Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 12 Jul '06 15:29
    I thought about a varient that would only let one capture per square for the entire game. check is still used but the check-mate would have to be on a square that a piece has not been captured on yet.
    Let me know if you have played a varient like this.
  2. 12 Jul '06 15:32
    Originally posted by cheshirecatstevens
    I thought about a varient that would only let one capture per square for the entire game. check is still used but the check-mate would have to be on a square that a piece has not been captured on yet.
    Let me know if you have played a varient like this.
    Wouldn't captures then become completely deadly? eg. 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6 3. Qxf7, and there is no way black can prevent QxK next move! Perhaps there should be two captures per square allowed - one for each opponent?
  3. 12 Jul '06 16:54
    Originally posted by TommyC
    Wouldn't captures then become completely deadly? eg. 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6 3. Qxf7, and there is no way black can prevent QxK next move! Perhaps there should be two captures per square allowed - one for each opponent?
    yea after i thought about it a side needs reciprocity to defend a piece.
    but i like the idea of having squares become "safe" or useless
  4. 12 Jul '06 17:10
    Originally posted by cheshirecatstevens
    yea after i thought about it a side needs reciprocity to defend a piece.
    but i like the idea of having squares become "safe" or useless
    I guess the game would end up featuring a *lot* of outposts, eg 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Qxd4, and the queen need never move again! Probably very strategic version of chess, not very tactical... Interesting idea anyhow...
  5. 12 Jul '06 18:06
    Originally posted by TommyC
    Wouldn't captures then become completely deadly? eg. 1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6 3. Qxf7, and there is no way black can prevent QxK next move! Perhaps there should be two captures per square allowed - one for each opponent?
    I like the idea. But would it be possible to just make some sort of cacoon around your king where he has two "safe squares to move back and forth and have a bunch of pieces around him that are on safe sqares blocking attackers? Knight play would be huge it that is the case.
  6. 12 Jul '06 22:46
    Originally posted by Gammastyle
    I like the idea. But would it be possible to just make some sort of cacoon around your king where he has two "safe squares to move back and forth and have a bunch of pieces around him that are on safe sqares blocking attackers? Knight play would be huge it that is the case.
    Good point. Maybe there would need to be a special rule for kings - like kings are always capturable and mateable, irrespective of the squares history?
  7. 13 Jul '06 14:44
    In normal chess, White only has a small advantage -

    but if you play a varient (atomic --where peices explode) white, simply for moving first gains a huge advantage - even with perfect play by black white can still (quite easily) win.

    thats the problem with most varients - its imbalenced - which maywell be a problem here....perhaps a win could simply be forced from move 1.
  8. 13 Jul '06 16:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Shinidoki
    In normal chess, White only has a small advantage -

    but if you play a varient (atomic --where peices explode) white, simply for moving first gains a huge advantage - even with perfect play by black white can still (quite easily) win.

    thats the problem with most varients - its imbalenced - which maywell be a problem here....perhaps a win could simply be forced from move 1.
    I think this variant (with the two captures per square rule) would not suffer from that though.

    Btw, I've been playing Kung Fu Chess at http://www.shizmoo.com/ (only works in IE.) Anyone else play there? That game completely eliminates the difference between white and black, as both sides can move all of the time.
  9. Subscriber BigDoggProblemonline
    The Advanced Mind
    13 Jul '06 21:23
    It seems like a hassle to always have to be checking which squares are 'safe' and which are 'captureable'.
  10. 15 Jul '06 04:46
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    It seems like a hassle to always have to be checking which squares are 'safe' and which are 'captureable'.
    i think that OTB games you can just add a penny to inactive squares. If you play a site like this i think the programe is simple.
  11. Standard member UmbrageOfSnow
    All Bark, No Bite
    15 Jul '06 05:56
    Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
    It seems like a hassle to always have to be checking which squares are 'safe' and which are 'captureable'.
    If it is on computer, you would want to have it set up so that "safe" squares changed color. So you wouldn't always have to look it up, it would be right there on the board and impossible to forget.