h a l f b a k e r yOh yeah? Well, eureka too.
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,
|
|
|
In this variation, each player's turn comprises one move and(/or) its associated command move: a "command" being the movement of a nearby piece(s) in addition to (or in the case of the King and Queen, in lieu of) the primary piece's move.
Able to move, or command several pieces:
- King: up to
three adjacent, or one adjacent and one subadjacent;
- Queen: two adjacent.
Able to move, and command one adjacent piece simultaneously:
- Rook: a Knight, Bishop or Pawn;
- Bishop or Knight: a Pawn.
Pawns can move but, as usual, can't command anybody... such is life.
Moves/commands are deemed concurrent: a piece cannot travel to/through a square occupied at the beginning of the turn.
----------------------------
As well, there's a couple interesting additions that can be made to the original premise for further variations...
Insecurity Chess:
A pawn won't move at all unless it is adjacent or subadjacent to (ie: within two squares of) a more powerful piece. It can only defend itself from an immediate threat by moving or attacking.
Explosion Chess:
Iterative commands: a commanded unit may itself issue commands.
[link]
|
| |
I like this because it would encourage the rooks to be "developed" early in the play. Currently, precious few chess games begin with 1. P-R4 to allow the rook to move freely. |
|
| |
True, hadn't thought of that... but in order to be an advantage you have to make use of the rook too. What I imagine is Kings Queens (and Rooks) all being brought upboard into play with a visual effect of being in charge and even leading troops into battle. |
|
| |
Picture a King surrounded by men; all of a sudden three of them shoot off to wage mayhem, followed in the next move by three more. |
|
| |
If you complicate this much further, you're going to be
playing
Warhammer 40,000. |
|
| |
The rules aren't that complicated: the tactics would be more involved of course. |
|
| |
[phun] Actually I still think the first few moves would be middle-of-the-row centric, but the Rook(s) would definitely come out much earlier than usual. |
|
| |
I prefer this to the //greased pig// version because the
equilibrium is engineered in a more computable way. The
equilibrium of play will always be reached, but in this
instance it can be promoted, or delayed, by both parties
with a slightly more predictable outcome ( as far as I
understand it). I am not convinced that this will lead to a
win/lose equilibrium, often. I wager that most games will
end in a stalemate equilibrium, a zero-zero equilibrium.
However, there may be an opportunity to measure that
stalemate in terms of "momentum" for want of a better
word. |
|
| |
For both Ideas the challenge was to write variants that would involve at least as much thought as the basic game, by extending the original paradigm in a natural direction and/or introducing a well understood outside paradigm, in this case that units are capable of some independent thought, in 'Greased Pig Chess' that travelling light allows one to travel fast. |
|
| |
Of course in this case it's at the expense of branding the game as being hierarchically arranged. |
|
| |
The difficult part was not turning either into "Mass Extinction Chess" by adding power without intuitive controls. In this Idea, without the restriction that the Queen and King remain stationary if commanding multiple pieces, it turns into a contest to see who can get Queen+Rook(s) together first to devastate the other ranks, or alternatively King+whatever slowly but surely burning through the far side of the board. In Command Chess, without the movement/tally restrictions put upon the King regarding check and capture tactics, stalemate is inevitable. |
|
| |
I've still two variants to post but... "PoW Chess", though well fleshed out, is stalled through the total inability to communicate in a manner both effective and concise the actually quite uncomplicated relationships of a PoW piece with pieces of either side. Cold War (aka "Plausible Deniability") Chess is also, perhaps ironically, floundering, pending some bolt-from-above inspiration as to how to distinguish reliable and rogue pieces without overly impeding gameflow due to excess "paperwork". |
|
| |