SKA: There's certainly room for both versions here. Just have to name one of them differently or call it version 2 or something. IYT's version could be called Atomic Bomb Chess, while leaving the BrainKing version as Atomic Chess.

Does the bomb in the IYT version blow up nearby Pawns too? It certainly is different having it possible to blow up both Kings for a draw too. Do the players know which piece their opponent has chosen to be the bomb?

Walter Montego: it blows up any piece touching it even pawns.
no your opponent doesn't know which piece has been chosen. that's a lot of the strategy of the game. picking the piece to be atomic and making sure it doesn't get captured, because if it's captured it's the same as any other piece, it doesn't explode

nodnarbo: It sounds like a good game. Is the play fairly even at the beginning as compared to how White dominates Atomic Chess here in the early going with Black walking a minefield until he can even things up?

nodnarbo: well, maybe 2 or 3 bombs could be a better strategy game, and if they all get captured then 'best of luck' on trying to check mate the king. I think captured the king is also another win, but I'm not sure, since I haven't played it in over a year.

Walter Montego: This game is also called "Beirut Chess", it was inveneted by Jim Winslow in 1991. I never played it, but looks like a fun!

Cheversi is a quick, nice game, but there is a problem - even with the rules change in January, Black's odds are still too high to win. Any ideas to solve the problem?

Edit: I know something;
Swap Cheversi: White plays his king in the extended center, then black places his queen anywhere, places another White and black piece on the board and White get the Swap option.

I am an author of Cheversi and this Swap version looks promissing ... but there will be still problem with the last player having advantage ...
Andy.

dicepro: Well now would be a good time for any type of rule change.... since there are under 50 current games going on.

I don't know if Swap is good - seems like everyone would still try to be black. Maybe give white an extra piece, a "pawn" for their last move.

Anyway, if anyone can come up with a good rule to make the game more equal - this is the perfect time to get Fencer to change it since very few games are going on right now.

coan.net: Since the player in disadvantage has the swap option, the player in advantage should try to play those first two moves in balance, otherwise White will swap and probably win.

Extra pawn is also a good idea to make another game variant.

Those two new extra games could be submitted to Fencer. But the original version is still imbalanced, and these suggestions' rules are so different in comparison to the original, those are total different games.

how about using a dice ? this what, as I remember, Big Bad Wolf was suggesting long time ago ... 2-knight, 3-bishop, 4-rook, 5-queen, 6-king and 1-joker (any piece chosen) ... and like in Dice Chess, program would detect which piece is still available to play ...
Or, this is something I was suggesting ... that maybe this game should be played on a 6x6 board ... making it more crowded and difficult to get the long shot in the last move ...
What do you think ?
Andy.

dicepro: Makes also a different game, less skill and more luck.

So we have three new games to implement (lol)
Dice Cheversi
Pawn Cheversi and
Swap Cheversi

There is something that I've been thinking about - but I would have to sit down and play around on the exact setup and such - but lets called it:

Choice Cheversi

The choice is that before the game starts, you decide which set of pieces you want to play with. (and you will not know your opponents set until after you start - or possible keep it hidden and learn 1 piece at a time as they play)

For example, let say there are 4 sets to choose from.

1. (power) - 1 Queen, 2 Rooks, 1 bishop, 1 knight
2. (mid-power) - 1 queen, 2 bishop, 2 knight, 1 king
3. (mid-bulk) - 2 rook, 2 bishop, 1 knight, 1 king, 1 pawn
4. (bulk) - 1 rook, 2 bishop, 2 knight, 1 king, 2 pawn

So it would be a game of power vs. quantity - you can choose a few powerful pieces - or a more less powerful pieces to help block the power play.

