BrainKing - Diskussionsforen (Chess variants (8x8))

Moderator: WhisperzQ

Chess variants (8x8)

including Amazon, Anti, Atomic, Berolina, Corner, Crazy Screen, Cylinder, Dark, Extinction, Fischer Random, Fortress, Horde, Knight Relay, Legan, Loop, Maharajah, Screen, Three Checks

For posting:
- invitations to games (you can also use the New Game menu)
- information about upcoming tournaments
- discussion of games (please limit this to completed games or discussion on how a game has arrived at a certain position ... speculation on who has an advantage or the benefits of potential moves is not permitted)
- links to interesting related sites (non-promotional)

Community Announcements:
- Nasmichael is helping to co-ordinate the Fischer Random Chess Email Chess (FRCEC) Club and can set up quad or trio games if you send him a PM here.

Liste der Diskussionsforen

Modus: Jeder kann schreiben

Zeige älteste Nachrichten zuerst

3. April 2009, 23:52:56

Constellation36

zeige Postings dieses Users | zeige Thema | Link

Thema: Ambiguous Chess rules.

Verändert von Constellation36 (3. April 2009, 23:57:24)

I have tried to play an Ambiguous Chess game and i can't say that i'm impressed with it. And that's because of the promotion rule. It really weakens the game the way promotions works.

Pawns are the soul of Chess and like that Pawns are the soul of Ambiguous Chess also. You can make nice sacrifices to just be able to promote. You can make spectacular moves to just give the chance to a poor Pawn to promote.
But this can't work in Ambiguous with the current promotion rules. The opponent will just choose the worst piece for you and the sacrifice would be pointless.

Countless endgames are meaningless with current promotion rules.

The rule from my perspective has to be changed such that the player and not the opponent to choose the piece in which the Pawn will be promoted.
That would create a much better game.

Just my 2c.

Perhaps i have this impression for Ambiguous Chess because of my first game. It has lasted 126 and still counting. :-) Perhaps this is a rare exception.