02i: I am no specialist of the field so I could be wrong, but from what I read it looks like about all games of the type "one against all" are forced wins for the player with the army - the classical example being "Fox and the gooses". The reason for it seems to be that if one of them wasn't, it would probably be a straightforward win by direct attack for the lone piece.
The lone piece being much easier to conduct than a set of pieces, such a game is more playable if it is unbalanced in favour of the army.

he whisperzQ . thnx for the info. i am new to the site , didnt know there had been soooo many discussions before about the game but in any case after playing just a few games i know for a fact that if i play the way i do , as black , i dont lose a single piece guaranteed and white never gets a shot at my king and i can checkmate the maharaja withing 30 moves evry time. its not that i dont like the game i do infact and that is the reason for my input. i just played a couple of games as white and won too but that was because the opponents were novices. in one game which i set as a 2 win match and started as black , my opponent used the exact same strategy i did as black and i could do nothing but lose the second game. lucky for me ill win the third but even though i know i cant lose any game playing as black , i was just hoping that htere be a way to even the game out so that i could play white with a chance of winning. i checked the ratings and the top players of maharaja only play as black. none of them excepts any invitations to play white and i guess all of them ( im about to be included in that list too ) are just lame enough to wait for an amateur to accept their games in the waiting room as white.

Marfitalu: You can castle, but your king would stay on c8 and your rook would go to d8, as in the usual long castle. So you would need to move the rook currently blocking d8 first.
Do you remember the rule which was hard to translate ? Here the "longest range", which must be free from other pieces, is a8-d8.

Marfitalu: after the castle, the K will be on c8, the R on d8, but d8 is not free.

Marfitalu: Well, you want to castle with the rook a8 and kc8, right? "long castling" ... but what about the rook at d8? kicking off own rooks is not allowed :-)

to anyone who enjoys playing extinction,please join my fellowship Extinction Chess Club.http://brainking.com/en/ShowFellowship?fid=186,you will be more then welcome.thanks

Alekhin had a record of 32 simultaneous blind games, another master 52!

Walter Montego: yes, I can remember now also playing as the "blindfolded" player while the other was sighted ... We never wrote down the moves, but it was certainly easy to end up mystified because you thought a piece was in a certain location but it wasn't, at that point I would usually try to reconstrut the game from the begininng, okay if only 10-15 moves deep but if you were in the endgame a hopeless situation. In the openings and midgame they sighted person would not have too much of an advantage, but if the game went on and there was not that much left it became very hard.

Swapped K/Q, now there is a challenge! LOL.

WhisperzQ: I did mean playing against another person. Ol' Pythagoras is the one that misunderstood me, not you. I want to play Dark Chess against another person, live right here at home, or even over the internet if a site has it. I'd really like a home version though. Playing it that way would be lots of fun and I'm sure I could get people to play it.

I remember trying to play Chess without looking at the board and letting my brother look at the board. I believe it is called Blindfold Chess and people have given demonstrations of it. We were doing it to see if it'd work. It did until my brother (the guy looking at the board!) moved one of my pieces wrong when I called out my move. He further compounded the problem by naming his move wrong and then I was thoroughly lost and just went over to look at the mess on the board. We were using the descriptive notation and he'd somehow switched the Kings and Queens! We didn't try it again. I've heard of people being able to play a game like this to its completion and some chessmasters have given demonstrations of being able to play more than one game at a time blindfold style.

Walter Montego: Sorry, I thought you meant you would be playing against someone else, but I can now see your need for a third person.

When I ws a kid (12-15) we used to play "mind chess" where we would sit back to back with a board between us (which we could not see). Each would call out their moves to the other and a third person would make the move on the board. It was not required to announce check (like dark chess) but if you had the abilty you could know when a King was exposed. It certainly sharpened your skills of memory, but not many wanted to play as it was extremely draining, even for kids.

There is a Dark Chess game -the only that i'm aware- for Zillions of Games here.

The problem is that you can't have a fair game against the computer since at Zillions you can't hide the pieces from the computer and although for the human the game is correct the computer gets an unfair enormous advantage......
I will try one day to create a Dark Chess game! Indeed it is a very interesting game to play against a computer too......

