Originally posted by PonderableThat piece actually exists in a chess varient called Capablanca Chess.
I would create the BishopKnight with abvious movements.
(Probably an old idea...) It could be played on a 6x6 filed which would also make for something interesting.
Originally posted by Us Army Paratrooper
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.
This piece also exists in a chess varient called Knightmare chess. It's called the Superqueen (which I suppose would be a knightmare on the chessboard).
You can read about both those pieces here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess_piece
The Rocket:
This piece moves like a queen, except it can land on any square in it's path, even if there's a piece in front of the square. However, when used, it must remain off the board for three moves, and MUST land on the fourth move, unless there's a check that the Rocket can't stop by capture or blocking check. Once the checks stop, the player must land the rocket.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Does it have to be a square not already occupied by a piece as part of the original position?
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.
If not, if I was white, I would mine g8, launch my queenside pawns, and wait for black to castle kingside.
The ability to take your own piece. If all your pieces must sacrifice themselves anyway, if that's the only way to stop a check, why can't the king take one of it's own men (like to get out of a back-rank mate)?
I think being allowed to kill your own piece would make for some interesting chess.
Originally posted by vivifyThe difficulty is it rules out Philidor's legacy, Legal's mate, and most quick wins in the opening. I think you should be able to move into check provided the checking piece is pinned to the opposing king.
The ability to take your own piece. If all your pieces must sacrifice themselves anyway, if that's the only way to stop a check, why can't the king take one of it's own men (like to get out of a back-rank mate)?
I think being allowed to kill your own piece would make for some interesting chess.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWell, you wouldn't expect opening theory to be the same with such a dramatic rule change. It's a completely different game.
The difficulty is it rules out Philidor's legacy, Legal's mate, and most quick wins in the opening. I think you should be able to move into check provided the checking piece is pinned to the opposing king.
If kings can move into check by a pinned piece, then the result of this position is reversed:
1...Kxf6#
...and the result of this position is unclear (whose right to move into check takes precedence?)
Originally posted by tvochessJust occupy one of your own homesquares and it will be hard to force a win. 🙂
Take back chess: Start from an empty board with only kings. Your goal is to take back moves and try to restore the standard starting position. White moves black's pieces and vice versa. The colour that has their full starting position looses.
Originally posted by wolfgang59I think it might be just as strong as a pawn... It would be short range and with limited strategic possibilities. Just a like a single pawn. It would have a couple of advantages over a pawn, but a pawn can be promoted.
Two long knights instead of bishops.
Moves 3 squares (instead of 2) up/down/right/left then 1 square orthogonally.
It would always occupy the same colour.
Weaker than normal knight, probably be valued as 2 pawns.
That would end up in a draw, because the thing would still count as a move. If the zugzwanger didn't think they still had a winning move. And if they still had the piece. You could argue that it would remove an interesting part of the game, but on the other hand it would introduce a new strategic goal: the removal of that piece from the oppontent's army.