Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

King to Bunker Leap. King can jump over own pieces to reach 1 of 2 bunker positions in Shuffle Chess or Pre-Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Jose Carrillo wrote on Thu, Nov 5, 2009 04:39 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

Nice! The Bunker Leap is simple, yet efficient!

I like it!

Do you have any special notation to denote this leap?

i.e. Kd>>g1 or something like that?

I will adapt this rule to my Contemporary Random Chess game, which already features symmetrical castling with the King ending on the b & g squares.

Well done Charles!

💡📝Charles Daniel wrote on Thu, Nov 5, 2009 05:11 PM UTC:

Thanks for your comment..
I dont have any special notation -- it may not be necessary. 
I will add a zillions preset that plays both shuffle chess and prechess using these new rules soon.

Jose Carrillo wrote on Fri, Nov 6, 2009 03:16 AM UTC:

I'm going to adopt the algebraic notation below for your Bunker Leap in my variants:

Kx>>yy

Where x is the departure square for the King and yy the destination square of the Bunker Leap (b1, g1, b8, g8)

Kd>>g1 = King leaps from d(1) square to g1.

George Duke wrote on Thu, Dec 10, 2009 06:42 PM UTC:

This is one of Charles Daniel's odd little proposals, re-applying an old method, qualifying within the Next Chess group. It's a small idea if it ever gets outside attention and potentially important. The difficulty is that with Mutators and slight piece changes, different designers' recommendations for serious reform add up to hundreds. They range from Lasker's switching N&B, to Capablanca's replacing King's Bishop with Carrera piece, to Neto's list of Mutators, to Betza's like Black Ghost to Quintanilla's generalized Switching. Taken two at a time instead of one at a time, there are millions of ways to go. Small-size 64 squares are likely doomed for the dust-bin of history. There is the obvious growing consensus on that case. Otherwise here, why would a good player like Daniels go the trouble of making this particular near-Chess? None of the combinations of changes, from castling to scoring or anything else, whether within Random schema or not, seem satisfactory to save little 64 squares. European Shatranj lasted 500 years and so did Mad Queen.

💡📝Charles Daniel wrote on Thu, Dec 10, 2009 07:51 PM UTC:

One thing that interested readers might notice about this:  If the pieces were set up as in std chess - the game would still be slightly different: 
- a-side castling would not be same. 
- King can bunker leap after the rooks are moved. So one can develop the rook and then still 'jump' the king to 'safety' 


The reason I create and play chess variants is because of my profound interest in chess-like games. I like variety and do not want to limit myself to one form of chess. 
That being said, it is quite obvious that the number playing chess variants has been quite small. I certainly don't see myself as being in one camp vs the other. I don't see the popular form of chess as the 'ENEMY'. And I certainly cannot predict 200 yrs in the future and claim chess will be dead though it could very well be ..who knows? 
 I can guarantee though that in the near future 10-20 yrs or so orthodox chess will be as popular as it is now and will not decline. 
I think it is important to understand if the public loses interest in std chess, they surely will not be interested in any chess-like game on this site, so it isn't too wise in hoping for the demise of '64 sq chess' and corresponding emergence of 'next chess' - ain't gonna happen. 

On the other hand, getting new people interested in a variety of chess-like games - that could work ...

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Fri, Dec 11, 2009 08:56 PM UTC:

The reason I create and play chess variants is because of my profound interest in chess-like games. I like variety and do not want to limit myself to one form of chess. That being said, it is quite obvious that the number playing chess variants has been quite small. I certainly don't see myself as being in one camp vs the other. I don't see the popular form of chess as the 'ENEMY'. And I certainly cannot predict 200 yrs in the future and claim chess will be dead though it could very well be ..who knows?

I can guarantee though that in the near future 10-20 yrs or so orthodox chess will be as popular as it is now and will not decline. I think it is important to understand if the public loses interest in std chess, they surely will not be interested in any chess-like game on this site, so it isn't too wise in hoping for the demise of '64 sq chess' and corresponding emergence of 'next chess' - ain't gonna happen.

On the other hand, getting new people interested in a variety of chess-like games - that could work ...

I agree with these comments 100%. This is so much in line with my thinking on the subject, I could have written these words myself. I just didn't. Thanks for this articulate expression of my own opinions, Charles.

fischerplayed wrote on Sun, Jan 30, 2011 08:34 PM UTC:

King to Bunker Leap is a great modest variant. Anyone would be proud to try it at their local chess club. They are playing in the tournament.

7 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.