AGAIN - the above is just off the top of my head - I would have to sit down, try to figure out the "strength" of each piece in the game to come up with a good set of pieces. But as you can tell - if you have "power" pieces, you have less moves - and if you choose more bulk, you will have more moves - in which you can block the power pieces

coan.net: That needs playtesting over e-mail or something like that :) . Sounds really cool.

it's interesting and kind of satisfying that the game of cheversi stirs so much brain power of our friends. My original idea was to play this game with all the pieces (including pawns) ... it could be really crowded and situation can change very rapidly.
Now, look please at the original rules I posted to chessvariants page. The rules say that a piece can be put ONLY on a square attacked by the opponent in the last move. I suggested to Fencer to play variant no.3 where tyhe player is free to chose any square. Maybe the original version was the best idea I had ... in this way I can influence greatly the moves of my opponent, forcing him/her to some unwanted positions ... Now I can see that too much freedom is not freedom at all. Please read the original rule.
http://www.chessvariants.com/crossover.dir/cheversi.html

dicepro: Remember when we had this conversation last year (i think lol)

I think Dice is the obvious change, but having another quick think (as i have to rush to a dart match lol), maybe some kind of Dark Cheversi, where neither player knows what opponents pieces have been placed until the game end. Once a piece is placed, that square becomes unavailable and only the player would know what piece is there.
Once all pieces are placed. th final board and scores are revealed

Well something like that back soon

yes, it looks there is infinite number of different path to improve Cheversi ... but I am coming to a conclusion, that the original (published at chessvariants) version would work fine. White in the last move can force very limited numbers of ways for Black to respond ... this way the last black's move wouldn't have to be a killer one.
What do you think about this.
Andy.

dicepro: I'm unable to get onto the chessvariants link you gave right now - but limiting the move to a privious played attacked space might be good - since which can just plan to put the king next to last to make sure the queen is put in a limited area.

As for MadMonkey's Dark Cheversi - the problem would still be black last move would be an advantage. But an idea that just came from that - make it so both players move at the same time.

That is both players pick a spot on the board to place a piece at the same time. Then after both players choose, as long as they do not pick the same spot - then play the piece. If by chance the 2 players pick the same spot, have them replay that move - but don't allow anyone to play that spot for the next move.

In this way - there would not be a first & second player.

there is some problem with this site right now. But it will be ok, this is a serious site. Yes, the last move may be very interesting and the second from the last also and so up the staires to the first move.
How about adding another interesting feature to the above, original rules: move has to be with like figures. When started with a King, a King has to follow, after a Bishop, another Bishop has to follow ...
Regards, Andy.

joshi tm: Since the player in disadvantage has the swap option, the player in advantage should try to play those first two moves in balance, otherwise White will swap and probably win.

I'm not convinced by this argument. The advantage of black isn't in the first move, it's the fact that he has the last move. Swap rules work (although I won't say 'fine') for games where there's an advantage of having the first move. But in Cheversi, it's the advantage comes at the end.

AbigailII: that's why White has the swap option, so Black played the ""first"" move instead.

joshi tm: I think what AbigailII was meaning, and I some-what agree - even if they were to make the worse first move they can think of - I would still want to be the one with the last move since 85% of the time you can win with that move - no matter how bad the start was.

I still like my idea of making each player play at the same time so there is no advantage for either player. (and if the 2 pick the same spot to play on, then they try again with that spot unavailable to choose on the next try)

how about changing the whole philosophy of the game, reverse the goal and state that the winner is one who has the least points after the last move ?
Regards,
Andy.

here is another idea ... let the program randomly put all the pieces on the board. Players then move their pieces, one by one, and the piece that just moved becomes "dead" for the rest of the game.
After each move a score for a player is updated.
The number of possible moves and responses is astronomical ... the one advantage I can see now by using this version is as follow: as a White I can choose such a move that Black player wouldn't be able to block my paths and I can gain advantage righ away, which is impossible with the current version simply because a Black player is able to block my long shot wit any "weak" piece ... by having pieces randomly on the board I can manouver much more freely ...
I think we should give it a try. What do you think ?
Andy.

when I started to think about improving Cheversi I cannot stop, lol ... one thing is for sure with random placement of the pieces ... someone will have an advantage from the very beginning ... does this advantage really mean much ? Look at Ludo for example ... the other thing is, that with random placement White (starting color) has usual advantage as a first player (leader) like in Five in a row, or Reversi ... but Black has the last move which balances this advantage by White ...
To play well random placement Cheversi is a real art and I think that computer power should be emplyed in order to solve this game ... by the way, can you calculate how many different placemet of 16 pieces can be on a board with 64 squares ... ?
This is how many starting positions we may have.
In our lifetimes we will never encounter the same position. And this makes Random Cheversi an exciting game.
and that's it for now.
Andy.

dicepro: can you calculate how many different placemet of 16 pieces can be on a board with 64 squares

That's fairly trivial. Not counting rotations and reflections of the board, the number is (6462605856545250*49) / (2^6) which equals 159708538424128885551360000. (You might want to turn of the stupid smileys).

this number is so great that there is not possible to even touch the "debiut theory" ... colorful game, never the same (compare to any other board game).
Thanks Abigaill.

