Ratings & Comments

I noticed Ben's comment on the 84-space contest.  Aside from the fact that
we won't want many games that size in any case, I don't think that any
game being voted upon in 84-spaces should be eligible for this event. 
Even its presence in a poll to pick the games could affect the contest
voting.

We may miss a good game that way, but if this flies there's always next
year.

I just checked Peter's linked recommendations, and I shake my head.  There
is so much good stuff there, and elsewhere on CVP, that you cannot track
it all.  :)

I wonder what Ralph Betza, in particular, might suggest?  He's been at
this a while...

I did a list of eight, trimmed from a first list of nearly 40, to show how
a set of games might feature a wide range of styles and options.  In
alphabetical order:

Chigorin Chess (Betza)...non-matching forces
Extinction Chess (Schmittberger)...new objective
Magician Chess (Whittle)...small board, new piece, board alteration
Not-particularly-new Chess (Aronson)...add-a-few-squares-and-new-piece(s)
genre
Sudden Death Chess (Chatham)...simple rule change with radical
implications
Take Over Chess (Quintanilla)...small board, different captures, new
piece
Triplets (Sobey)...multi-moves, alternate objective
ximeracak. (Overby)...sweeping piece changes to standard set

I share David's nervousness about larger games, although Modern Chess,
21st Century Chess, and Chess on a Longer Board With a Few Pieces Added
are on my long list.  So are Crazy 38s and Separate Realms (from other
people's lists).

I would like to feature some prizewinners from our contests, and while the
tournament should feature lesser-played designs it might not hurt to have
a better-known game or two in the mix.  Losing Chess is another I'd
consider for that role.

I'd have to search around for games.  off the top of my head, i'd also
definitely recommend rococo and ruddigore by aronson.  i also recommend
schizophrenic chess, altho i don't know if we want to overlap this with
the 84 square contest.  i might also suggest my own game crazy38s.  what
else... captain spalding chess by betza.  if we want a 3D game, i'd
suggest millenium 3D by a'gostino or exchequer by hewson, since they can
both be played in about the same amount of time it takes to play a
standard chess game.  i am also a big fan of rennaissance chess by eric
greenwood.  i also like the the commercial game quantum II, III and IV.  i
also like looneybird, even tho freeling is no longer big on it.

sorry this message wasn't as organized as aronson's, nor does it link to
the games.

We've been talking among the editors about trying to run a multivariant
PBEM tournament in 2003.  The goal is to get some of the better new or
obscure variants more play and exposure (although there will be room for
more usual games as well).  Each player would play a total of six games,
in at least five different variants from a list of seven or eight.

The crucial question is what variants to feature.  What ought to be played
more?  Which games should get a chance?  There are so many good ideas here
that no one person can begin to evaluate them all.

We ask all of our readers to consider adding a comment here.  Suggest one,
or two, or five, or ten games to be considered.  We'll eventually use your
suggestions and our editorial deliberation to put together a list of 25-40
for a formal poll.  That poll will determine the games to be used, if
there's enough interest.  We hope there will be.

Please, let your voices be heard, and help us build a cool new event.

Has anyone archived the chess variant 'Schach des Macchiavelli'
published in the beginning of the 80ies in the german alternative
newspaper 'die tageszeitung' (taz)?

I remember the following facts: It was a 4 player variant on
a non-checkered square board. The central field was special:
If your royal piece was placed there, you had additional moves
after every other player's moves. Captured pieces are left as
corpses on the board. They could be moved only by a special unit,
the nekromobil, which was unable to capture.

Any hints are welcome.

--J'org Knappen

With the weak King (FcW) and stalemate as a win, the proposed game isn't a
bit drawish. K vs K on the same color is a forced win for whichever side
can get the opposition. (This is a simple calculation: if the coordinate
differences between the Kings are odd, for example a1 vs d6, the player on
move wins; if the differences are even, the player not on move wins.)

Similarly, if the Kings are on the same color K and any piece vs K is a
forced win unless the bare K can capture the piece--the stonger side can
use the mobility of the piece to avoid zugzwang.

