9 ms·
4-Die Chess
- rawling 4y agoWhy do kings need en-passant?
- clan 4y agoIt seems like they play until you have a winner. With only kings left (with normal chess rules) you would have a remis (draw). Kings are simply not allowed to move into a threatened position. Edit: No it does not make much sense. Re-read the rules. I'll be the old grump who prefers the old vanilla boring rules.
- rawling 4y agoYeah, but I don't see how en passant helps with this. If you can get them en passant by going diagonally, you can get them normally by going sideways, but they'd have just taken you instead of passing in the first place...
- marcofiset 4y agoI don't know and it's not even possible. One of the kings would need to get next to the other, which is an illegal move.
- jjnoakes 4y agoOne king can walk two spaces on a turn without getting too close to the other king. Then the other king might roll high enough to land on a square that the first king passed through on the previous turn.
- jstanley 4y agoWhat's the benefit of rolling a 4-sided die to decide who goes first, over flipping a coin? Each player has 50% chance of going first, except with a single coin flip there can't be a tie.
- tromp 4y agoIt fits in with the overall theme of adding unnecessary complexity:-?
- backpackviolet 4y agoUses the D4 motif that this variant is based on? If anything, why have a coin flip to resolve the tie? Just re-roll the D4 and stay in-universe
- Karliss 4y agoI guess this might be due to using the same dice to decide how many moves you can do in each turn.
- verytrivial 4y agoI think they're non-binary.
- wang_li 4y agoHow does one decide who flips the coin. Whoever flips is at a disadvantage since the coin is flipped on a tie of die roles. The outcomes of the flip are another die roll or the other player goes. Also quite strange that you can't quit until there are 3 pieces per player left. How is that supposed to be enforced? Domestic violence or something?
- marcofiset 4y agoI would've liked an explanation on why each of these rules were added to the game. As an advanced-beginner chess player, most of those new rules add needless complexity to the game and seem to serve absolutely no purpose. > Each player rolls the die, and the number is the amount of turns each player has. I'll have to think about this. My knee-jerk reaction was to call this "absolutely ridiculous". It may hold some potential upon further thought.
- twright 4y agoI mostly agree but I think the complexity is explicitly the purpose and some people like that.
- tetha 4y ago> I'll have to think about this. My knee-jerk reaction was to call this "absolutely ridiculous". It may hold some potential upon further thought. I'm not sure, but my gut feeling is that every roll above 3 and maybe even equal to 3 is an immediate checkmate or at the very least a crushing advantage. Like, rolling a 4 on the first move wins the game, rolling a 3 wins the queen, ... that much tempo is devastating. However, it does remind me of a rather funny chess variant. In that variant, each player has three D6 and each face value corresponds to a piece - 1 for a pawn, 2 for a knight, and so on. Each turn, you roll your 3 dice and you can make one move with either of the pieces you rolled. This ends up being pretty instructive, because you really have to activate all pieces because you might not roll your most active pieces on a turn.
- backpackviolet 4y ago> Like, rolling a 4 on the first move wins the game No, that and your checkmate concerns are almost certainly why they came up with this rule: “The rest of a piece's moves are forfeited if a check is obtained.” So you cannot move and strike the King is the same moveset, and your opponent will have 1-4 moves to counter/flee.
- Hasu 4y ago1. e4 2. Bc4 3. Qf3 4. Qxf7 (or the same with turns 2 and 3 reversed, the final move can also be the bishop) wins with the first check being a checkmate.
- twright 4y agoIf the player going first rolls 4 or more they can checkmate? e4 Bc4 Qf3 Qf7# (for White with a mirror equivalent for Black) With closer reading I think there’s a missing rule where you just move a single piece that many times?
- backpackviolet 4y agoNo, there is a rule in there that pieces causing Check forfeit further moves.
- vlovich123 4y agoThere is no check in op’s stated list of moves
- jjnoakes 4y agoI assume it is only checkmate if black's reply can't get him out of check by the end of his turn.
- dmos62 4y agoCheers. I find it stimulating when people rethink something that's seemingly set in stone. Rules for chess in this case.
- karmakurtisaani 4y agoThere are actually dozens of chess variants out there. Yet, the classic version seems to remain the most popular.
- ZetaZero 4y agoToday's "classic version" is just a variant that allows pawns to move two squares on their first move.
- karmakurtisaani 4y agoYou know, at this point I can't even imagine HN without the all encompassing pedantry.
- cyrialize 4y agoIs this in reference to how chess was played in India (Chaturanga)? I've been reading a book on Sultan Khan [0], and it talks about the many different ways Chess was played. Interestingly enough, the only common rule amongst all the different versions of Chess (since it changed depending on where you lived) was that the pawn always went one space. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Sultan-Khan-Servant-Champion-British/dp/9056918745 https://www.amazon.com/Sultan-Khan-Servant-Champion-British/...
