Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Madness of Kings Chess. The Kings are, simply put, insane!! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Charles Gilman wrote on Wed, Jan 31, 2007 08:48 AM UTC:

It is harder to visualise corner arrays from the notation that you use. Why not put them into ffen diagrams as and (select Source from the View menu to see how that is done)?

💡📝Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Wed, Jan 31, 2007 02:01 PM UTC:

Well, I did what I could .. Thanks for the comment

Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Jan 31, 2007 04:51 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

A very interesting Modest Variant and comment on things in general. This game gives you a very good reason to castle and put the king into his padded cell fortress, for everyone's protection. Endgames in this could get a little bizarre - love to see some. I don't fully understand the 'move the enemy king into check but not checkmate' rule, though. All in all, a very nice idea.

💡📝Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Thu, Feb 1, 2007 12:04 AM UTC:

Thanks for the rating...

As for the check but not checkmate part, well.. emm...

Assuming the endgame of two rooks v lone king. The stronger side will put
the two rooks on the files a and b then simply throw the enemy king on the
a file .. checkmate. This is illegal. But throwing him on the b file,
giving merely check, is legal.

Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Feb 1, 2007 12:59 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Ah, of course! Pardon the brain-glitch. The more I think about it, the more
I like this game. I think it's an excellent modest variant*: a single,
really sneaky idea that should have more and more effect as the game goes
on and piece density drops. But even in the beginning, a player has to be
careful to not lose control of his or her king. Everything needs to be
carefully choreographed to keep the king surrounded and under control at
all times. Castling is apparently far more difficult, as once you clear
the pieces between the K and R out, your opponent can just move the king
2, blocking the rook into the corner and requiring some serious
maneuvering to free it without exposing the king to madness. Is this not
true? I might like a few more pieces to keep the king calm; now I see some
good use for all those pieces in some large variants... ;-) You might try
this in Rennchess or some of the Great chesses.
*That's why I've rated it again, this time as a modest variant.

Gary Gifford wrote on Thu, Feb 1, 2007 01:50 AM UTC:

I like the idea of the crazy Kings very much - but, how is the game won?
Rule 3 states: 'The king may place himself in check, but NOT checkmate.'
If the King is placed in Check by its owner, can the other side capture the
King?

Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Feb 1, 2007 03:30 AM UTC:

Hey, Gary - you just made the same mistake I did - if white moves black's king into check, then it's black's turn to move the black king back out of check. It's a devilish little game idea, featuring kings racing to destruction. Joe

💡📝Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Thu, Feb 1, 2007 01:01 PM UTC:

Exactly. The player owning the king must not put his king in check, but he
may put his enemy's king.

As for the Castling problem, this is why I preferred the Diagonal starting
positions. The king is already smothered.

Thanks for the comments.

Gary Gifford wrote on Fri, Feb 2, 2007 12:08 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Thanks Abdul-Rahman Sibahi, and Joe - Abdul is correct, I mentioned the 'owner' putting his own King in check (Joe, this is not the same as your trick; different King involved). Thus, as Abdul-Rahman states, 'The player owning the king must not put his king in check . . .' - My main point then, can one win by capturing a King? Or is checkmate the only way?

9 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.