It is not sufficient for the king to be on a secure
file or rank, to force a draw against king and oddling
it has to be in the secure corner.

Here is how to mate the black king with king and 
oddling:

White: Og7,Kh6  Black: Kf8

First, White brings its king to h8, than it pushes 
its king forward using zugzwang until it reaches d8.

White forces the Black king to a8. Now the finale:

Kc7!  Ka7
Og5   Ka6
Oe5   Ka7
Oa5++

J'org Knappen

R on seventh rank and bare enemy K on eight rank IS stalemate! How did I
overlook that?

Peter,

I think you're right--bare king rule should not apply.  There will be some
interesting endgames with stalemate as a win. For example, K and R vs K
can be a win if the pieces are in the right realms, such as R holds enemy
K on the last rank as friendly K moves to stalemate. 

I rather like the sound of Separate Realms Chess.

Peter, thank you for the ZRF.  I haven't though of a name--fell free to
give it any name that appeals to you--the ZRF is much harder work than
thinking of the game, plus the whole idea followed logically from your new
piece.

It think both the stalemate as win and bare king rules as in Shatranj
would be good idea for this game, in fact for any game with weak pieces.
(Though I've used these rules in games with strong pieces as well.)

No, the odd piece does not have the 'can-mate' property.  If the odd piece
(mDDcR) is on the seventh rank holding the bare enemy K on the eighth
while the friendly K moves in, the odd piece can't move to the eighth rank
to mate! If the odd piece is on the sixth rank, it can't hold the enemy K
on the eighth--the whole seventh rank is safe.

Two of the odd pieces, one on a even-numbered rank (or file) and one on an
odd-numbered rank (or file) should mate easily.

This odd piece oddly is almost a rook worth in the endgame.
It still has the can-mate property, except for the rare case
that the bared king is in the secure corner (If the odd piece
is on a1, the secure corner is a8). In the most cases it
can block the secure corner and the bared king is driven by zugzwang
towards a mate. The secure spots left by the odd piece are all 
single fields without secure neighbours -- thus a bare king must leave
them.

--J'org Knappen

I think the weakened King might to the trick, though I would express the
funny notation as FcW.  The resulting game ought certainly to be
different!

Perhaps this would make it less drawish:  The King moves as a Ferz and
captures as a King (mFcK) and cannot castle.  The former change means less
force is needed in the endgame, the latter enhances the chance of a middle
game victory.

Hmm... very interesting.  Did you consider the Bishop/Queen equivalents? 
Or even (gasp) the Nightrider equivalent (moves as a 2/4 rider or captures
as a 1/2 rider)?  The latter seems like an especially odd piece,
preferably for use on really big boards.  And how would a king like this
work?  Move as an Alf./Dab. and capture like a king, or capture like an
Alf/Dab/King?  And would a CV in which every piece is like this work well?

It seems like a most interesting piece indeed. Such a piece could be the
basis for a variant along the lines of Ralph Betza's Colorboundmost Chess.
I will post details as a comment to Colorboundmostr Chess.)

i have a question about opposing kings occupying adjacent spaces.  I
thought this was legal because kings were nuetral.  I was told this was
illegal, they cannot be next to each other because they would be putting
each other in 'check'.  Can anyone set me straight on this?  Thanks

currently in the piececlopedia, many of the pieces list all the games that
use that piece, even if the piece goes by a different name in a particular
game.  for example, the piececlopedia page for chancellor - moves as R+N -
lists the chancellor from capablanca's chess, the marshall from
grandchess, the champion from carrera's chess, etc.  i think this is a
good idea to have as much as possible, but it also sounds to me like
having an automated system for this is not worth the effort.  i think
we'll have to settle for pointing out any additions to the list to the
piececlopedia editor whenever we see something missing.

I'm with Joseph on this: too much work for the payoff.  Think about keeping
it up-to-date; whoever's job that was might have no life in a heavy
contribution week.  Also, listing all the pieces in a game is redundant to
the actual game description.

