Walter Montego: I've seen some others, but I don't think it's good with black... however it seems better in the reverse scenario with white.

if you play as black you could try something like
3...Bc5 4.d4! Bb6 5.Nf7 Qe7 6.Nd6 Kf8 7.Nxb7

i don't remember any other move 1 by black being viable, but perhaps someone else has a better memory than me.

Reason I like it is that it differs from the opening in reverse at a critical point.
1.Nf3 e5
2.Ng5 f5
3. h4 c6
4. Nxh7

however since white played 1.h4 this capture is impossible and therefore a new line is needed. I think black erred with Nh2 in this game. . . white can't actually force a win i think if black plays something like b5.

I think the opening here is worthy of analysis by anyone interested in Atomic Chess
Atomic Chess (grenv vs. Walter Montego)

Walter Montego: Sorry left out a move, was in my head instead of on a board :( probably not valid now that i think about it.

1.h4 Nf6
2.f3 Nd5
3.Nh3 e6
4.e3 Qxh4

maybe 4.b4 is better to avoid Qxb2... but once it's done perhaps 7.a4

Doesn't prove much yet.

What about this line for example...
1.h4 Nf6
2.f3 Nd5
3.Nh3 Qxh4

WhisperzQ: Not sure about that, seems to me reckless abandon will lose Atomic Chess very quickly.On the contrary accuracy and discipline are paramount.

Justaminute: yes, but it would seem to be vanishingly rare that you want 5 knights at the same time for example. I guess anything is possible.

rabbitoid: So 2 sets and a plethora of queens. No need for more than 2 full sets is there? Other than the queens.

I believe it should work this way:

position also includes number of checks each player has made.

3x repetition of position would have to take that into account.

therefore the only way this is a draw is 3x repetition of a position that isn't check... and only if there has been no intervening check between positions.

Anyone disagree? I invite dissent.

Pedro Martínez: I agree with that. The implementation does seem backwards in this regard.

Seems like the ice age event happens simultaneously with the move... which is fine, but the rules should point that out.

wetware: The *test* for mate is after the 40th move.... but the *definition* of mate relies on knowledge of what the king *could* do next move.... therefore checkmating takes precedence in this case - it happens one move before the other event.

grenv: Oh, and one last comment... whether you know it or not, you are taking the possible next move into account when assessing if it's a checkmate.... otherwise it makes no sense. If you don't see that then it's no wonder you don't see my larger point.

You might google parallel lines in non-Euclidian geometry if you want some ideas on how interpretation of definitions should not be swayed by your experience and pre-conceived notions.

wetware:

from thefreedictionary.com - but all definitions are essentially the same

check·mate (chkmt)
tr.v. check·mat·ed, check·mat·ing, check·mates
1. To attack (a chess opponent's king) in such a manner that no escape or defense is possible, thus ending the game.

After move 40 an escape *is* possible if the ice age event would cause the king to avoid capture.

Honestly, you people think this is opinion - it isn't... we are trying to interpret the rules as written. I believe my interpretation is the only possible interpretation.

*Opinion* might be that this rule isn't a good rule and should be rewritten.

wetware:
point 1... Move 40 is defined as being different in the rules... assuming that it should behave the same is plainly wrong.

point 2... Actually my sequence is the same as yours, I just have a different definition of checkmate... my definition is;
"if the white king is in check and cannot legally move out of check on his next move, then he is checkmated."

Your definition appears to be:
"if the white king is in check and could not legally move out of check next move in an identical situation in a different variant, then he is checkmated"

I like my definition better.

Justaminute / Nabla: I believe that in Atomic chess you should be considered to be in check if a move of your opponents could blow up the king.... i think that is a mistake in the implementation... however it doesn't really matter or change the game too much.

In this case you're asking the wrong question. Checkmate occurs at the end of move 40 - However - the definition of checkmate is that the king cannot move out of check on his next move. Since the next move is move 41, the ice age event intervenes and must be taken into account...

I don't see how the interpretation could possibly be any other way unless it is explicit in the rules (which it isn't).

You can argue that it is a lop-sided game as a result if you like, but I don't think you can argue the interpretation;.

Justaminute: That would seem to be an argument for how the ice age event goes into effect at all... but once you have the event you should treat it consistently.
Maybe the ice age event should happen every 39 moves instead of every 40 so that it alternates.

Justaminute: I think the rule is clear and doesn't need clarification.

The ice age event happens between blacks 40th move and white's 41st...

if the event means that white can move out of check (or simply isn't in check any more) then blacks 40th move is not checkmate.

Interpreting it the other way is simply misunderstanding that this is a different game than regular chess... just because the position *would be* checkmate in a regular game doesn't mean it is here.

