are u too interested in suicide chess(aka antichess or vinciperdi)?great!
here are great links,take a look:
http://www.pion.ch/general/liens.php?norep=5 ( in french) translate with google
http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/ICGA/games/losingchess/start.html (though this one seems down,dont understand why)
http://www.matf.bg.ac.yu/~andrew/suicide/
http://www.acc.umu.se/~sanden/suicide/index.html

nabla: If it is okay with you I will add the links to description above then they will always be available for those who are interested without going back through the discussion history ... okay?

Cheers WQ :)

Hmm, the links below should read without a dot at the end, so http://www.pion.ch/Losing/LCLIT3AR.html and http://catalin.francu.com/nilatac/book.php

Just to make some facts straight : the game of Anti Chess, more often called Losing Chess or Suicide Chess, is more than 100 years old, and the rules used here are the standard ones. For some more details, here is an historical research by John Beasley : http://www.pion.ch/Losing/LCLIT3AR.html.
The game has been studied a lot, by hand and by computer. Here is an opening book which should avoid you a lot of early trouble : http://catalin.francu.com/nilatac/book.php.
My personal homepage has tons of information too, but available only in French language.

danoschek: I think it is extremely insightful (and incisive) and beautiful too ... just thought it might have been a technical term which I hadn't come across before ... maybe others will have similar games (positions) to share :)

WhisperzQ: eheh !
hard to explain ... don't you think this single knight
unveiling the weakness of joined forces is pure beauty ? .. ~*~

danoschek: wasn't intended to be a correction as the the term "pure pattern" still has me puzzled too ... can you enlighten me?

WhisperzQ: sorry I meant
'pure pattern' thanks for correcting ... ~*~

Hi all Chess960 friends,

the Chess Tigers have published a very compact summary consisting of two tables,
from which any of the 960 existing starting positions easyly could be derived.

It seems as if this page actually is available in German language only.

Go to http://www.chesstigers.de/index.php?id=4 (Chess960) an use the link

"zu den Startpositionen und Regeln ..."

Regards, Reinhard.

redsales: " (To WhispersQ): The problem with this game is that it's really a training game to get the players to figure out the moves. It was not intended for FM-IM-GM class players!" Correct. It makes for good discussion between the veteran player (Maharajah) and the novice. It is still an entertaining idea, and more "uneven chess" like this makes for good teaching tools, solved or not.

danoschek: Thanks ... and ...
You say this is a pure mate ... what do you mean by "pure"?

settings changed ... ... - and I too think three
boards could go as one fisher/corner/fortress that is ...
last not least, avoiding chessfree bubbles,here a cornergame with a pure mate ... ~*~

From what I've seen Fencer has no intention of creating a board for Fisher chess. It's more likely that (from what I saw on BK board) he is going to shrink the smaller boards due to the low usage of them. If people want a Fisher Chess board that badly then it can be asked for either on the BK board or on Feature requests.

BTW as there is no Fischer Random Chess board (yet) discussion of this variant is also welcome here. [Fencer, if you read this, then maybe you could change the description to include it. Could also combine with Fortress Chess too, if you like, as they are all very similar.]

danoschek: Sorry I can't reply to your pm directly regarding this board as you have me on hide. I was going to sort of agree with you but now I can't and your stunt is not appreciated.

Please keep it on topic people.

danoschek: From what Fencer has said on BK your not likely to either.

http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=125085
I can't fully compete with the beauty of
your pattern, but okay - effective as well ... . ~*~

enjoy :-)

http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=698831

Another option is to increase the (lone) Maharajah's power by adding the camel move (3/1 jump). This is then tricky for black at the start as white can trap the King behind the pawns with the camel's extra reach while staying outside the pawns' attack.

Maybe Fencer can set this up as another variant ... call it Maharani (wife of a Maharajah).

BuilderQ: Your idea would unfortunately make it a sure-win for white. Once black's army moves a few lines, the Maharajah sacrifices itself and then attacks the black from behind giving him no chance ...

Chessmaster1000: i mean closer in that it would result for more wins for white. You are right in that it doesn't change the fact that this is a "solved" game. I like the idea of removing the black queen.

Then White would replace the Maharajah on any square. Of course, black would be free to move into check with either of his first two lives, enabling him to capture at least two pieces during the game, making it a bit more even.

Your suggestion is not well-defined. You don't say what will happen when black would capture the Maharajah..............

How about giving the Maharajah multiple lives, like a video game character? He would have to be captured three times for Black to win.

Just remove black's Queen and perhaps we have a game.......Or give white 3 Maharajah's (2 Maharajah's loses too).........
But please remove the current ridiculous game. It's a shame that such game exist here, while other much better aren't........

redsales: i totally agree, but at least it would be closer than now!

No. It would be the same. The following moves for black destroy both games. The current one, and your suggestion......

