, then one of the players can claim a draw.

I can't recall any other rules involving the number of moves.  I hope this helps.

Best,
Nick

Rookayah Hassim wrote on 2010-02-10 UTC
If an apponent has just his king left, can he win the game in 21 moves if his opposition has not managed to checkmate him in that time>? Does 21 move even exist in chess?

Rosemary wrote on 2010-02-06 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
The audio section could be improved to sound human. The visual section is excellent and greatly appreciated.

George Svokos wrote on 2009-10-31 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
Like Ben R. Foster with his 'Chancellor Chess,' I believe that ortho-chess would benefit from a stronger piece on the King's side of the board. I would propose exchanging the King's rook for a Marshal to balance out the power of the queen without increasing the board size from 8x8 (to maintain the spirit of Vida's Caissa chess.)

JAYESH wrote on 2009-09-28 UTCGood ★★★★
I was playing a match of chess and the opponents king was placed opposite to my king then i still had a move which could remove the check but the players said me that it is a stale mate. Is it true??

George Duke wrote on 2009-08-22 UTC
Aching for the status quo, Larry Smith knows it is not ''totally conjecture,'' or that would be proof of 15 years totally wasted by CVing. Actually, there were revolutions 1500-1990 on a par with FRC. Never static, innovations along the way include: (1) Pawn two-step came about earlier off and on from the 13th century onward within PastPastChess Shatranj before the transition to Mad Queen. (2) Castling was by and large 17th-century expedient, upon seeing the ''wrong'' and ''damaged'' positions without it, forced to have King so centralized. For centuries up to 1900 Castling underwent experimentation. Castling came out of middle ages' King's leap within Shatranj, and there were several versions. Basically, the Rook had multiple destinations, and therefore King did too. Some ways were called free castling, a term we use a little differently today. These periodic alterations were themselves revolutionary and did not become of one accepted single use until almost 1900. (3) Standardization began in 19th century for variable applications of en passant and its negation, more or less, passar bataglia. Grudgingly arrived at, each establishment of essentially new variant (by loose cvpage standards) within the Mad Queen 64 paradigm -- progressively ending ambiguity and divergence -- served to entrench Orthodoxy. Almost immediately, grumbling resurfaced 100 years ago with Lasker's and then Capablanca's calls for reform. It became necessary to thwart such prestigious reformers, and F.I.D.E. was founded in 1924. By now, in these aughts, the first decade of the 3rd millennium, there is not much give left. There's not much room for reform anymore within that PastChess paradigm. FASTCHESS for PASTCHESS. Or FRC for PastChess. That's the other. Flag's up.

Anonymous wrote on 2009-08-21 UTC
Charles, did you just bring a note of sanity to this conversation? Shame on
you! 

The Midnight Skulker

Charles Daniel wrote on 2009-08-21 UTC
I have always advocated playing chess variants, and with me creating so  much, of course I have some stake in this. 
But, this whole notion of past chess, chess been dead, next chess just seems utterly ridiculous.  It seems there is a far greater chance of some world wide catastrophe happening in my lifetime, like some obscure gamma ray burst from an unknown star,  or some rock from outer space string earth or nuclear war than chess dying. 

These are the numbers quoted around:
>>Today more than 285 million people play chess with other chess
players from all over the world, via the internet. It is estimated 605
million people worldwide know how to play chess. Of these 7.5 million
are registered players, covering 160 countries worldwide. Making chess
one of the most popular sports around the world.>> 

If you think these are exaggerated then explain why millions of people are registering for these chess sites?

Chess is popular despite tv, video games and interactive (m)ass media all of which should have struck a nail in its heart. 



It seems it would be far more constructive to speak about the merits of any proposed new game or system rather than harp on this supposed demise of chess and say, 'There chess  is dead, play our new untested game instead!'

Rich Hutnik wrote on 2009-08-21 UTC
George, I am in favor of the chess after FIDE Chess being called 'IAGO Chess' and we be done with it :-).  I don't want it to be a dead end, and I want to allow it to evolve.  I am in favor, in a BIG way, of the IAGO Chess System being revamped in 2.0, gutted, and redone, to account for the wonderful world of what we find here on this website, and be able to evolve sanely.  I want there to be a committee that I am NOT involved with to decide the ins and outs of this.

We have an issue if we just call it 'Chess' that people will think we mean the FIDE version.

George Duke wrote on 2009-08-20 UTC
Let's stop using NextChess, just drop the term. Instead there is PastChess, and this is it. To students of history Mad Queen/&Bishop was just Shatranj with the Bishop and Queen full-length. The fifteen years of Internet are the last 1.1% of Chess history and play years 600-2000. A drop in the bucket. Percentagewise the educated public knew and played Chess far more in 1910 than 2010. You were an ignoramus then if not knowing chess column or book and playing Chess. There has been steady decline for the century since Sam Loyd's death in 1911 and further Capablanca's death in 1942. The fall was happening already in Europe, USA and Caribbean, and now they say also precipitously in Russia too. There's lower percentage of interest today, compared to yesteryear; OrthoChess64 crashed already. How much? 50%. Probably 75% since World War II, any way measured. Why? Not Draws that get mentioned all the time like a one-trick pony. It would take books to document causes, including distractions radio 1920, television 1950, Internet 1995. Yes, competing Internet is actually responsible for more net decline of OrthoChess Past. As each of those went up, certain other activities went down, not only Chess. And particular Pastchess 64's having had several loopholes did not help. Such as, being little compared to big Shogi's 81 squares and Xiangqi's 90 squares means repetitiveness came about sooner at any level of play. Such as also, requiring Castling to maintain interest since there are so few other options for King-e1 -- the crowded thing. OrthoChess 64 was an unsatisfactory challenge for this day and age (Winther's phrasing about original Shatranj), and a theoretical hundred CVs are defensibly better launchpads.

Michael Murphy wrote on 2009-05-25 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
great graphics and good succinct explanations

Thomas Maxwell wrote on 2009-05-18 UTCExcellent ★★★★★

Claudio Martins Jaguaribe wrote on 2009-04-22 UTC
Yes, the pawn, the bishops and the queen.

Hugs!

jacob wrote on 2009-04-22 UTC
Can a chess piece capture a king diagnaly?

Doug Chatham wrote on 2009-04-10 UTC
Hunter: No, a king cannot move two spaces to kill a piece.

Hunter wrote on 2009-04-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I would like to know if a king can move two spaces over on the home row to kill a white piece?

Hope wrote on 2009-01-15 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
This site is awesome! It is easy to read and understand as well as follow and explain to kids. I'm a teacher who has been trying to teach my students how to play and this is the best information and illustration I've ever found. Thanks so much!!

John Smith wrote on 2008-12-30 UTC
A King reaching a back row has no effect on the game.

[email protected] wrote on 2008-12-29 UTC
i have a question and would like someone to be kind and send me a response. can the game be won when the opposing player's king reaches your back row?(as in swapping out a pawn for a rook)

25 comments displayed

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.