Don't forget that forcing a capture of the king is not the idea... otherwise stalemate would be a win. We still need the king to be in check for a checkmate to be valid.

joshi tm: I thought there must be a rational explanation, just couldn't see what it was :)

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.

nabla: I'm also not quite versed enough, it takes more of an expert than me. However I'd be interested in hearing what line you believe is so good for white and I'll try to refute it for black.

mangue: I think you'll change your mind after playing some of the better players. I used to think white had a big advantage until i saw some of the counterattacking opportunities open to black in most lines.

mangue: Not true. There is no forced win for white. In fact black has many opportunities to win. What line by white do you suppose is a force?

mangue: Short games in Atomic are a result of mistakes. How is that interesting?

mangue: At last, the voice of sanity. not that dice chess is a sane game at the best of times.

mangue: The last suggestion would seem to be the answer here.

whirlybabe: Not sure what that statement about lucky and unlucky means....

is it meant to read "This is a game of luck"? What's with the wordiness? If so, yes... it's a game of luck. Might as well roll a dice.

What a strange conversation.

coan.net: Welcome to the world of "games of chance". If you lose you lose, what's the difference how if it's in the rules?

mangue: I'm not sure the 50 move rule applies to Dark Chess, but if it does then the program would know if no pawns were moved.

Perhaps a good rule would be at least draw a K v K ending.

I've had many draws in games with 6 or 7 pawns each left, in a postion where they are all blocking each other. In this case it is not uncommon for both players to set themselves up defensively, but neither will attack because the risk is too great. Usually this is easy to agree on.

mezzanine: There is no such concept in Dark Chess, since no matter what the makeup of the pieces, you can still win by capturing the king. Even K vs K is allowed.

Of course you can always agree to a draw, though this is more common when the pawns form a line that is impossible for either side to break without losing the exchange.

whirlybabe: A good argument for not moving the pawns in front of the king early maybe.

BIG BAD WOLF: Right, my mistake, the 8-sided is regular but the 10-sided wasn't.

I had 4,6,8,10(used for %age),12,20 . I think that was the standard set.

Jules: i remember an 8-sided dice actually, which wasn't a regular shape. 16 is probably possible as well, though I never saw it while I played.

WhisperzQ: 16 sided? there was only 12 and 20 ,as dictated by geometry. To get 16 you'd need to roll 2 4-sided dice. The first would be 0, 4, 8 or 12 and the other 1,2,3,4.

panzerschiff: With 2 dice do you choose between them?

Pafl: If it's not 1/2 you couldn't play this game easiliy across a board.

I'm guessing the stalemate position will be identified prior to rolling. In fact if it's smart there will be absolutely no re-rolling, you just program the randomizer with the number of posibilities prior to rolling, if it's 0 the game is a draw.

King Reza: lol

Jugar = to play
Ajedrez = chess

Should be just below the "Hola Reza" in the login box. :)

tipau: Thanks, I joined (as grenv again)... but I'll need to wait till I get out from behind this firewall to play.

Walter, you need to join first, then a java applet is used to play. I suspect from there you can choose the game type.

Walter Montego: If you ever see a live dark chess site or game let me know!

nabla: But on every site I've played en passent is allowed, so I think these rules have possibly been superceded by usage.

King Reza: ok, I get it after re-reading. lol. It depends which syllable you emphasize :)

King Reza: I think it makes sense to show the pawn. Why force the players to try each move, it's a waste of time and achieves nothing.
By the way just because you call yourself King is no excuse for using the royal "we" :)

Cubs93: There's a rule that capturing the king is a draw????????? Surely you jest.

Perhaps if you posted the game position we could help. And in future don't play hidden games.

Cubs93: I still don't understand why capturing the king would be considered a draw.

Cubs93: What does "in a real life game a draw" mean? Surely losing your king is either not allowed (can't move into check) or a loss (e.g. in Dark Chess). But never a draw??

I've never played crazy screen chess, but I assume from the rules is is possible that black starts in check, therefore the code probably has to allow for it, which means having your king captured would be a loss?

Chicago Bulls: It's not different at all, in fact why would anyone consider exd5???, it loses the game immediately. Why allow stupid mistakes?

nabla: I didn't really understand your question, but what I meant was that moves leaving the king in check should be illegal.

Atomic chess should be the same, except that "check" should mean any situation where I can blow up the king.

e.g.
1.Nf3 f6
2.Ne5+

or
1.Nf3 a6
2.Ne5x

I played ambiguous chess a few times, and I have to say i think introducing check would make it a better game. Either way it's pretty silly.