|
|
|
Topic: PKC (Protected King Check) Chess Varient
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
I implied people had an integer-valued variable named "Credibility" (by normal programming standards, it shouldn't take a capital letter, but I figured most people wouldn't mind the capital letter), and I decremented Evjen's value by one with the instruction "Credibility--;", which is the equivalent in some languages (such as C# and Java) of "Credibility = Credibility - 1;".
I could have gone lots of other, less concise ways, for instance by saying "you lack credibility", or "your credibility took a shot there", or "god you're soooo annoying it's unbelievable", but I went for the quick exit.
|
|
|
| Doesn't look that way to me. |
You are correct.
In the above diagram, white was checkmated by regular chess standards and PKC standards.
I should have posted something such as the following:
In the following diagram, by normal chess standards, white would be checkmated, but instead, white can win by moving Qxf2! :
There was a bishop present that was not supposed to be there. The chess diagrammer program was acting up. I later discovered how to remove it manually
Above, the black queen cannot capture the white king, since doing so would allow its king to be captured with the white rook.
Below is White's possible win:
The above position would be impossible in regular chess, since there can only be one checkmate (let alone 'check') in a game!
(Of coarse only one of the apparent checkmates is valid, according to PKC rules.)
| Yeah, learn chess notation. It's really very simple... |
I have recently learned some basic notation, but I am not very proficient in it yet.
Did I make a chess notational error near in any of the above diagrams?
(In the diagram you mentioned, I do not believe the notation was in error, but the diagram itself was.)
| Seriously, we're not here to correct your continual errors. If you lack the ability to do this yourself, then why should anyone bother to follow your idea in the first place? |
The above error was likely, at least in part because I was pretty tired when I made it.
However, I have also made mistakes at times, simply because I did not take enough time to analyze the board positions before posting them.
I know I need to be more careful, but is there a problem with discussing ideas on a forum such as this, to get feedback from people
who are knowledgeable in the area of chess, even if I am not perfect? (I did not even know how to post chess diagrams a month ago!)
A while back, (probably over a year ago,) when I first thought of the idea of "protected king check," I tried it in some games with my brothers.
Often, they would only consent to allowing it when conventional checkmate was impossible, to reduce the number of stalemates and draws.
They never really criticized the idea much, but on this forum, I got some harsh criticism.
Because of this, I thought more deeply about the underlying concepts of PKC chess and thought of the additions that would have more of an effect in the middle of the game.
(Whereas the first rules mostly only affected the end game.)
Criticism can be very beneficial, (although at times, it is just ridicule given by those who lack imagination) in the development of new ideas.
However, it is also nice to get some positive feed back as well, when it is rightly earned.
If I had simply kept the first ideas to myself and my brothers, I may never have come up with the extensions of them.
This shows the value of discussing ideas with a larger body of people, even though much (but not all) of the response has been negative.
I have only been a Queen Alice member for a few months, and just started using the forums fairly recently.
The discussion has been very enlightening, and has also prompted me to do more research in chess related areas.
(At times, I do however wish people would be a little less negative.  )
|
|
|
Go gittum, Evjen!
Never let any negative comments take you out of your stride, even though you might need these to refine your ideas over time. But do realise that in the case of standard chess (as opposed to, for instance, Stanley Random Chess (see thread)) you will run into stiff opposition from chess traditionalists. Those who are noncommittal about any changes to the standard rules will bide their time until any proposed changes are imposed on them from above.
F.
|
|
|
| (In the diagram you mentioned, I do not believe the notation was in error, but the diagram itself was.) |
They were both in error. Since you won't take advice, it's no surprise you don't learn anything.
| (At times, I do however wish people would be a little less negative. ) |
I think what you mean is a little more polite. You will likely receive negative comments from those more proficient at the game since they can look at such ideas in depth and foresee the problems that will arise in various situations. There are now hundreds of "official" chess variants and they're successful only because they've been well thought through.
|
|
|
How was my notation in error?
What should I have used instead of Qxf2?
| Since you won't take advice, it's no surprise you don't learn anything. |
I have already corrected several diagrams after problems were mentioned.
| I think what you mean is a little more polite. |
You are correct.
(See, I do take corrections, at least sometimes. )
| You will likely receive negative comments from those more proficient at the game since they can look at such ideas in depth and foresee the problems that will arise in various situations. There are now hundreds of "official" chess variants and they're successful only because they've been well thought through. |
I would appreciate it if Queen Alice members would point out problems they would foresee arising in PKC chess.
I do realize that it would take many games to really see the full effects of the variant.
Perhaps PKC Chess should be called a "sub variant," since it does not change the overall game as much as most other variants (of which I am aware,) and could easily be combined with most chess variants.
Its best PKC feature seems to be that it would reduce draws. The first rules mentioned are the ones that should accomplish this. I do not think the extensions would have the same effect.
Perhaps the first rules should be called PKC Chess 1, and the those plus the later extensions should be called PKC Chess 2.
So, if someone only wanted the draw reducing rules, and no change in the middle of the game, they could use PKC1 rules.
If they wanted a little more variation, they could use PKC2 rules.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next |
|
|
|
