It is of no use to compare "points" as you have
done. This is only of occasional use in real
chess since the point system was created for that
game. That point system does not make sense in
horde chess.

After 7 matches with my good friend & nemesis, Indiagonal Jones, all of which I lost, I finally pulled out a win! Proving, I guess, that perseverence pays. Please see my #8 game: Game #85675.

To all -

Dmitri King previously mentioned that I had suggested a way to even up this game by having 2 'Queen' Maharajah's (able to be captured) and 1 'KING' Maharajah (must be checkmated like a King to win). Here are some more particulars on that.

I think that it SHOULD be obvious to ALL experienced players that Black should win by force in less than 30 moves with the current rules in Maharajah Chess. (Forced mate in 30 or less.) The fact that black could simply FORCE a minimum of a draw by moving a Knight back and forth while white wonders around aimlessly is also a telling factor. But of course, it would not make sense for black to settle for a draw. It is just a BIG tipoff to black's advantage.

Here's a simplified analysis of the value of pieces to make this into a reasonably even game for both sides. In regular chess, the pieces are assigned the following point values: Queen 9 points, Rook 5 points, Bishop & Knight 3 points, and Pawns 1 point.

In my opinion, a piece that can move like a queen and knight all by itself is somewhat more valueable than a queen and knight separately, simply because all alone, it covers ALL areas of a 5x5 zone if it is 2 spaces away from an edge and could quickly and easily mate a king even with a couple of other minor pieces around. So if a Queen and Knight separately are worth 12 points, I'll assign the regular Maharajah piece a value of 14 points. BUT...and a BIG BUT, the fact that this piece is like a King and cannot be captured reduces his value quite a bit. I'll say by 3 points. So I would say that the white's current Majahara piece is worth about 11 points.

Now if you add up the ENTIRE side of black's pieces, you come up with 40 points (counting the King as 1 point). Now I would say that you should reduce the value of each pawn by 1/2 point because they cannot promote to a queen or other piece. The reduction is 4 points there. So the total 'value' of black's pieces is 36 points.

So black is playing with a 36-11 piece value advantage. It's like playing over THREE queens down!!! NOW, you know why black has such an overwhelming advantage!!!!!

I have seen several suggestions here and NONE of them are enough to even up the sides. Some have said the following: give white the loop possibility, give him 4 pawns, give him 8 pawns, give him the Knight+ moves, or even give him ANOTHER Majahara! NONE of these is NEARLY enough. Even TWO Majahara's would be a BIG disadvantage. By BIG, I mean amongst experts (2000+ FIDE or USCF rating), black would win 95+% of the time. (Probably more like 99%+)

Here's an analysis of what I think that it would take to even the sides up. First I'll give some definitions:
Majahara Queen = Majahara piece that CAN be lost but still moves like a queen and knight. (As shown above, the value of this piece is ABOUT 14 points.)
Majahara King = Piece like now that CANNOT be lost or moved into check. (The current Maharajah piece valued above at about 11 points.)

Based on this, here is what should even up the sides. Have 2 'Queen' Maharajah pieces and 1 'King' Maharajah piece for white. The total value of these pieces would be: 14 + 14 + 11 = 39 points.

Now, black MUST be able to promote his pawns if he reaches the back rank so as to bring the value of his pieces back to the usual opening point value in regular chess of 40 points.

With a 40-39 point count on pieces, there should be some VERY interesting games where White could perhaps sacrifice one or two Queen Maharajah's to pick off a slew of black pieces and ultimately move in for a mate using the King Maharajah. Or black could maticulously and carefully march his pawns down to promote them so that he can fight off and capture the powerful Queen Maharajah's so that he can finally mate the King Maharajah. I foresee that black would need to queen 2 or even 3 or more pawns so that he could finally move in and trap the King Maharajah or pick off the Queen Maharajah's as needed.

THAT would be VERY interesting and I could see some VERY long and drawn out battles amongst high-level players, perhaps lasting 100 moves or more!!!

I'd be curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this.