If it were done, it would be most useful to be identified by move, rather
than name of piece.  This would be a sysiphean labor.  You would have to
create indices based perhaps on funny notation.  The syntax of funny
notation is ambiguous, in that although it can describe movement
precisely, there is more than one way to describe the same movement in
many cases.

Too much work, I think. I don't think many visitors to this site would want
to look up, say, all variants that use a Murray Lion. Or all variants that
use a Gryphon. Or whatever.

Don't worry about those cross-references. I'm sure you have enough work to
do as it is. :-)

Oops. I forgot while I was writing.

There's a specific reason not to use Parton's fair race rule with an
absolute doublemove game of Absolute Colorboundmost Chess. 

The reason is that symmetrical play gives Black a guaranteed draw!

In Absolutely Colorboundmost Chess, there must be as little interaction as
possible between pieces on squares of different colors.

As a consequence, there can be no Castling. A further consequence is that
you should really play it on two boards, lest the visual clutter become a
sort of interaction between the two colors.

The big surpsise is that it must be a doublemove game, one move on each
color. If you have only one move, and must decide between colors, that is a
form of interaction! (Yes, that interaction would make a better game; but
the absolute extreme colorboundmost chess has to be doublemove.)

Your Q is on the same color as the enemy K. This means that you start with
enough material superiority to mate the opponent -- but of course the
reverse is also true! I see this as a race game (pushing the boundaries of
race games!), and therefore immediately thought of Parton's 'Fair race
rule' from Racing Kings: if W gives mate, Black can draw by giving mate in
reply. (The question of who wins first is an interaction between the
colors, but it is unavoidable in a chess variant.)

However, since it's a doublemove game, an even better alternative is to
make it 'balanced'. W only gets to make one move first turn. 

To avoid interaction, the rules must specify on which color W must move on
the first turn!

Of course all the pieces and Pawns and Kings must be colorbound. (Also, a
game with weak interaction played as a singlemove game on a single board
would be more interesting; but the first step is to define the most
extremely absolute colorboundmost game possible!)

Am I correct in thinking that all these consequences follow inevitably from
the premise? Have I missed any? Is it interesting that this much of the
game can be specified without even thinking about how individual pieces
move?

'I have some trouble thinking of the
   Great Elephant as a Rook-equivalent piece.'

It has two full atoms, half of another, and a quarter of another; this puts
it already in the Rookish range, though maybe a bit weak. The partial atoms
are the forward parts, which must boost it to full Rookitude.

You have inspired me to write Captain Spalding Chess, of which the most
important feature is that one may find

an Elephant in one's Pajama.

Values are different in Shogi, where the drops and 6th-rank limited
promotion rules change all values. After I sought out and visited the Shogi
equivalent of the Nihon Ki-In (but decided not t play because of my limited
shogi experience -- the exercize of finding it on the map and actually
finding my way to a remote region of Tokyo was quite rewarding enough!), I
downloaded the supremely weak shogi master program from the home of the
underdogs, and played quite a bit; and my impression is that (1) having
more Pawns is good, but not specific number of Pawns is worth anything; (2)
fR == ffN; Gold == Silver == 2 of the previous; R == B == 2 of the previous
(although R versus B may often be decisive).

But in a 'normal' game, what's a Silver worth? My ancient researches seemed
to indicate that adding the forward move+capture of Wazir to something else
is worth nearly half as much as adding a whole Wazir; and that adding the
sideways moves is worth most of the remaining half-Wazir. For the Ferz, I
forget. It's written down somewhere but of course forwards is worth more
than half.

Thus, the basic estimate for the Silver General is roughly 3/4 of a Knight,
and the basic estimat for the Gold General is somewhat more than 3/4 of a
Knight.

If the simplest possible estimates of the values are taken, then your
Elephant may possibly be worth 3/4 N and your Great Elephant may possibly
be worth 1.5 N, which is roughly the value of a Rook.

