Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Progressive Chess. Several variants where white moves one time, black twice, white three times, etc. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Tony Gardner wrote on Mon, Jul 8, 2002 04:53 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

The rules for English Progressive Chess (ENPR) are not correctly reflected
here.  Part 2 states, 'When a player gives check, he forfeits any remaining
moves in that sequence.  His opponent will then add one more move to this
truncated count.'  The first sentence is right, but the second sentence is
wrong; therefore, the third sentence is irrelevant.

The turn number dictates the possible number of moves.  For example, if
White, on the 9th turn, checks on the 6th move, it is then Black's turn
with ten moves allowable.  The truncation of White's 9th turn is just that,
and nothing more.

Also, the language in Part 3 is misleading.  The opening sentence is a good
rough guide, but doesn't withstand literal scrutiny.  More precisely it
should begin with 'In each turn' rather than 'In each sequence'.  In ENPR
jargon, a sequence is a series of movements with a turn whereby all mobile
units have moved, making it possible for another sequence to commence in
that same turn.  So, in a single turn, some units may move twice while
others move only once or are unmoved (immobilized).  It should further be
noted that a player may move to block friendly units in order to achieve
second sequence moves for prominent pieces.  However, third sequences and
beyond are very rare.

David Howe wrote on Tue, Jul 9, 2002 09:50 PM UTC:

Thanks for the corrections Tony. I've made the appropriate modifications to the English Progressive Chess section.

Anonymous wrote on Fri, Aug 2, 2002 04:06 AM UTC:

The concept of 'cycle' has been added to the ENPR rules.  I don't know the
origin of this, but it is completely wrong!  Each TURN stands on its own,
and is not dependent on what pieces were moved (or how often) or not moved
in any previous turn.  Think of it as a 'clean slate' approach.

There are several people I want to recommend this page to, but I don't
want them to get the incorrect impression of the game.

David Howe wrote on Sat, Aug 3, 2002 01:43 PM UTC:

I have made the appropriate changes. Thanks for the correction.

Anonymous wrote on Fri, Jan 14, 2005 12:28 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

(zzo38) A. Black wrote on Sun, Oct 12, 2008 02:19 AM UTC:

Another variant of progressive chess, known as 'escalation chess' according to HAKMEM: White gets 1 move, black 2, white 3, etc. If a player is in check, he must get out of check on his first move. He may not move into check. Taking your opponent's king is verboten, but you can pile up triple checks, etc. A player is checkmated if he can't get his king out of check on his first move.

padysak wrote on Sun, Jun 14, 2009 12:09 PM UTC:

Whats about stalemate after three-times repetition the same position? On AtlanticGames.net oponnent play: '11.Kd3 Kc3 Kb3 Kxa2 Kb3 Kb4 Ka5 Kb5 Ka5 Kb5 Ka5' and it was stalemate! I think this rule in progressive chess is wrong! When I play with stronger player, I can make three-times repetition position from move number 4. (If my king is not in check.)

Alex wrote on Tue, Aug 11, 2009 03:56 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Indeed in progressive chess the repetition rule regards the position of the pieces at the end of a turn, not at the end of a move.

Karlo wrote on Sat, Jan 12, 2013 09:28 PM UTC:BelowAverage ★★

The rule for the English variant says "Each mobile piece must move once
before it can move twice", but it should say "Each mobile piece must move
once before any piece can move twice".  (Then the same change should be
made for twice before thrice, of course.)

Also, it would be clearer if the rules common to all three variants were
listed first, and then the differences listed separately (perhaps
summarized in a table, even).  In particular, all three have the rule that
you must escape check on the first move of a series, or else you're
checkmated; and that the number of moves you get on your turn is equal to
the turn number.

George Duke wrote on Wed, May 7, 2014 07:12 PM UTC:

The article points out there were annual tournaments of Progressive in current-news Ukraine at turn of millennium -- as well as Russia, Czech Republic, and Poland.  Then Glinksi was Polish, http://www.chessvariants.org/hexagonal.dir/hexagonal.html, though he perfected the leading hexagonal Chess in England.

Then next the above mentioned Czech Republic is precisely the country where Bughouse thrives, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bughouse_chess, as "over the board" section documents.  In that wikipedia, Hungarian-born Susan Polgar intones old-guardedly, "If your children want to play bughouse just for fun, it is OK.  But just remember that it is not Chess and it has no positive value for Chess."  Belying that attitude, there is Russian trainer's skill-shaping invented CV: http://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/romanch.html.  Think rather than memorize, said Romanchenko: /play/erf/Romanche.html.

Tellingly Betza justifies in Chigorin, http://www.chessvariants.org/diffsetup.dir/chigorin.html, that you cannot get scared novices interested, like these "grand-masters," without putting up only standard comfort-zone Bishops, Knights, Rooks, Queens.

Kevin Pacey wrote on Tue, Sep 20, 2016 11:40 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

I've seen on an internet chess chat site a Canadian Candidate Master claim that (in at least one of the three main variants of Progressive Chess, if not all), Black has a slight advantage, if playing 1...d6 + 2...Nf6 against most White first moves,

In trying to tentatively estimate the value of the pieces in Progressive Chess (in its main variants), I'd guess that the long range pieces may be generally worth, say, one and a half times what I give them as in standard chess. Thus: P=1; N=3.49; B=5.25; R=8.25; Q=15 and the fighting value of K=4 (though naturally it cannot be traded).

11 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.