1. Knight b8 - c6
2. Pawn d7 - d5
3. Queen d8 - d6
4. Pawn e7 - e5
5. Knight g8 - f6
6. Pawn a7 - a5
7. Rook a8 - a6
8. Rook a6 - b6
9. Bishop c8 - g4
10. Pawn e5 - e4
11. Queen d6 - e5
12. Bishop f8 - e7
13. 0-0
14. Rook b6 - b2
15. Rook f8 - a8
16. Rook a8 - a6
17. Rook a6 - b6
18. Rook b6 - b3
19. Pawn h7 - h5
20. Pawn g7 - g5
21. Knight f6 - h7
22. Queen e5 - d4

Now if the Maharajah is on a1 then:
23. Rook b2 - b1
24. Rook b3 - b2 MATE#

Else:
23. Queen d4 - d1 MATE#

WhisperzQ: i totally agree, but at least it would be closer than now! The problem with this game is that it's really a training game to get the players to figure out the moves. It was not intended for FM-IM-GM class players!

Then games would last 200 moves to mate the King and that's not the main bad thing. The most ugly will be that 99% of games will be drawn!
Even if you give at the King just the Knight moves, the mate will be damn difficult even with a Queen...........

why not give both sides the standard set up only make both kings a maharajah?

redsales: Even that is not possible with good play by black.

how about this, Fencer. If white can capture 2 pieces, he wins. It's just ridiculously easy the way it is now.

I considered to add 4 pawns and 2 gnus for white to the Maharajah Chess.

A gnu (sometime called wildebeast) is a compound piece of a knight (2/1 leaper) and a camel (3/1 leaper)

This still requires white to use its Maharajah for check mating black but it have at least some material to defend himself or to attack.

very safe, feel free to experiment with a4, h5 things that are off the wall in regular chess. But at the same time, tried and true openings work as well.

For the first 5-6 plies, i think it's safe.........

I am still rather beginner for this game and I wonder if we can apply without risk the book of the openings of the "standard" chess
to this variant "Extinction chess".
What do you think about it?

Tompark, your definition is a particular case of move and it´s only one consequence in standard chess, but in a cylindrical board or in other surface is not correct geometrically.

Matarilevich: I have and it doesn't let you make the move. To my oppinion, it does the right thing. I think the correct definition for a move is this:

a change in the position of one, or in a special case of castling, two, pieces on the board.

yes, passing is a kind of move but I think that's because WE call it a move. And that's because we do it in our own turn when we cannot make a legal MOVE!

So see, it's not that much of a move itself.

OK, OK, OK! Well done Mely. He finally brought me a loss. He's a perfect player. Have a look at the game if you like: http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=651309

congrats to all players!

Thanks and congratulations Caissus

I just noticed that in the final standings of the 2004 Third Quarter open that I finished behind in S-B points, but still ahead in the final placing. I guess I won and lost to the right people? :)
That's the second time that I've done better than the S-B placing would have me. I'm glad it's only used break ties. Even then, I can't say I like it much, but it does seem better than not using it at all. I wonder why the tournament didn't go to another round? Some of my tournaments continue on with the section winners and others just end with it tied. The tie here seems like a good result with so many players, but another round with them two only wouldn't be a bad thing either.

The tournament is over. Two first place finishes for the championship. Congratulations Matarilevich and Caissus. Yo both took care of me. redsales was tough too. It looks like copying the final standings isn't going to work very well, so I'll supply the link too.
http://brainking.com/game/Tournaments?tri=14921

Section 1 BKR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Points S-B (?) Order
1 Matarilevich 2465 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.0 47.0 1.
2 Walter Montego 2110 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.0 28.0 3.
3 redsales 2067 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 7.0 29.0 4.
4 Caissus 2078 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.0 47.0 1.
5 Mely 1848 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 5.0 11.0 5.
6 temo 1522 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2.0 0.0 6.
7 Nightstorm 873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 7

coffeehouse is my game baby!

mahavrilla: I believe that tempered capablanca chess appears
to have a higher potential than janus ... but the majority of games here
doesn't reflect all the strategic options properly, coffeehouse style mainly. ~*~

Which do you guys think of Janus as compared to Gothic? Which is better?

My opinion is that opening theory is only destroying chess at the highest level. Admittedly, there are those instances where it somehow tarnishes the games of us non-godlike-beings, however I think they are few and in most instances theory actually helps a person to understand the strategies of an opening- theory in this sense being what it should: an explanation of the goals and strategies inherent in the openings with analysis, not just the analysis. However, even if it were the case that theory kills originality, Fischer Random provides for well over one hundred starting positions, each one with myriads of possible goals and strategies that you would never see in "just chess", making it necessary to develop your own theory in each game! In fact my favorite thing about one of my new favorite games is it enhances your positional evaluation skills, cause you need em!

mahavrilla: I do have. Similar thoughts
have been expressend in 8 decades without the
doom coming indeed. Creativity will prevail. ~*~

I am a supporter of the idea that if we do not evolve chess, it's only going to get worse. Opening theory is killing chess. After playing gothic and janus chess here, I am starting to conclude that standard chess is going to have to do more than shuffle the back rank in order to give it life. Anybody else have some thoughts here?

Hardly corner chess guys.

but this is where the link apparantly takes you to!!