26 Oct 08
Originally posted by tomtom232…Pawns aren't pieces and pieces aren't pawns..…
Pawns aren't pieces and pieces aren't pawns. When you are up a [b]pawn you trade off the pieces. When you are down a pawn you trade off the pawns
You seem to think that what might rarely happen is just as good as if it didn't happen at all. The fact that it COULD possibly happen is a flaw. Simulations aren't everything, you have ...[text shortened]... to assume the worse and imagine scenarios in which your rules will "ram" into one another.[/b]
I apologies -I was not aware of that aspect of chess terminology.
I always thought pawns were “pieces”.
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonPawns and pieces are both chessmen but "pawn" and "piece" are not interchangeable. You have a good idea here, you just have to refine it. Who knows, maybe it will turn out to be a successful but be prepared to have idea after idea thrown out the window before you land the big one. First ideas for inventions rarely work out the first time. Keep your chin up though and never give up.
[b]…Pawns aren't pieces and pieces aren't pawns..…
I apologies -I was not aware of that aspect of chess terminology.
I always thought pawns were “pieces”.[/b]
01 Nov 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'm against the restriction on the Whte's first move.
On reflection I think if my restrictive “white’s first move” rule proves to be generally unpopular with players then I should get rid of it. The question is WOULD it be unpopular?
I like to try and start a mini-opinion pole here:
Should I get rid of the “white’s first move” rule from rum chess -yes or no?
-if enough people answer and the majority say yes then I will officially get rid of that rule.
Regards.