WhisperzQ: How would you play using paper without using the services of a third person, just the two players? With a third person you could set up three Chess boards and the third person would see everything. It'd be similiar to how I've read kliegspeil is played. I think a computer set up just like Dark Chess is here except for being able to play the game live or time it however you wanted to would be a great game to have. A computer would make it a lot easier to play and you wouldn't need to worry about having a third person when you wanted to play. It'd take a real smart and careful third to person to assist, too.

Walter Montego: Have you tried a piece of paper ... not that is low tech!

Doerdich: In your game you can see that he moved P e2-e4 after you moved your Knight to f6. You are right that if your first move was P d7-d6 and he moves to e5 with his Pawn you'll just take the Pawn and be in good shape. The thing is, you didn't move there. If your opponent is a beginner maybe he didn't know enough not to do it. If your opponent is a good player, maybe he was up to something or thought it would work against you in particular. If he's somewhere in between, who can say? Not every bad move in Dark Chess will be answered with the correct good move. Just wait until the game is over and replay the game with the lights on. You'll probably see a few moves that would be so ridiculous in a regular Chess game that you wonder how the players could be so stupid. Regular Chess openings work a lot different in Dark Chess. Some of the good openings in regular Chess work very poorly in Dark Chess because they require you to know where your opponent's pieces are to respond to them. Plus, some people like to bluff or just play bold and it can really frustrate a conservative player to have his pieces disappear without a trace.

I've played a few games of Dark Chess where my opponent and I played almost as if we could see the board and know where our opponent had moved. When you play a game like that, you'll know it's a good game. For some reason I don't seem to play as well any more, or my opponents have gotten better, or both. Still, it's a great game and I really wish I had a home version of it. Two monitors and one computer hooked to them would work just fine. Anybody got a Dark Chess program I can have or buy?

@Walter Montego: 1...d6 might not be the best choice, but why then move 2.e5? I dont see any reason. Even to "hope" for 1...Nf6 is rubbish, because black sees the pawn on e5 and wont lose the knight. But anyway, it might be all luck and so lets see what happens next...

Doerdich: You're whooping me in Extinction Chess and Grand Chess, but if you'd like a couple games of Dark Chess please drop a line. :)

As for his move, I don't see anything wrong with it. Even in regular Chess that opening is pretty famous. Taking a chance is sometimes winning strategy in Dark Chess. Losing strategy too, but that's a different story. d6 for the second move as Black is one of the worst moves you can make! That is unless you've blocked the diagonal to your King from the Queen throwing a check or moved your Queen's Rook Pawn to a5 to throw light on a4. If you're going to move your Queen's Pawn to d6 early in the game and don't want to chance White having placed his Queen on a4, you'd be wise to do it on your first move followed with B c8-d7 on your next move. A common Dark Chess opening and one that you never see in regular Chess. Remember, checks are not announced and your opponent can drape your King and the game is over.

Doerdich: I'll give you a pass because you have only finished one game of dark chess. The fact is that a pawn down early is relatively meaningless so the move is not that risky. It's actually not common for someone to move 1...d6 in my experience.

On the other hand you would have seen the e5 move so how is it a cheat? Just move the knight.

Pythagoras: Fencer only charge me $1,000/game you've been ripped. (J/K)

Lost after dxe5??????????????????????????
LOL! Can you explain this? You seem to be more materialistic than Maschess (an old program that was obsessed with material).
There is another option for your opponent: To just played a risky move and don't be weak or cheating........ Of cource there is the known option of giving Fencer $20.000 and let you see the game in light!

Hi, There occured a very strange move in of my darkchess games. My opponent played 1.e4 and I answered 1...Nf6, after that he played 2.e5! This is of course theory, but how can he know that? I could also have played 1...d6, and then he would already be lost after 1...dxe5. Is he just weak or does he know what is going on because of a cheat?

Well here's the rub ... the post about the tournament is here and stays ... any discussion regarding its validity is gone. If you care to read the heading at the top then you will see that from a very long time ago one of the prime purposes of this board is to post about pertinent tournaments.

If you wish to discuss the validity of this position do so somewhere else where those who are interested in the discussion can discuss it ... not here ... as, whatever you say, that discussion DOES NOT belong here.

Thanks you for your continued observance of the stated intentions of this board.

WhisperzQ

is waiting for your participation Here.

one week total think time.

