Single Comment

Christine Bagley-Jones writes:

However, within the realm of chess variants, because of the nature and
concept of the games created, sometimes pawns would destroy the chess
variant.

Take for instance, 'The Travelers' by Roberto Lavieri. This is a
brilliant game, but there are no pawns, and there is no place for pawns in
this game, it would destroy the 'nature and concept' of this game
entirely. Also my game 'Sky', pawns would destroy the freedom of movement
of the unusually long jumping leapers, and pawns also here would destroy
the flow of the game. These games i think one can easily see how pawns are
not desired.

Since I haven't played these games, I am not in a position to see this. Turning to my own experience with Pawnless variants, I have replaced Pawns with Cavaliers in Cavalier Chess and in Grand Cavalier Chess, but the Cavalier has some features in common with the Pawn that the Man does not. Cavaliers can block each other, they are not major pieces, and the reward of promotion gives them a reason to move forward.

Also, there is a rule in this game [Chieftain Chess] that greatly hampers
the chaotic nature of a game that plays just with pieces ....

'No piece may ever move unless it is activated by a chieftain which has to
be within 3 squares of it at the start of its move'.

I suspect this feature may also contribute to making the game drawish. Because the pieces have to be near a royal piece to move, it will normally be easier to defend than to attack.