h a l f b a k e r ySugar and spice and unfettered insensibility.
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,
|
|
|
Pacifist Chess
In a world of "pawn for a pawn" we all end up pawnless. | |
One side can only retreat. Allow some latitude to the
direction pieces can move so they won't get cornered.
The only way to win on the pacifist side is hope the other
guy
gets tired of hunting down and killing your pieces and
gets
bored.
Great for guys like Richard Gere who are better
than the
rest
of us.
That first bone is mine by the way.
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.
Annotation:
|
| |
Wouldn't work. Many moves are offensive and defensive at
the same time. |
|
| |
I'll see your first bone and raise you a [mfd] no idea. So what's with "Richard Gere" ? |
|
| |
Sorry, I'm being a pacifist on this one. Not
participating in any arguments at this time. |
|
| |
Plus it's a stupid idea anyway. |
|
| |
or white feather chess where both sides avoid each other like the plague. kind of "h's dodgy chess" |
|
| |
How about going the other way, boxing chess? Where
the players box and play chess at the same time. |
|
| |
The trick is picking up the pieces with boxing gloves. |
|
| |
That and getting punched in the face while trying to
move a piece. |
|
| |
I suppose chess as a drinking game is baked to death. |
|
| |
I thought chess was a drinking game. |
|
| |
Can't see this one being a big seller to Klingons ... |
|
| |
boxing chess already exists its pretty populare. |
|
| |
I like it. In pacifist (or pacification) chess, taking a pawn could cost ten bucks for housing and education. Actually winning the game could cost a thousand. That would go for hunting down rogue pieces that won't surrender, and for nation building. |
|
| |
Is that pacifist chess or no socialist chess? |
|
| |
Every non threatening move must be followed by the
words "g'day mate". |
|
| |
Pacifist chess would have to involve some complex
negotiation resulting in the marriage of one of the
Bishops of one side to one of the Knights of the
other, thereby unifying the opposing kingdoms |
|
| |
So what you're saying is... French chess? |
|
| |
At risk of taking seriously what’s not intended to be, any game where the object is to bore a player so much he stops is rather a meta-game, and a necessarily a boring one – rather a recipe for popular failure. |
|
| |
There are already a lot of chess variant. One a little like this idea is “reverse chess”, where players must make a capture if one is possible, and the object of the game is to be the first to lose all your pieces (the King has no special capturing rules, and can be captured without ending the game). Another is “loser chess”, where the object of the game is to force your opponent to checkmate you. |
|
| |
With a “one side can only retreat” rule, you’d obviously have to have a non-standard board and/or setup, as in the standard one, no piece can retreat in its first move. |
|
| |
I can imagine a variant that might be called “pacifist” (pacifist is not a synonym for "one who wants to lose"!), where the player who has captured the fewest pieces when a checkmate or other game-ending condition (eg: advancing a pawn to the 8th rank; a standard rules draw) occurs is the winner. It’s so obvious, it might already have been played seriously somewhere and when. From playing one game with myself, it appears an interesting variant. |
|
| |
I would think that in serious Pacifist Chess, each side starts by agreeing a bilateral treaty about where the border between their territories lie. Then during subsequent moves, each is careful not to move a piece over the border unless forced to, or unless they have received an official invitation from their opponent. |
|
| |