If you could create a new chess piece, how would it move? What would you call it? What if you could create a new chess rule?
I think a piece called the "Wall" would be interesting. It only moves like a rook, but only one square at a time, and can neither capture, nor be captured, except by another Wall. Each player gets one each.
As for a new rule...I think the when a pawn gets to the 8th rank, you should have the option of letting it remain a pawn. Then, if makes it all the way back to it's own end of the board, it can be promoted to a king.
As high school kids, some friends and I experimented with several unorthodox pieces. One such moved randomly and could not be taken, an "iceberg"; we discovered empirically that anything which reduces mobility or clutters the board sharply reduces the fun. We then experimented with a piece which moved randomly and swallowed other pieces; this reduced clutter, but also reduced the strategy of the game to trying stay clear of the "black hole." The most successful 'piece' we invented consisted of two 'pieces' (a function, actually) which moved together randomly, called 'matter transports': if a player having the move moved one of his pieces onto either of the matter transport fields, his piece would disappear and reappear on the other field ("Beam me up Scotty!" )--thus concluding his move (that is, a bishop could not shoot into one matter transport field and continue shooting out the other one, all in one move). The matter transport fields would move away on the next move and the transported piece would remain on the destination square when the matter transport field moved away. This made daring surprise attacks, and also some incredible escapes, possible. All of these variations envisioned a sort of third party to the game whose moves were governed by a random numbers (a1 - h8 coordinate) generator (which was our computer programming project for that semester).
We also experimented with alternative starting positions for the pieces. We would hold a cardboard shield across the middle of the board and each player would set up his pieces in any configuration which suited him, but without being able to see the other player's configuration. When both players were satisfied with their configurations, the shield was raised and play proceeded as per normal rules. One might, for example, barricade one's king in the corner surrounded by a double wall of pawns, 'fiancetto' both bishops in the opposite corner (same color!), and mass the queen and rooks on a single open file in the center, hoping for a quick knockout. This led to some amusing constellations. It certainly obviated the need to memorize opening variations!
Here's an idea.
When your pawn promotes it becomes its own unique piece, called the Paratrooper. It can move like a combination Queen/Knight, making it incredibly powerful.
The net effect would up the value of pawns, and put an even higher priority on preventing pawn promotions.
Treating rank-1 squares as being sutured to rank-8, and/or a-file squares to be sutured to h-file squares might have some potential for fun. This would likely require some tinkering with the starting configuration of pieces, and some attention to how to handle promotion.
MINEFIELDS!
Before the start of each game both players write down the name of a square.
His pieces can go on that square but as soon as an opposing piece goes
on that square then 'BOOM! it's gone.
And if that piece is a King. Then game over.
Pawns are considered too light to blow up mines, just pieces,
I'd mine f7 and then sac ASAP on that Square.
However as Black I'd mine c4 so when White plays Bc4 to sac on f7.
'BOOM!' no Bishop.
I am a conservative and don't like changes. I expect God to be the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow with no change. I also like my chess to remain the same, although I must admit the Fischer Random Chess is interesting, but it is not really a drastic change for me anyway, since I don't have many openings memorized.
The Instructor
Originally posted by greenpawn34There is Atomic Chess where all the adjacent pieces - but not the adjacent pawns - explode when you capture something. There is no check in the traditional sense; just the threat of explosion to your K. It sounds like the same thing until you watch the losing side follow the enemy K around, taking advantage of the winning side not being able to blow up his own K.
MINEFIELDS!
Before the start of each game both players write down the name of a square.
His pieces can go on that square but as soon as an opposing piece goes
on that square then 'BOOM! it's gone.
And if that piece is a King. Then game over.
Pawns are considered too light to blow up mines, just pieces,
I'd mine f7 and then sac ASAP on that ...[text shortened]...
However as Black I'd mine c4 so when White plays Bc4 to sac on f7.
'BOOM!' no Bishop.
1...Kb7 "If I have to go, I'm taking you with me!"
2.Kd6 "Get away from me, you pervert!"
Kc6 "But your hair smells of lilacs and Guinness"
3.Ke5 "That's because you stumbled through a flowerbed again, you drunk bastard!"
Kd5 "Be that as it may, it's a beautiful night, isn't it?"
4.Kf4 "Think you should know my friend is feeling down."
Ke4 "Nice try but I neither know your friend nor care."
5.Kg3 "Sure you don't want to reconsider?"
Kf3 "Absolutely not."
6.dxe3 "Hi. I'm the King's friend. Life just isn't worth living anymore. :'(:'(:'(
BOOM! 1-0
Originally posted by moonbusSurely the oddest thing about chess is that the whole reason for the game (i.e. to capture the king) is the one thing that never actually happens.
Ah yes, Fischer Random Chess .... never quite caught on.
See also
http://www.chessvariants.org
I think that a player should be allowed to play any move when his/her king is in check.
If you don't move out of check, then the opponent can take the king and win the game.
And while I am about it, I am pretty fed up with the way pawns are treated as cannon fodder.
Why does the game end just because his majesty comes a cropper?
Play the game out until one side has nothing left. Then see how long his majesty lasts in the free for all.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from having some wood carver stick a cross on your head.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThere is a chess game designed for kids to learn called "No Stress Chess" that you do have to capture the King to win. However, special playing cards are also used, so there is much more luck involved than in regular chess.
Surely the oddest thing about chess is that the whole reason for the game (i.e. to capture the king) is the one thing that never actually happens.
I think that a player should be allowed to play any move when his/her king is in check.
If you don't move out of check, then the opponent can take the king and win the game.
The Instructor