Should the initial number of points, even before the first move, be displayed and taken into overall count, or not ?
Who should move first, just White like in any other chess variants, or maybe, the one who has MOST points, to offset the last opponent's move ?
Or maybe just a player who has less points before the game starts ?
The depth of Random Cheversi is completely unknown and we cannot judge which color has a real advantage ... the one (White which attacks)
or Black (which has the last move) .
Or maybe we should add 16 more moves (8 each)
and let the players put their pieces one by one on the board and then start moving them (one by one again) and collect points ?
I am in a the eye of brain storming ... waiting for your opinions.
Andy.

dicepro: What about just adding komi calculated from some game statistics?

komi ? what's that ? sorry, but but I am not catching it ?

dicepro: Look at go rules. For illustration white would start with 8 points, black with 0, exact value would be either calculated somehow from game evaluation or just determined from experience, with black/white wins ratio closing to 1 as a target.

I opened 8 Cheversi games and I play White, the color that loses ... I want to test the game deeply ...
please accept these games, risk is on my site deliberately ...
We know that after the first moves (White King and Black Queen) Black has the big advantage, but at the same time it loses his/her best piece ...
What is tactic for White now ? To block powerful Black Queen with Knights or use Bishops to block and reach for many points at the same time ?
I want to try these two ways of play ... one thing is certain to me now ... White better start attacking to the point, that Black in the last move has to stop
last White piece and White should chose such an attacking square in which Back wouldn't be able to
gain many points ...
Please accept my challenge.
Andy.

Fencer, would it be possible to test the game Cheversi on a 6x6 board ? What I think, by eliminating some rows and columns we could eliminate the power of the last Black move ?
Regards,
Andy.

I am trying to find a nice and elegant solution to my "unfortunate" , not symetrical Cheversi ... one thing is certain ... the problem is in the last attacking move for Black where White are left without any weapon to counterattack ... we were trying to offset this difficulty by "punishing" Black and forcing them to lose their most powerful piece, Queen, at the very beginning of the game ... it didn't work, Black still had long-range pieces to make the killing move ... there seams to be only one solution to this dillema ... just to create a rule that forbid Black to use any long-range figure in the last move ... in another words, the only piece that can be used in a last move by Black is King ...
it looks fair, Black has the freedom of the last move but it cannot be left without any guard from White, and the only guard is a weakness of the last used piece ...
We have to also remove the first mandatory move for Black side, still keeping White opening as KIng ... so, the whole answer into Cheversi problem is found at the end of the game, not in the very beginning ...
I was thinking about some othe restriction, like forcing both sides to play Kings as last moves, or even forced bothe sides to follow some kind of chain of moves in the last phase of the game, but it would be to limiting for the freedom of the game ...
***
Summary: remove the first mandatory move for Black side, keep mandatory move for White (KIng) and force Black to use only King as a last pieces in the whole game ...
So, what do we have now ? White cannot attack at the very beginning, Black cannot attak at the very end of the game ... seams, that the whole battle will take place in the middle of the game ... both sides may wait for the 7th (for Black) and 8th (for White) move to use their Queens, or may chose to use them somewhat earlier ... game can be defensive from the very beginning or agressive, depending on how Black will move and, of course, how White will follow ...
These new rules will ensure that there is some kind of symetry and distribution of power ... there is no ideal game for both sides, look at chess, reversi, five in a row, renju ... there is always some problem ... I hope my new rules King FIrst/King Last will make this game more enjoyable.
Regards,
Andy.

I have not played this game for awhile, and not since the more recent rule changes.

I was wondering from the players who have - do the new rules fix the balance of the game?

