3 ms·

Very few of these rules make sense without more clarifying rules. Never-mind the impossibility of Kings playing en-passant, there is also the concept introduce

Very 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Sorry, I meant b8 not a7.
- zuminator 4y ago
  I 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
bena 4y ago
With a 4 sided die, the game will end on the first turn about 6% of the time. The Scholar's mate takes 4 moves. And if the other player rolls a 1, then it's a win for white. Yeah, kings playing en-passant, rule 2, seems useless. The king moves in all eight directions, you can just like, take the piece. If the two kings try to pass each other, the passing king will check the opposing king, end the turn, then you just take the piece. Unless you're automatically checking the piece when your turn starts, in that case, it's just a stalemate as each king is checking the other at the start of the turn and ending the turn. Third rule is just promotion but for all pieces. This is just saying "and everything becomes a queen". Fourth rule is just a more relaxed version of castling. Fifth rule is to just get new pieces on the board, because otherwise, the game ends in a draw. No one is going to willingly put their king next to the other king. Also "starting position" is kind of nebulous. There are 8 of them. Do I get to choose which column to start the pawn on? After that, it's just a race to promotion. The rule about allowing another turn after check just extends the game. And unless you roll a 1, you should be able to get out of most checkmates. This is adding more rules, not adding complexity. Every rule is to make the game easier, removing restrictions. The die lets you get around the 1 move per turn rule. Rule 2 is pretty much for decoration. Rule 3 gets you faster promotions. It's about who can get to the opposite row first. Rule 4 makes castling easier. Rule 5 is about not wanting a draw. Because with Rule 1, sometimes the king can take a queen with no assistance. This is a game the creator thinks is brilliant and thinks shows how smart they are because they are virtually undefeated because all of their opponents eventually get tired of playing because it's just so tedious. It's like all the rules added to Monopoly. They're all to make the game "more fair" or "better", but all they wind up doing is making the game take longer because no one wins.
- Someone 4y ago
  > Also "starting position" is kind of nebulous. There are 8 of them. Do I get to choose which column to start the pawn on? I think you would have to. If the location is predictable, my king would be next to the place that pawn spawns at, ready to take it. If you can choose the column, my king would be in one of the four center fields, and still would win the race to take it, but if you’re smart, you place one in column A first, force me to run there, and then place one in column H. On the other hand, once you’re on the last row, you can spawn a new pawn every second move, but so, likely, can I. This might be interesting to analyze.
dev_tty01 4y ago
It is for fun. If any thing needs to be clarified, you and your opponent make a decision and then play the game. Maybe you do multiple games using different variants and see what works best. I don't think the author is proposing a new game standard. They are just trying to describe a variant that they found enjoyable. I agree that some things need to be clarified, but that's part of the fun. You are correct that this does point out the difficulty in converting home-brew to a formalized game. However, that doesn't make it nonsense. Just think of it as a good starting point.
cactacea 4y ago
> Never-mind the impossibility of Kings playing en-passant, Players can make more than one move: "Each player rolls the die, and the number is the amount of turns each player has."
- anonymoushn 4y ago
  Can you explain your interpretation of the rule so that other people who think it means something can compare notes? For pawns, en-pessant means "a pawn may, during the move immediately following another pawn's move, capture another pawn that has chosen to move two spaces in one move as if it had only moved one space." I think for kings you would like to say "a king may, during the sequence of many consecutive moves by the same player, capture another king that immediately before has made many moves in a row by attacking a space it moved into in one of those moves but no longer occupies."
anonymoushn 4y ago
> What does it mean to castle with both rooks? Is that a typo for "either"? The king moves two squares in both directions (you have two kings now) and the rooks move to the other sides of the kings, so you finally have KR_RK where you had __K__ before.

vlovich123 4y ago

I 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 ago
Sorry, I meant b8 not a7.
zuminator 4y ago
I 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

bena 4y ago

With a 4 sided die, the game will end on the first turn about 6% of the time. The Scholar's mate takes 4 moves. And if the other player rolls a 1, then it's a win for white. Yeah, kings playing en-passant, rule 2, seems useless. The king moves in all eight directions, you can just like, take the piece. If the two kings try to pass each other, the passing king will check the opposing king, end the turn, then you just take the piece. Unless you're automatically checking the piece when your turn starts, in that case, it's just a stalemate as each king is checking the other at the start of the turn and ending the turn. Third rule is just promotion but for all pieces. This is just saying "and everything becomes a queen". Fourth rule is just a more relaxed version of castling. Fifth rule is to just get new pieces on the board, because otherwise, the game ends in a draw. No one is going to willingly put their king next to the other king. Also "starting position" is kind of nebulous. There are 8 of them. Do I get to choose which column to start the pawn on? After that, it's just a race to promotion. The rule about allowing another turn after check just extends the game. And unless you roll a 1, you should be able to get out of most checkmates. This is adding more rules, not adding complexity. Every rule is to make the game easier, removing restrictions. The die lets you get around the 1 move per turn rule. Rule 2 is pretty much for decoration. Rule 3 gets you faster promotions. It's about who can get to the opposite row first. Rule 4 makes castling easier. Rule 5 is about not wanting a draw. Because with Rule 1, sometimes the king can take a queen with no assistance. This is a game the creator thinks is brilliant and thinks shows how smart they are because they are virtually undefeated because all of their opponents eventually get tired of playing because it's just so tedious. It's like all the rules added to Monopoly. They're all to make the game "more fair" or "better", but all they wind up doing is making the game take longer because no one wins.

Someone 4y ago
> Also "starting position" is kind of nebulous. There are 8 of them. Do I get to choose which column to start the pawn on? I think you would have to. If the location is predictable, my king would be next to the place that pawn spawns at, ready to take it. If you can choose the column, my king would be in one of the four center fields, and still would win the race to take it, but if you’re smart, you place one in column A first, force me to run there, and then place one in column H. On the other hand, once you’re on the last row, you can spawn a new pawn every second move, but so, likely, can I. This might be interesting to analyze.

dev_tty01 4y ago

It is for fun. If any thing needs to be clarified, you and your opponent make a decision and then play the game. Maybe you do multiple games using different variants and see what works best. I don't think the author is proposing a new game standard. They are just trying to describe a variant that they found enjoyable. I agree that some things need to be clarified, but that's part of the fun. You are correct that this does point out the difficulty in converting home-brew to a formalized game. However, that doesn't make it nonsense. Just think of it as a good starting point.

cactacea 4y ago

> Never-mind the impossibility of Kings playing en-passant, Players can make more than one move: "Each player rolls the die, and the number is the amount of turns each player has."

anonymoushn 4y ago
Can you explain your interpretation of the rule so that other people who think it means something can compare notes? For pawns, en-pessant means "a pawn may, during the move immediately following another pawn's move, capture another pawn that has chosen to move two spaces in one move as if it had only moved one space." I think for kings you would like to say "a king may, during the sequence of many consecutive moves by the same player, capture another king that immediately before has made many moves in a row by attacking a space it moved into in one of those moves but no longer occupies."

anonymoushn 4y ago

> What does it mean to castle with both rooks? Is that a typo for "either"? The king moves two squares in both directions (you have two kings now) and the rooks move to the other sides of the kings, so you finally have KR_RK where you had __K__ before.