|
|
|
Topic: Totalitarian Chess
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Ah, good, feedback!
Clarification about second option: K may capture any piece; Q any except K; R only B, N, p; B & N only pawns; pawns can't. The value of pieces used to determine material equality is the measure. This retains a certain rank authority, as option one, that seems inbuilt in chess.
As the rules of chess have that hierarchical moral quality Evjen mentioned, the third option is the most radical one. At worst, a pawn may capture a Rook, as a pawn capturing a Queen will never gain any advantage. But a Knight (but not a Bishop) may capture a Queen, if that gains an advantage.
There actually exists a variation of losing chess! There is no check or mate. Capturing is obligatory if possible, but choice is free within that constraint. Promotion to Queen is obligatory. The player which forces their opponent to capture their last piece is the winner. Try it sometime, it is fun! And sometimes it helps to rebuild the concept a while, to improve the original one.
F.
|
|
|
Is that what you call it 
|
|
|
Perhaps that could be a variant of Suicide or Loser's Chess. :-O
Perhaps.
....
1. Qxe1 1-0
|
http://www.chessvariants.com/diffobjective.dir/giveaway.html#rules
In regular Losing Chess, players win by losing all of their pieces, and the king has no special significance.
|
|
|
| In regular Losing Chess, players win by losing all of their pieces, and the king has no special significance. |
So?
|
|
|
So it is a fun way to blow off steam, and is to chess what gobang is to go. But yeah, you win by losing all of your chessmen. The way you need to rethink the rules to get good at losing chess may actually help improve your standard (non-SRC) chess if you are wise enough to consider it.
F.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 Next |
|
|
|