I wrote an article about what might be sensible draw rules for Dark Chess:
http://brainrook.com/archives/82-Dark-Chess-draw-rules.html


I propose the following rule:
if 40 consecutive half-moves are made without any pieces being captured, the game is declared a draw upon request of either player.

Please express your opinion.

Lawless: 40 half-moves (i.e 20 full moves) limit is too low. As a consequence, many position, which are still full of life will be declared a draw, e.g. in this game: Dark Chess (andreas vs. Lawless) there were no captures for 28 full moves.

As alternative proposal I would suggest to keep 50-moves rule from the chess, i.e. if no capture or pawn move is made in 50 moves, a player get an option to declare the game a draw. Since players can't know when this occur, the situation should be detected by BrainKing automatically. But instead of automatically ending the game, a new button should appear on the game page: "Declare draw by 50-moves rules". The players then have an option to continue the game or finish it with a draw.

All right, 20 is not enough, but in my opinion, 50 moves is far too long for DC. Perhaps 30 or 40? Anybody ever had a game with 60 or more half-moves without a capture?

And I still can't understand why does a draw have to have anything to do with pawn moves. What is the point of making a draw dependent on something the players can't know?

good point about the pawns. I would then vote for 50 full-moves without capture, and I would add "at least 50"

mangue: The pawn rule is a part of the draw rule for regular chess: the game is declared a draw after 50 moves without neither a piece capture nor a pawn move.

This rule should be seen as an extension of the more easily comprehensible 3-times-repeated-position rule. The idea is that after 50 moves without an essential change to the board nothing more is likely to happen. The pieces are just dancing around.
So why the pawn clause? because a pawn move IS an essential modification: it is not reversible.

By the way, for regular chess the debate about this rule is still open, because there are endgame position which are known to be won, but the way to the win takes more than 50 moves. For example, K+N+N against K+P.

Whether all this is pertinent to dark chess is another point.

about knn+kp or kbp+krp, I know the issue.

About the pawn, I see a problem here as we are not supposed to know what the player played. I do not like the idea of a flag appearing. Personally.

I would even prefer, if it does not make much sense maybe, 50 moves without exchange and without a visible pawn move.

Sorry, andreas, I think it was 25 moves: from white's 27th to black's 52nd. Anyway, more than 20, obviously.

Just a thought...

If I would play in this game 10: .. c5, is my opponent able to capture en-passant?

joshi tm:
I think 11.dc it´s a ilegal move because any piece can go to square c6 and if white could play en-passant then the white pawn would go to c6.
You suppose 11.dc is a legal move, then as consecuence black could play 11...bc and a black pawn could land in the square c6.
c6 is closed until the end of the game so 11.dc it´s, in my opinion, a ilegal move.

joshi tm: I would also think it would be illegal since C6 is an unavailable space for your opponent to finish there move.

While playing a few games of Cheshire Cat Chess, and idea for a variant came to me. I figured I would post it here before I forget. (nothing test, or played in real life) - feel free to comment.

Basically the same as Cheshire Cat Chess - when a piece moves, the space it was at turns red (I think of it as Lava - and normal pieces can no longer land in those spots)

But you can now get a "Super" piece which is allowed to land in the red spaces.

What is a "Super" piece - A Super Piece is any piece on the board that has captured another piece. So as soon as your queen captures any of your opponent pieces, it turns into a "Super" piece (I image it as the same piece with a green glow - like my black rook icon, but maybe with a "S" on it to make it easier to tell it is "Super")

Anyway, at that point, the super piece can land on any space, even the red spaces. The super pieces can be captures just like any other piece.

So, what do people think?

coan.net: I hope you are aware that Super Chess is something totally different, look here:

http://www.superchess.nl/

coan.net: And maybe turn the landed on square back to a normal square when the Super peice moves away with the Super piece then becoming a regular piece after it moves to the new square?

Hi people,

in this game: Amazone Schaken (MadMonkey - joshi tm) Brain King refuses me to castle in this move... Why?

joshi tm: I'm not a chess expert, but doesn't have to be no pieces in between the king & rook?

joshi tm: Since you have completed 211 games of chess I hope that link was the wrong one. You couldn't possibly believe castling was an option in that position.