|
|
|
Topic: Totalitarian Chess
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Hi, ...er... most respected club members,
<clears throat>
I wish to change a basic rule of chess-as-it-stands, or create a viable variant. Hear me out!
It has always annoyed me that the King, who is the absolute monarch that the game revolves around, is not allowed to capture one of his own pawns to avoid something as undiplomatic as a back rank checkmate. If the King's men devote themselves selflessly to his victory, why would they be unwilling to sacrifice themselves on his behalf?
That outlines the first possibility. King may take own pieces to get out of checkmate.
Second totalitarian option: all pieces may capture all chessmen that have a lesser value. This might not always prove practical, but it can be a staging point for many excellent combinations!
Or the wildest option: all men may capture any other of their own at any time. At their own risk, of course.
Please feedback me on this!
F.
|
|
|
The changes you suggest are definitely too major to be used in regular chess, but may make interesting variants.
(The only change to regular chess that should be made is in the definition of stalemate. This in an interpretational change that does not affect the actual movement of pieces as the changes you suggest do.)
| Second totalitarian option: all pieces may capture all chessmen that have a lesser value. This might not always prove practical, but it can be a staging point for many excellent combinations! |
Could you clarify what you mean by that, preferably with diagrams?
| Or the wildest option: all men may capture any other of their own at any time. At their own risk, of course. |
This seems to be an expansion of the first rule.
Regular chess rules are more moral in that they do not allow one to directly kill their own men.(Although they may put them danger, the enemy has to take the initiative to actually kill them.)
Of course it could also be supposed that men are only captured rather than killed, in which case it would be more akin to taking one's own men and putting them in prison with the enemy, which is more morally acceptable.
(It is also more acceptable because the enemy is not killed either.)
|
|
|
How about Mutiny Chess? The King may be captured by his own men!
|
|
|
The game of chess is 2000 to 3000 years old and the major difference between chess and other games is that chess is a game defined by shear mental prowess (no luck from an outside device like dice) and the strategy of the game is governed by the finite laws of chess. So any variation of the game that makes the game easier just means that the person should study his own game harder and leave the game as we know it alone!!!
|
|
|
How about Mutiny Chess? The King may be captured by his own men!
|
Perhaps that could be a variant of Suicide or Loser's Chess. 
|
|
|
| Perhaps that could be a variant of Suicide or Loser's Chess. |
Perhaps.
1. Qxe1 1-0
|
| 1 2 3 4 Next |
|
|
|
