[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
gnohmon wrote on Sun, Oct 20, 2002 04:09 AM UTC:There is a short reference on George Jelliss'
<a href='http://www.bcvs.ukf.net/gvcg.htm'>A Guide to Variant Chess</a>
webpage to Anti-Chess, as follows:
<blockquote><i>
<b>Anti-Chess</b> Any variant in which kings are replaced by anti-kings (which
are in check only when NOT attacked). It requires an initial position with
Ks under attack, e.g. the usual array on a horizontal cylinder.
</i></blockquote>
Which would certainly include what you describe, although the non-capturing
part isn't specified, but then the description is so general that it
includes any game with Anti-Kings instead of Kings.
Oh, wait a minute -- you're trying to end up with your King not attacked. I don't think that's been done.
David Howe wrote on Wed, Oct 23, 2002 05:11 PM UTC:If this game already exists, I can't find it. Sounds like it would work well as each player would have to balance guarding the enemy king vs. attacking the enemy pieces. I propose we call it Royal Hostage chess. Here's another, similar idea: Royal Hero chess Standard setup. The first player to do any of the following, wins: 1. Checkmate the opposing King, or 2. Make a move that takes his King out of check 3. Bare his opponent's King Kings may move into check. Kings cannot be captured, but may capture.
David, I'm not sure how you'd combine checkmate and a rule that moving out
of check wins. It seems to me once check is made, the game is over the
next turn, since the checked King's player either moves out of check, and
wins, or is checkmated, and loses. Now, if a player won, once in check, by
<em>starting</em> a turn out of check, the game would turn into a desperate
series of checks at that point. Of course, this could easily turn into
perpetual check.
<p>
<hr>
<p>
A more dynamic name for Ralph's proposed game might be <u>King's
Escape</u>.
<p>
<hr>
<p>
I threw together a quick ZRF of this game by hacking up the Anti-King
Chess ZRF. Too quick -- it didn't work quite right. However, in the
process I came up with a mild variant. A player won, if after the movement
of their <i>King</i>, their King was not under attack. This had the
interesting effect that a player could leave their opponent's King
unattacked as long as it had no move that would move it to an unattacked
square.
Thinking about this a bit more, it occurs to me that if it is really to
be 'Anticheckmate', then the victory condition needs to be a bit
different. Something like:
<blockquote>
Kings attack opposing Kings, anywhere else on the board. The only thing
prevents the opposing King from attacking your King is if you have a piece
attacking the opposing King. Thus, if your opponent's King becomes
'unattacked', you are in check, and if you can't attack it in your
immeadiately following move, you are checkmated.
</blockquote>
Have you any plans to do anything else with this, Ralph?
gnohmon wrote on Sat, Nov 16, 2002 03:36 AM UTC:Sorry, I hadn't been listening. Apparently, anticheckmate chess might be a new game. It's precisely what I said: WKe8, BKe1, Kings may not capture, all else as per rule zero except that if you ever make a move that ends with your K not in check you win. Clearly, 1. f2-f4???? Ke1-f2 is the shortest game. 1. e2-e4? Ke1-e2! is also bad. Reference Racing Kings. This is such a simple idea I thought it must already have been taken; and you can tell without playtesting that it works well, with a feel similar to Racing K. This is such an obvious idea.
It still seems to me that if it is called 'Anticheckmate Chess' that there ought to be some form of, well, Anticheckmate with check and all that, not simply you win if not attacked -- that's sort of like anticapture. Confusling it is!
9 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.