According to the shock-troop theory, the combination of weak FfW which have
no jumping move and the strong fWfDWA which does have jumping, this
combination interferes with the harmonious development of the army; but
Philidor's shock-troop theory, although it contains some truth, is not the
final word. Morphy showed how one can cause great damage to the opponent by
developing the Rook-valued pieces, and his example must be kept in mind
when you are playing an army that includes HFD or Great Elephants as
R-valued pieces.

If the Great Elephant is Rookish in value, then it is logical that splicing
equine genes into the Greater Elephant must produce a Q-valued piece; using
this in the same army would be consistent but it would be overkill.

If my guesses about the elaphantine values are somewhat near correct, then
why does your playtesting seem to hint that the army is too weak?

In my experience, the unreliable values produced by my pseudoscientific
guesses are actually more reliable than playtesting. The most common
problem with playtesting is that if you don't know how to use a piece to
best advantage, it seems weaker than it really is. Learning to use every
possible piece is difficult and time-consuming.

I have been studying the advices in this thread and examining some of 
my ideas along this line. The following is what I have developed so far:

Pawnless Chess

-by Jianying Ji			

Introduction:

This variant is inspired  these primary sources: 
1: Kevin Maroney's Ur Chess
2: Ralph Betza's Halfling Chess

One of the main motivations of this variant is similar to that of Ur Chess
in that I was looking for a 'simplified' variant of chess. As I read Ur
chess I saw that many of the fiddly rules he was trying to change concerned
pawns, so it seemed natural to me to dispense with pawns alltogether. But
that led to an immediate problem, which is with the major pieces of FIDE
facing each other the opening usually end up with a lot of exchanges and
not many pieces on the board after the exchanges end.  To combat this, the
pieces needs to be weakened and captured pieces recycled. So I used
halfling chess to weaken the pieces, and added the capture return rule to
recycle the pieces. I changed the knight to halfling Knightrider to
strengthen the army a bit so that it won't be too slow. The details
follows:

Board and Setup:

Use standard chess board and setup with the pawns removed

r n b q k b n r
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
R N B Q K B N R

Rules:

1. All pieces move as they do in halfling chess, except the knight, 
which becomes a halfling knightrider.

Motivation: To weaken the pieces so the opening will be more strategic,
rather than tactical. As Peter Aaronson suggested and Ralph Betza showed.

2. A captured piece is returned to the owner, who is to put it back on 
its starting rank. It is the owner's choice, which open square to put 
the returned piece on.  If the starting rank is fully occupied then 
the captured piece is discarded.

Motivation: Since the ratio of pieces to squares is so low, to start 
with, this rule will keep more pieces in play longer, for a more 
tactical and longer endgame.

3. No repetition of a previous board position

Motivation: Super-Ko rule is adopted to reduce draws.

Object:

Checkmate or stalemate the opponent

Motivation: Stalemating the opponent is included as a winning condition 
to reduce draws.

Notation:

R        a1        x           a5  	         [a8]
piece	source   capture    destination    drop location

piece: name of the piece
source: starting square
capture: x if capture occured, - if non-capturing move.
destination: ending square
drop location: the location to which the captured piece is dropped

Can be abbreviated if no ambiguity arises.

Remember, if capture occurs, drop location must be specified.


Comments:

Shortest fool's mate is 2.5 moves, which is comparable to FIDE, 
with the added benefit of being more 'foolish'.

Tempo is most important in this game. Losing tempo can be fatal. 
It is even more important than safety of specific pieces. Since 
pieces are recycled.

I have done some playtesting but I would welcome more. And any
more suggestions!

I went back and reread Pizza Kings, and it's better than I remembered. 
Pizza Kings actually had a definite satirical purpose.  At that time,
people were suggesting various different armies with themes like leaping,
or spaciousness, or fizziness.  I just extended the theme to something
completely irrelevant to chess, and then developed the theme deadpan.  Part
of the point I was making earlier is that sort of thing is only pleasing in
moderation.  If I had gone on to invent the Avenging Appetizers and the
Beer Batterers, the result would have been far less than three times as
amusing.

