h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This is a larger-than-life chessboard on which the players themselves are the pieces. There is one player for each piece. Verbal and written communication are strictly off-limits except when the King and Queen call out which piece they want to move. They have no power to rule, except to choose which
piece
moves on their turn. And the King and Queen swap executive authority each turn, so one move the king gets to decide who moves, the next it's the queen's decision.
Each player makes his/her own decision on where to move when called upon to act, within the bounds of their piece's traditional limitations. This gives the pawns almost no flexibility at all, except deciding if they want to attack or not, but the rooks, knights, and bishops have a lot of power at their disposal. Your male bishop is within striking range of that cute female knight, the one with shimmering blonde hair, sparkling blue eyes, lush red lips... and she's been flirting with him. Will he have the loyalty and dedication to strike when called upon, or will he sacrifice himself or a teammate to win the fair maiden's heart? It's his call, not yours, and no matter what he does, you must continue the game until there is a winner. Did you choose wisely when assembling your team?
This is a game of hidden agendas, trust, and individual ability. It is a game of faith in your fellows, and trust in your subordinates, for as King and Queen you must assemble your team from the most skilled, and most of all trustworthy, individuals, players with a working knowledge of teamwork, who can silently coordinate strategies with each other. More than anything, it is a game of anarchy, because you never *know* what your pieces will do when called upon to act. This is Anarchist Chess! A game of intrigue, suspense, and shocking twists. Do you have what it takes to win?
They call me 'Muse'
http://www.halfbake...om/idea/Usurp Chess
[theleopard, Oct 29 2007]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Awesome. I predict whole french loaves. |
|
| |
You only 'came back' because you had this idea! Which sounds fun.
|
|
| |
If the queen is 'killed', is her decision making power passed on to the next ranking piece?
|
|
| |
If it is the king's turn to call the tune, can he tell the queen what to do? Vice versa? Can anyone breeze past the formerly powerful queen, as long as they time it for the king's turn? |
|
| |
Actually, I came back because I had a sudden rash of ideas as soon as I committed to not posting anymore ideas, which resulted in excruciating frustraion, which defeated the whole purpose of my sabbatical. This was one of them, granted. I figured I'd spare my fellow 'bakers the rash and just post one or 2, because most of them are pretty shabby.
|
|
| |
1) I was thinking for the queen, that if she is killed then exectuive authority falls entirely upon the king, until one of his pawns reaches the far side, then that piece assumes the full power of the Queen, and the separation of power is re-instated.
|
|
| |
2) Neither the King nor Queen can tell anyone what to do, this is the whole point. The King can 'ask' the Queen to move just like any other piece, but also like any other piece, the Queen can move anywhere she wants within a queen's range limitations, or choose to ignore the directive entirely and remain where she is. The Queen has the same authority over the King.
|
|
| |
3) What do you mean by "breeze past the formerly powerful queen"? She still occupies the space she is on, so if she is physically blocking a pawn from moving, then, no, that pawn cannot move past her. Same applies to every piece.
|
|
| |
4) Just to clarify, no piece may move at all unless directed by a monarch. However, to add an extra layer of intrigue to the game, the rules do allow for a monarch from the opposing team to order your pieces to move, just as if you had issued the directive, and your players are allowed to act on it. Your team is naturally expected to ignore your opponents. But will they...? |
|
| |
What I meant was, if the queen is immobile on the kings turn, she would leave vast sections of the board undefended half the time. But she is not, apparently. |
|
| |
Ah... no, she is not immobile. |
|
| |
Could you repeat that last paragraph in the movie preview voice, maybe add some ominous music and sound effects. And lightning, right around the "shocking twists" part. That would be awesome. |
|
| |
You could decide who moves by yelling 1 2 3 then whoever says IT first wins, but more than likely it will just be a big argument about who said it first. So the winner is clearly who shouts the loudest, but wait, how bout duking it out for the winner of who moves, but instead of moving, the winner is just the winner. |
|
| |
In true Anarchist Chess the King and Queen would have no power to tell anyone anything. |
|
| |
In true Anarchist Chess the players sit around smoking dope, bitching about how badly the world sucks, talking about what they'll do after graduation and finally deciding by committee to order pizza. |
|
| |
In true Anarchist Chess various parts of the board will have been staked out by rival factions and the board itself will have been heavily modified with trap doors, bunkers and secret passages. |
|
| |
In true Anarchist Chess your best laid strategies gang aft agley. |
|
| |
What happens when multiple pawns reach the other side of the board? In traditional chess, any number of these can be converted into any piece desired (usually a queen or knight, due to their unusual movement patterns) excepting of course another king. |
|
| |
ye_river_xiv, does it really matter? You have to remember that there are strict rules and regulations governing Anarchist Chess, that are subsequently ignored. |
|
| |
This could be the base of a very intersting movie structure and plot... |
|
| |
See? Look, an original idea. |
|
| |
ye_river_xiv: Then you just have a bunch of madwomen running around doing what they damn well please. A lot like real life. |
|
| |
Bah. In true anarchist chess, the pawns from both sides refuse to fight the bosses' war, throw down their arms, form an international worker's collective and overthrow the ruling class bishops, knights and royalty. Then get mown down by the Bolsheviks. |
|
| |
[BunsenHoneydew] That's the historical version. The modern day version looks alot like Iraq. |
|
| |
Another twist to throw in: In order to 'encourage' the play to continue as war, the pieces could be required to start their lives as pawns, but then as they earn more experience in games they can 'graduate' to knights, bishops, rooks, etc. until they are finally allowed to be kings or queens and run their own game. We could call it 'Corporate Ladder Chess.' Glass ceilings optional. |
|
| |
I always thought that chess was a fairly good description of the politics of court, and had been used as a way of teaching young monarchs how to recognise different characters and understand methods of playing one group of people off against another.
|
|
| |
RayfordSteele, that sounds like an intriguing version, and could be played on a regular board, too. Have a multi-game tournament where both players start out with 1 king and 15 pawns. Any pawns that make it to the far side are promoted the next game, one team gets knights, the other gets bishops. From then on, you get to use whatever you capture, say if your pawn takes a rival knight, you lose the pawn but gain the knight. Remaining pawns get promoted later, which can get very complicated, but isn't that so befitting a corporate ladder version? |
|
| |