- xnorswap 4y agoVery few of these rules make sense without more clarifying rules. Never-mind the impossibility of Kings playing en-passant, there is also the concept introduced of "higher piece" without defining an order. Can a bishop upgrade to a knight? Can a knight upgrade to a Bishop? Can a rook upgrade to a bishop? Despite the popular "valuing" of pieces, they aren't actually in the rules of chess and need to be stated. > If a king is within its starting row, it can castle with both rooks. What does it mean to castle with both rooks? Is that a typo for "either"? Also it seems to suggest that you can move the king along the starting rank and still castle later. How would that work if your king was on b8 for example? This is a strange kind of nonsense. It shows the difficulty of translating some home-brew rules into actual rules that others can follow.
- vlovich123 4y agoI agree but not for the reasons you’ve stated. The rules you have complaints about seem to have straightforward interpretations. On reaching the last row it’s the same promotion rules as pawns. Re castling what they’re saying is that you can keep castling with rooks provided your king has never left the home row (ie the rook would have to leave to let you castle with the other one). A7 implies the king has left the home row and can no longer castle. I do agree that there is ambiguity to clarify though: * where is the castled position when the rooks aren’t in their starting position? * what on earth does en pessant mean for kings?
- xnorswap 4y agoSorry, I meant b8 not a7.
- zuminator 4y agoI thought the castling section meant, not that they could castle multiple times, but that unlike normal chess they could still castle after moving the king as long as it remained in the home row. You might very well be correct though. So I agree with the previous poster that there's too much ambiguity here. One thing I'd like to know is the ELO rating of the variant creator. Is this a game that someone who understands standard chess very well came up with and play-tested, or is it a game that someone with passing familiarity with chess thought of off the cuff? If the latter, the chances that the game is a well-balanced variant are not so high. Also, is "baring" a typo for "barring"? Finally it should be noted that dice chess is already a thing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_chess https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice_chess
- m_eiman 4y agoOne of my ideas for a toy project is Schrödinger´s Chess or perhaps Quantum Chess: when you move a piece, you can move it to any and all possible squares at the same time - your piece is on all of the squares you've placed it, so in your opponent's next move they can eliminate your piece by attacking any of the positions it's currently in. In your own next move, you can move the piece from any of the positions it's currently in and place it in a new set of positions. Eliminating or moving a piece removes it from all positions it's currently in.
- dfan 4y agoYou may be interested in Quantum Chess (https://quantumchess.net/how-to-play/ https://quantumchess.net/how-to-play/).
- blowski 4y agoI really like the challenge of taking a well-known set of rules and adding some new ones. I'd like the author to clarify a few of the questions, but the spirit of this is great.
- j_m_b 4y agoTo determine who goes first, you can just have one player select even or odd, then both role dice. The even/odd of the sum of both dice determines who goes first.
- isolli 4y agoThis is my favorite chess variation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bughouse_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bughouse_chess
- Imnimo 4y ago>The opposing player has 1-turn to defend, or remove, the king from danger. Does this mean that if I am put in check, regardless of what I roll on the die, my king must be out of danger after my first move?
- mark_l_watson 4y agoNot for me, but each to their own. I like to play Stockfish, with the playing level set so I win or lose about half the time. For dice games, Backgammon is just about a perfect game, and skill matters.
- timbit42 4y agoNo game with random elements (eg. dice) can ever be perfect.
- bena 4y agoI don't think he's using it in the same manner you may be. A game can have random elements and still be "perfect". Because his perfect game may be a game where he can lose due to variance. There is something to seeing if you can play around variance. That way there's always a way the game can be challenging. Unlike games with perfect information and no variance. Those games can be completely solved (given enough resources). And I think that's what you're thinking of, games with perfect information.
- olddustytrail 4y agoThis article is not intended to be serious. Read the rules carefully: none of them make sense.
- atilimcetin 4y agoMy favorite chess variant is duck chess: https://duckchess.com/ https://duckchess.com/ (and HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31429290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31429290)
- yewenjie 4y agoAfter something like 1.e4 (or basically any move) if black gets 4 moves, they can just checkmate white and the game ends.
- diamondage 4y agoThere have been many chess variants and I always feel that adding randomness is a little sloppy. There is one awesome variant called 'retrospective chess' - the piece you move dictates how ALL your pieces move on the next turn. Crazy checkmate, instant pawns to queens, a whole new intuition. Mindbendingly good.
- kazinator 4y ago> If both players roll the same, a coin-flip is used to determine a re-roll or if the turn goes to the other player. Why wouldn't you just flip the coin and be done with it? The simplest procedure that produces a 50% probability is best; why invent a complicated protocol that is equivalent to a coin toss and possibly includes one. Or, for that matter, to avoid the proliferation of random devices, why not treat a four-sided-die as a coin for the purposes of determining who goes first. 1 or 2, first is you; 4 or 3, it goes to me.
- dikaio 4y agoLost me at needing to roll dice in order to play chess, thank you but no thank you.