Check out Grant Acedrex, our featured variant for April, 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
King's Guard Chess. Pawns move like kings and only Pawns may capture. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Chuck Lee wrote on Tue, Jun 7, 2011 11:17 PM UTC:
Hi Graeme, Problem with this variant is that White's first move advantage is much stronger than FIDE Chess. This is a BIG problem!!

Anonymous wrote on Wed, Jun 23, 2010 08:29 AM UTC:
Reminds Dev from Giant chess and Elephant from Elephant hunt (wich are same pieces, but second is royal): they occupys 4 squares, and opponent must attack all squares it occupys to capture. But i see using something similar for 1-square piece first time! Very nice, i'll try it.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Jun 16, 2008 01:56 AM UTC:
I believe the idea of pieces in support role for an attack, as seen here, could possibly offer an answer for concerns I have had with Single Combat Chess:

Anonymous wrote on Sat, Jun 14, 2008 07:16 PM UTC:
Graeme is not a north American.

Senorita Simpatica wrote on Sat, Jun 14, 2008 05:59 PM UTC:
Senor Duke concludes a recent King's Guard Chess comment with, 'And elegant King's Guard coming out of North American inventor, is the source by geography and culture only one factor in appreciation?'

I would answer that for those of us free of cultural bias, no. The country of origin is not of importance.

💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Sat, Jun 14, 2008 04:20 PM UTC:

Following Michael Nelson's suggestions, I have attempted to further clarify the losing scenarios.

Although I have altered stalemate from a draw to a loss (a personal preference), in line with my second design aim 3-fold repetition remains a draw.

George Duke wrote on Sat, Jun 14, 2008 04:08 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Left out of Chess Variant Page so far, the greatest odd-Chess exemplar of all time, Sam Loyd (1841-1911) would like this game. It reminds me of ''Excelsior,'' published 'London Era' 1861, the greatest individual Problem of all time by far. One is a Problem following OrthoChess Rules exclusively, whilst this is just another CVPage Rules-set. How can such two different elements be alike but by imagination? Here there is expression actually to want to play it, so nice work! The tie-in to two apparently disparate works, a game and a Problem, with different Rules, is *Assist*. Check out ''Excelsior'' at Wikipedia or someplace. Most CVs evoke some prior similarity, but we do not recall requiring two attacks to take (suggesting family of games, but forget about that). So simple idea is not previously considered and, therefore, please credit novelty to King's Guard -- being itself rare in CVPage by the late aughts. Are these then the last of the good fairy Chess ideas, so we can have ruined inventiveness in Rules altogether for our descendants, and no one bothers with CVs by the 1920's[2020's]? Let's get back to work. And elegant King's Guard coming out of North American inventor, is the source by geography and culture only one factor in appreciation?

Michael Nelson wrote on Sat, Jun 14, 2008 09:37 AM UTC:
I presume that capturing the opponent's King on the eighth rank with your last Pawn also wins. This is clear from the logic of the loss conditions, but you might want to state this explicitly.

Also, stalemating by promoting your last pawn should win.

You may wish to consider triple repetition as a loss--this is fairly common where stalemate is a loss.

I intend these suggestions as minor clarifications for a very fine game.

💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Fri, Jun 13, 2008 04:45 PM UTC:

Thanks to all for their comments.

I have added a paragraph to the end of the rules section in an attempt to answer Doug Chatham's question.

With regard to the 'no pawns' loss condition, I see it as akin to the 'bare king' state which is used as a loss condition in several variants. It seems reasonable to me that a side without attacking potential should be deemed to have lost.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Fri, Jun 13, 2008 03:28 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
I have not had a chance to play this, but reading over the rules, I would give this a thumb's up. It does look interesting.

Doug Chatham wrote on Fri, Jun 13, 2008 02:26 PM UTC:
What happens if I capture the opponent's last pawn on the last row with my last pawn, which must immediately promote since it's on the last row? More generally, what happens if both players achieve a losing condition at the same time?

Alfred Pfeiffer wrote on Fri, Jun 13, 2008 01:35 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
Why should a side without pawns lose the game?  In chess the game is 
lost usually by the loss of royal pieces (king).  I assume the king 
could resist against his capturing in many cases, so a draw seems 
possible.  Also you could try to win without pawns by stalemating 
the opponent's pieces.

Gary Gifford wrote on Fri, Jun 13, 2008 10:04 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
This appears to be a very good CV! I really admire the capturing concept and the need to coordinate and defend from double attacks. It is not often that we see something profoundly different. The closest thing that comes to mind [to me in regard to the guards)is the dual-capture mechanism which is seen in Robert Abbott's Coordinator piece {from the game of Ultima), and also used in Maxima by Roberto Lavieri. But your variant is different enough to give it a very 'original' feel... and overall, of course, the game, in total, is very different from those games.

Great job!

Michael Nelson wrote on Fri, Jun 13, 2008 05:44 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I really like this concept--it's not precisely like anything I've seen, fundamentally simple, yet makes for a very unorthodox game.

So far as I know, Graeme isn't channeling me--perhaps I should channel him and get my creative juices flowing again.

Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Jun 13, 2008 04:39 AM UTC:
A very twisty idea; congratulations! You channeling Mike Nelson? Quite an unusual idea. I know a game that's showing up in the next Potluck tournament when I see it.

Jianying Ji wrote on Thu, Jun 12, 2008 04:53 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Horray for the unique mechanism! (well some joe joyce's large variants has enabling pieces that allow other pieces to move or capture, but still that is very different from this variant) As for computer play, it does alter drastically the evaluation function, and depending on the subtlety and complexity of the function, the play will differ widely in quality. It certainly would spread it out some.

16 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.