I was also unclear in stating my preference.  I much prefer an entertaining
and engaging description.  I am one of those variantists who actually
rarely play, but, concurring with gnohmon's point, I found Nemoroth so
fascinating that I am actually playing an email game.  That is based on two
things: the terrific description, and the original mechanics.  In the case
of Nemoroth, they cannot be separated.  Without the story, the mechanics
would seem capricious.  Without the unusual mechanics, the story would just
be an exercise in cleverness, without point on the CVP.  Now, e.g., there
is a clear picture in my mind of a Leaf Pile, what it does, and why.

Pizza Kings is a charming piece of somewhat humorous literature; it won't
make you laugh aloud like 'The Literary Offenses of James Fenimore Cooper',
but it may bring a smile.

Many variants recieve very little play, while others become popular. In
order for a variant to become popular, people have to try it at least once.
How do you get your reader interested enough to try playing the game?

A good presentation can't hurt. At least if it's interesting to read,
people may read it all the way through, and that's a start.

Sometimes the idea of the game is sufficiently intriguing in its own right
that you get people to play it without anything special in the way of
presentation. 'There's nothing in the way of presentation, you can get
right at it.' (That's from _It's a Gift_, right?) This was the case with
Avalanche.

A good presentation is Partonesque. His games were always introduced with a
bit of a premise and a bit of whimsy.

In other words, like all good literature, it's advertising; or even product
placement, as in Refreshing Bubble Fizz Chess.

I had a point here somewhere, but it wandered off. Perhaps my point was a
neutral piece and my opponent moved it somewhere I can't see it.

Having had time to think of my earlier comment I am almost entirely sure
that I lost the point, the reader, or both.  I'll try to keep it short this
time.  I completely missed one of the points that I had wanted to make.  A
discription with just the rules can be writen in such a way that the author
puts their own tone or flavor into it, this gives the reader a feeling that
the author is speaking to them.  This effect is helpful because for some
reason it is easyer to understand the same information if it seems like it
is said to the reader, it is also easier to remember.  This probably
doesn't make it all the way to literature, but it is somehow more than a
barebones discription.  This somewhat goes with what John said about it
being a kind of conversation.

Although the format of the CVP is like a database or encyclopedia, I think
that it is actually better thought of as a 'conversation' about chess
variants.  Many variantists probably actually play very little, and most
variants receive very little play.  Therefore, the main point of the CVP,
at least for some, is the communication of the ideas behind the variants.

As in any 'conversation', although the primary focus is to impart
information, a desire to amuse, entertain, and interact is perfectly valid.
 Also, some variants are better understood with the story that inspired
them.  A bare-bones exposition of the Nemoroth rules would seem
incomprehensible and arbitrary.  Other variants that are hard to appreciate
without their background stories are Peter's Ruddigore Chess, or Dan
Troyka's Hitchhiker Chess.

One is on thinner ice with descriptions that are just plain silly, like my
Pizza Kings.  It is important to avoid a descent into pointless sophomoric
humor, like the relentless plays on words in the headlines of bad
newspapers.

We should also remind ourselves, when writing rules, that the CVP has an
international following.  Therefore, it is likely that the point behind
Ruddigore Chess is completely opaque to someone with no knowledge of or
interest in late 19th C. English musical theater.  We also have to be
careful not to obscure the rules with verbal cleverness.

The beauty of the recently improved comment system, is that it provides a
forum for those so inclined to play with words and concepts, without
getting in the way of the clarity of the descriptive pages.

I think I might have had a point once in all this, but I ignored it and it
wandered away.  I like clever and amusing literate writing.  I think it
enhances the CVP, but it is not necessary to the CVP.  Intelligent,
well-thought-out, and clearly described variants are what is necessary.

