Ram chess

Originally posted by tomtom232
Pawns aren't pieces and pieces aren't pawns. When you are up a [b]pawn you trade off the pieces. When you are down a pawn you trade off the pawns

You seem to think that what might rarely happen is just as good as if it didn't happen at all. The fact that it COULD possibly happen is a flaw. Simulations aren't everything, you have ...[text shortened]... to assume the worse and imagine scenarios in which your rules will "ram" into one another.[/b]

…Pawns aren't pieces and pieces aren't pawns..…

I apologies -I was not aware of that aspect of chess terminology.
I always thought pawns were “pieces”.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Pawns aren't pieces and pieces aren't pawns..…

I apologies -I was not aware of that aspect of chess terminology.
I always thought pawns were “pieces”.[/b]

Pawns and pieces are both chessmen but "pawn" and "piece" are not interchangeable. You have a good idea here, you just have to refine it. Who knows, maybe it will turn out to be a successful but be prepared to have idea after idea thrown out the window before you land the big one. First ideas for inventions rarely work out the first time. Keep your chin up though and never give up.

As far as I understand the term piece is used very loosely indeed. Some mean every chess man, some mean all but the pawns and sometimes just bishops and knights eg "up a rook for a piece" , "got three pieces for the queen" etc

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
On reflection I think if my restrictive “white’s first move” rule proves to be generally unpopular with players then I should get rid of it. The question is WOULD it be unpopular?

I like to try and start a mini-opinion pole here:

Should I get rid of the “white’s first move” rule from rum chess -yes or no?

-if enough people answer and the majority say yes then I will officially get rid of that rule.

I'm against the restriction on the Whte's first move.
Regards.