Check out Janggi (Korean Chess), our featured variant for December, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments by Henk Drost

Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later
Simplified Makpong. Makruk variant.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Henk Drost wrote on Sun, Apr 11, 2021 11:39 AM UTC:

While I obviously like this variant. I've also been thinking about maybe replacing the Rook with another piece.

As the sole long range piece it can feel a little out of place.

Maybe simply reducing the range of the Rook is already enough but one of the pizza king pieces could be cool too: https://www.chessvariants.com/unequal.dir/pizza-kings.html

Even a weird piece like the sausage will be scary in this variant and will keep the battles local.


💡📝Henk Drost wrote on Sun, Apr 11, 2021 07:11 PM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from 06:26 PM:

I first learned about "Makpong" on Github from this pull request:

https://github.com/cutechess/cutechess/pull/626

The only real problem I have with this is that it still has the counting rule from Makruk. It's a little confusing and I can't describe it very well so I hope this wiki article describes it well enough for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makruk

With my proposed simplification the counting rule gets removed. The 50 move rule and 3-fold repetition we all know and love takes its place instead.


💡📝Henk Drost wrote on Sun, Apr 11, 2021 07:31 PM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from 06:39 PM:

what means "if in range"? Does that just means that the King may capture an attacking piece? If the attacking piece is not 1-square away from the King I don't see how the K would have been able to capture it anyway.

You're right. The K may only move out of a check if it can capture its (singular) attacker.

If the attacking piece is more than 1 square away, it obviously can't.

and what means "capture out of double check". Here I understand that if 2 pieces are attacking the K, he cannot capture both of them. But that is trivial too, no?

It means that if the K is double checked, it is not allowed to move out of the double check. Not even by capturing one of the attackers.

So I guess that the important rule is that when a K is under check he can capture the attacking piece but it is forbidden to move the K out of check, to interpose a piece between the K and the attacking piece, or to take the attacking piece with another piece than the K. Is it correct? Or to say that when a K is under check, the only authorized move is if the K can capture the attacking piece.

I'll rewrite it to be more clear.

The important rule is that K can't move out of a check, except when it can capture its (singular) attacker. Other pieces are free to move, provided they're legal moves.

interpose a piece between the K and the attacking piece

This is legal.

take the attacking piece with another piece than the K

Also legal.


💡📝Henk Drost wrote on Mon, Apr 12, 2021 10:33 AM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from Sun Apr 11 08:19 PM:

Maybe an idea if I change the name to reduce confusion in the future?

Also I have already changed some lines to make the rules more clear, but maybe there are some other additions I can make.


4 comments displayed

Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.