I think that it depends opon the variant and the wirteing style, a bare
bones rules would be preferable to a badly writen naritive which has the
rules in it, on the other hand a sci-fi/fantasy based varient would seem
stale or flat without somekind of backround.  And when it comes to
background there is a very large gray area, becuase you could easily say
that why a piece was chosen to move the way it does is part of a bare bones
discription, but sometimes the reasoning is so complex it could qualify as
literature.

There is also a question of 'What is literature?' a common question is 'Is
a comicbook literature?' in this case it might be better as 'Is a
discription literature?' some would say yes, others no.  Certainly I would
always prefer a discrtiption into which some kind of tone or voice has been
put, but that is not the same as haveing something on the level of Ralph
Betza's Nemoroth, which gives you the feel and atmosphere of the game.  If
everyone could write on that level then we would have an impressive
colection of CVs and literature in one, and games that otherwise might have
been overlooked would be noticed and played.

I fear that I may have lost track of my point near the first or second line
but if I try and go back and change it this will make even less sense. 
Basicly what I'm saying is that a well writen back story or setting could
never hurt a discription, and in some cases it's absense would.  Also a
discription its self can have a certain literay flavor to it that makes it
easier to read and understand than a bare rules only format.  I think that
the most disireable form of a discription is first and formost the rules,
backround information on how the game came to be and why the pieces are the
way they are, and any story or such thing that goes with it, i.e. a game
claiming to be elven chess should say a bit about how the elves played the
game.  If the rules are mixed in with the other elements, like for example
as in Nemoroth it may also be a good idea to have them listed sepreately,
also as in Nemoroth, so that those that don't want to read the non rule
related elements don't have to, and those that want to quickly refrence a
rule can.

I know I rambled and I hope it made sense and was in some way helpful.

I've recently had a strange idea for an 84-square chess variant, and I'd
like to get some comments on it.

I call it Three-Layer Wedding Cake Chess.  The bottom layer is a standard
8x8 chess board with the standard chess piece placement.  Above the middle
16 squares is the second layer, an initially empty 4x4 board.  Above the
middle four squares of the second layer is the third layer, an initially
empty 2x2 board.

The goal is to get your queen and king on the top layer before the
opponent's king and queen can reach the top layer.

There is no check, checkmate, or any true capturing.  A piece (including
P,R,B,N,Q, or K) can move onto a square occupied by an enemy piece only if
the square immediately above that enemy is empty.  When such a move occurs,
the enemy piece is 'elevated' to the square immediately above its current
positions.  If a player can elevate an enemy piece, he or she must do so. 
If more than one elevation is possible, the player can choose which one to
carry out.

A player may move a piece to the square immediately below that piece if
that square is empty.

Pieces move on the top layers just as they do on the bottom layer, except
that pawns may only promote on the bottom layer.

FIDE rules apply except as I've contradicted them above (so, for example,
there are no 3D moves other than the ones given above,).

Previous variants inspiring and influencing this one include Bachelor Chess
(the wedding theme), Pyramid Chess (board layout), Reenterent Chess (each
square on the top two layers acting like a reentering square for 'captures'
on the square immediately below), Losing Chess ('captures' compulsory), and
Elevator Chess (inspiring the term 'elevate').

I hope you find this entertaining.

What I mean is that FFEN is a way to convert the diagrams to plain text. 
and for the people who want to read it they would understand it. Moreover
this way a special reader can translat it to diagrams.

Err, I don't think Project Gutenburg is using FFEN -- just plain text.

The diagrams will have to be described using FFEN, which the FFEN to HTML
converter will take care of the rest. And probably lots of proofreading.
But it is possible.

The copy of Murray that I own is the 1969 reprint, not the 1909 original.


It may well be that the reprint in some manner updated the copyright? Laws
on this subject have changed from time to time...

Project gutenburg is usually plain text files. Can Murray be appreciated
fully without the diagrams? No. Can it be appreciated to some extent? Yes,
of course.

Modern scanners may be able to extract the text pretty well, but then if
you don't proofread what the scanner said, the book is seen as if
through a scanner darkly
(title of a book by l cordwainer smith; always wanted to use that phrase in
casual conversation.)

