Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - John_Lewis

Pages: 1 2 3 4 »
1
I created this variant many years ago. It requires a computer because of hidden information and is easiest described as a recombination of several other variants.

Double Fischer Random Chess (your pieces are shuffled under Chess 960 rules, you opponents are as well and are likely not mirrored)
Dark Chess (you can only see the spaces of the board that you are currently occupying and those where your pieces can legally move)
King Capture (you do not announce check, capturing the King wins the game)
Crazy House (you may drop a captured piece on the board converting it to your color, but only to visible spaces)

The game is called Lao Tzu Chess.

2
That Shogi variant looks awesome!

3
To understand this, I think you'll need to give an example game.

4
Rules and pieces are the same as FIDE Chess except when pieces are mated, all pieces forcing it into mate are frozen forever.
Very simple variant but very interesting concept.

Do you mean when I piece is "attackable" it is frozen?
No, I mean that if any piece putting another piece into checkmate are frozen.

I don't understand because I think we are using the word Checkmate differently. When I say Checkmate, it's the end of the game because one King can make no legal move and is also being attacked. This is the win condition so it ends the game.

Other pieces can't be Checkmated or even put into Check... as only the King (or another Royal piece in some variants) can be put into Check.

5
Rules and pieces are the same as FIDE Chess except when pieces are mated, all pieces forcing it into mate are frozen forever.
Very simple variant but very interesting concept.

Do you mean when I piece is "attackable" it is frozen?

6
If I were to design chess today, I would get rid of the rules that requires knowledge of previous moves in the game. More specifically:

Get rid of the en passant rule. I get why it was introduced when pawns was made able to move 2 steps, but I see the rule as unnecessary.

Allow castling when the king and rook are standing on their original squares, regardless if they have previously moved or not.

Another thing I might consider is to make the king travel 3 spaces to b1 when castling queenside (and rook to c1). This would create more symmetry to castling either side.

Overall though, the rules for chess are really great and I would not dare to suggest that they should be changed.

Did you look at the variant I just posted?

7
Variant Theory / Re: Design Considerations for Very Large Games?
« on: April 25, 2018, 10:11:59 am »
Yes, my variants are also obscure. I don't mind. ;D

8
Variant Theory / Re: Design Considerations for Very Large Games?
« on: April 24, 2018, 09:25:15 am »
Have you seen this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_chess
Hi, John. Yes, I've been aware of Progressive for a while, and considered playing it when I first heard of it, but decided it was too chaotic a game to interest me. It does seem that game would finish quite quickly, probably within 5ish turns - black making 10 moves on turn 5 in such a game. It of course represents just about everything I don't want, being essentially reverse Russian roulette - when you get the gun, you aim at the other player, then pull the trigger. Thanks for the example.

Oh, that's perfect! It's important to know what you don't want. I was trying to think how to make such a large game interesting and was reminded of the board game Fuedal by Avalon Hill games. It had very large chess like armies and required moving over large, boards with blocking features (terrain) and literal castles to move into as victory conditions. One feature of that game was that you could move all your pieces. It was kind of boring because of that. I'm concerned your game might last too long. However if that isn't your concern, then multiple moves aren't an issue.

However, one options a to have multiple "Royal" pieces (Say the King, Queen, a Prince and a Princess.) and for each Royal that is still active you get one move. So in the above example, you'd get four moves per turn. As they were progressively captured the game would slow for one side. Losing a Royal would be a significant hit at first and might cascade into defeat or it might cripple someone but not end the game for them. This may or may not appeal to you, but again, it's good as an idea.

Good luck! I'll continue lurking again.

10

Perhaps restrict White so that their first move may NOT be a two space pawn move? With this addition you might reach parity. However you'd need a computer to test by playing millions of games.

Adding that to the existing rules could hand black an advantage,  ;D
but that could be a rule in a different variant.

Then maybe that's the only rule you need... again, you'd need to test with something like LeelaZero.

11
King's Capture rules are not new, but this is the first time I have seen Black given the chance to move an extra turn at the end of the game as a way to reduce the first move advantage.

Further, the right to castle out of check or through check dynamically changes how the game is played and is interesting in its own right... does it result in parity for black and white.

I find the ideas both fascinating. However I fear they will not compensate for White's initiative with their first move.

Perhaps restrict White so that their first move may NOT be a two space pawn move? With this addition you might reach parity. However you'd need a computer to test by playing millions of games.

12
Can I submit something I already created?

14
General Discussion / Re: Will computers ever solve chess?
« on: April 19, 2018, 01:00:04 pm »
Conventional computers will hit a wall long before chess can be brute-forced.  There are physical limits to miniaturization and clock-speed and we are nearing them rapidly.

Even conventional computers may be able to brute force given the right algorithms. I suspect the wall you are referring to will be solved and Moore's Law will continue on well past the point needed to brute force Chess. This is, of course, my opinion, because the time machine is broken.  ;)

15
Variant Theory / Re: Design Considerations for Very Large Games?
« on: April 19, 2018, 12:53:19 pm »
I love this idea, the discussion.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 »