Doerdich: you can also "go back in time": click on a move or use the backwards/forwards buttons to see what was revealed at a certain moment.

using the "notes" field is also very helpful in this variant.

Doerdich: But, obviously, you cannot "test" a position and move back after seeing what might be revealed ... the revelation only comes after you have committed tot he move. Likewise, if you are still wqatching the game and your opponet is "testing" positions, you do not see what they have moved (if, indeed you an) until they have committed to the move.

Doerdich: You get up-to-date information in both cases: after your move and after the move of your opponent. After you make a move it is best to chose "Move and stay here" option to see what is changed.

I have a question to the rules in Dark Chess: When do I get the information about the open fields? Is it after I made my move or after my opponent made his move. This ia a bgid difference, e.g. in the following game: 1.Nc3 g6 2.e3 Bg7 (if I get the information now, I can see the knight on c3) 3.Ne2 (If I get the information now, I can't see the knight any more).

@kipling seems you missunderstand the rule a bit? if your opponent gives three checks, you are lost!

I was reading the recent newsletter and there is an opportunity to have a "best-of" match (best of 3, best of 5) with another player. If interested, let me know. Also, for those who might want to participate in a quad tourney, I would be interested in hearing from you.

I was thinking of an invitational, but I would like to know who is interested. Message me here.

Pythagoras: For the intrest of the conversation, I'll play this "gambit" with the tournament creator,redsales.
Though I am but a novice,we can see how it goes.

Playing this gambit and sacrificing a Knight from so early would only Bring troubles for white......

grenv: I agree.

Doerdich: Then you should have named the first 4 moves. It wasn't crystal clear from your earlier posts that this was the reason (though it appeared to be the only point of the move).

I believe it is quite common to sacrifice a minor piece for a check at some point, and it isn't clearly a win, so this seems a little moot.

Hi,

I have been kicked out of the tourney because I didnt have enough free games left. (I thought that tournaments games will be countet extra). Anyway, it seems to be look that I don't take part, because some people seem to missunderstand the idea of 1.Nc3!? 1.Nc3 is a gambit line, which enables white to sacrifice a piece for one check by force, e.g.: 1.Nc3 e6 2.Nb5! Or 1.Nc3 c6 2.Ne4! The great question is wether black is able to defend this position with an extra piece but "being one check down".

Hmmm, so there is a stalemate......
grenv: Yep it should be a draw!

Luke Skywalker: I believe that is a draw. However it is very theoretical and would need to be engineered by both players.

and some other black piece on b7

white: Ka8, Pa7
black: Kb8
white to move
isn't that stalemate because suicide is not allowed?

No.....! Since there is no check the King can go wherever he wants.....

In atomic is there stalemate?

As the piece it was promoted.......

Loop chess question: promoted piece after being captured is resurrected as pawn (usual rule) or as the piece it was promoted to? Not exactly mentioned in rules here...

Luke Skywalker Doerdich andreas: Differing views of this opening. That is why there's a tournament organized, right? :) I won't be playing in it, but you all have me curious about how it'll go. Let's put theory to test.

Doerdich: I think 1. Nc3 is a weak move and loses significant advantage White have in this chess variant after 1. e4.

Dear friends,

now I am not sure at all, but 1 Nc3 could also lose! For example, 1.Nc3 Nf6 2.Nb5 c6 3.Nc7+ Qxc7 Black is only a piece up but he controls all fields in the middle and its very hard to make progress for white. Very surprising! Call 1.Nc3!? the "Doerdich-Gambit....

Here's the link: http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=11408&tri=60495

I created the tourney, it should be interesting..

Can you create such a tourney? I will take part. I hope all people will move 1. Nc3 ...

Doerdich: Making theme tournaments in a forced way was a suggestion by me some times ago, but here ... no comment.

We can make a tounament and write in the description that 1.Nc3 must be moved.

You cannot create a tournament. See http://brainking.com/en/PaidMembership

Hi, that is a good idea. I'm new here, how can I create such a tournament? I mean, "One Check" or "Two Check" Chess will be obviously lost for black, because of 1. Nv3. The question is, if black can defend in a "Three Check Chess" Game after 1. Nc3. My first impression was, that white has a very easy win, but in fact it seems more difficult. Anayway, I still think white is better.

Doerdich: You mean 1.Nc3!? is too strong. Well, I would say: Let us create a big theme tournament to check this out.