Big job, no matter what. Big disk space, but there are so many terabytes
now, how else to fill them? Big download for the reader. But, what a book!
And how much we all owe to it!

Continuing what Ralph said about the need for more prominent heading for
chess history. One possible idea is a specific page on the history of 
chess that shows a genealogy of chess. A genealogy because it shows both
history and the relationship between the different historical variants.
Such an undertaking would be no small one by any means but would provide
a good context for the layman and scholar alike in the foundations of 
this pusuit of variants.

> I love these questions, and always try to include them in my own new
> games.

Glad that you like these kind of questions. I thought it might be fun
too.

> 1 Rh7 Na6 2 Qh5++; 

Short and sweet. Quite amazing really.

'Note 1 Be2 Bd7 2 Kf1 Ra7 3 Qe2 Ra8 4 Bh5++ is shortest doublecheck
mate.'

the 3rd move doesn'T make sense.

After the second move we have

. n . q k b n r
r . . b . . . . 
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . B . . .
R N B Q . K N R

Qe2 is an impossible move, however I think you intended Qe1

which works.

It is interesting that both of these are helpmates, I wonder if a
computer
mate as I defined can be found easily, or does it really need a computer
to answer that questions.

Construct the shortest possible fool's mate for the following variant:

FIDE chess without pawns nor castling.

I love these questions, and always try to include them in my own new
games.

1 Rh7 Na6 2 Qh5++; a pretty solution because because Rh7 covers flight
squares *and* blocks Rh8xh5.

Note 1 Be2 Bd7 2 Kf1 Ra7 3 Qe2 Ra8 4 Bh5++ is shortest doublecheck mate.

I have played games of FIDE Chess with W giving odds of all 8 Pawns....

With both sides no Pawns, I'd try 1. Qxd8+ followed by 2. Rh1xh8, which
ought to win.

With Pawns replaced by W or F or Berolina Pawns, in a sense it's not so
Pawnless, is it?

Racing Kings is Pawnless. It has a different goal, and perhaps you could
argue that it's not even Chess. However, in the process of becoming NOST
postal champion a few years in a row, I learned to appreciate what a great
game it is.

Without using really weak pieces to replace Pawns, you could probably find
a setup on the 4x16 circular chessboard that works.

Thinking about it, let me restate my question in the form of 2
challenges:

Construct the shortest possible fool's mate for the following variant:

FIDE chess without pawns nor castling.

Then construct the shortest possible computer's mate (named after early
chess computer programs),  by which I mean that it will respond to
any possible mate within 3 moves. Or another way to say it is
construct the shortest game that leads to a win in 4 moves.

Actually my game will be different from just removing pawns from standard
FIDE setup. The reason for my question is more along the lines of giving
a pawnless FIDE, what are the shortcommings of such a game, and why 
wouldn't it be a good game. Or in other words what is the mininum that
can be done to make it a good game.

I am creating a pawnless CV, which suddenly led to the question of:

What happens in FIDE chess if we remove the pawns and disallow castling.
Does white have overwhelming advantage or is there a good defense for 
black?

It would be nice to have a full, comprehensive article on Chess
Handicapping. Anyone out there want to volunteer?

I have thought about it for quite a while, that chess lacks a coherent
handicap system. (A good example of a coherent handicap system is that 
of go) How do we go about crating one for chess? Certainly chess for
different armies of ralph betza points the way forward. Black Ghost of
Ralph Betza is a step toward a handicap system. Using these as stepping
stones, let me propose the following:

Types of Handicap:

Range: Gradual limiting of the range of stronger player's pieces 

Functional: Limiting the leaping/capturing ability of the stronger player

Balancing: Adding power to the weak side, for example adding of a ghost
 like in ghost chess.

Of course how a comprehensive system might look like, I'm not sure yet,
 so any comments welcome.

I have an idea for self-captured pieces: a self-captured piece cannot be
dropped to a square which is threatened by a friendly piece. This should
alleviate the use of self-captured pieces to checkmate or block checks.