Gary Barnes

I've played a few games of this now. It does appear there is at least one "perfect" game for black. Of the suggestions below, the only ones that might address the existance of a relatively simple perfect game are the 1-3 move and the addition of extra maharaj pieces, IMO. I like both ideas but I think you'd have to play them out to see if it worked in practice.

Ohhhhh...
I see!!!
It DOES pay to read the rules; not merely skim...LOL!!
Thanx!

I think you might need to reread the rules. Basically, when you or an opponent takes a piece all the pieces on adjacent squares (except pawns) belonging to both sides are also taken in the "atomic" explosion. Awesome really!

How'd I lose alllllll of those pieces???????
game: 71418
{KaTt runz back to the rookie korner :P }

Good to see the discussion has again begun. Most of the suggestions (he says pushing his chest out boasting :) ) were probably mine. Each has some merit but my favourite is the extra extended knight 3-1L move. As DK says, black can play such that all pieces protect each other, but what it does do is allow white to treaten the black King without interference from a string of pawns. Without playing the game I am not sure if this sufficient force to prise open a black defence but think it is really worth a try.

And on another matter, I would like to join the queue to play black against Uil's white Maharajah :)

I saw an idea where someone suggested the maharajah be given extra moves, those of a knight that can move in a 3-1 L. I do not believe this will change things a whole lot. The problem is, white cannot make any kind of attack on a defended piece, since it has no piece to back up a capture with. It is not difficult for black to keep all his pieces defended. Losing as black is inexcusable. Heck, losing a PIECE as black is inexcusable. I lost a rook in one game only because I failed to notice it was threatened. That is a pure careless error, it was not the result of clever play by my opponent.

Regarding what one person said about having 35 moves be a draw and 50 be a loss. That also does not work. The game appears to be a forced win for black in approximately 20 moves, as was demonstrated to me by a player whose name I cannot remember. It might have been whisperz.

The only way ot make this a game (right now it hardly qualifies as one, given the tremendous advantage that black has) is to add more pieces for white. Gary Barnes suggested having THREE maharajah pieces, one of them a King maharajah and theo ther two Queen maharajahs. The queen ones can be lost, but not the King. Even then black may have an advantage.

Uil-- I saw that you posted that you are undewfeated as white (although it seems like you have since picked up one loss). This is surprising, but it doesn;t prove much. It had to be careless play by your opponents that resulted in all those wins as white.

I am willing to guarantee that I will win this game as blakc against ANYONE. I am not even willing to do that in pente or Keryo pente, despite not having lost once yet as player 1 in either game.

The game of maharajah may have history, but it need to be changed. If the purists are bothered by this, then call it something different. But as it stands now, I cannot see any reason to play maharajah chess.

Another suggestion: We play with the regular chesset (both sides) with the one exception:
The queen is changed to the maharajah.

I'm waiting for that to happen ")

oh?

Double check counts as one check.

Does a Double check count as one or two checks against your opponents King?

It is actually white's game, normally. If black leaves an empty column, white can go in with a rook or queen and start at the back taking all black's pawns, with nothing black can do. It is very hard not to eventually leave an open column as black. Try it.

my feeling is that in horde chess black seems kind of overpowering

feel free to message me with your thoughts

Well it sounds like people are saying it would be too hard.... but,

1) you can tie the moves together, so your partner can't move until you do, and

2) you dont need to show both screens. maybe just a link will do?

But like I said I'm not a programmer, and others would know better, and it sounds like it will be too difficult to do... oh well...

And also, one player could purposely prolong their move if they know their opponent can capture a rook for example, and not play their move until they get that rook.

The two games would have to be connected and prolly shown split screen.

Whisperz, not be your partner?? What are you talking about, you've got an awesome rating! lol...

I don't know much about programming, but how hard would it be "synchronize"? Hmm, it would be 2 separate games actually, and when I win a piece instead of giving it back to me, like in Loop Chess, you just give it to my partner! Then if one of loses, we both lose, obviously. I think the hard part would be setting up invites and finding partners first before you have a formal invite to a match? Well, what do I know, I'm just a banker, with no knowledge of programming! But would love to see it though...

Something about this game too. I ay stop all the variations, just ban the top 50 chess openings from matches...

Hmmm, it would be pretty difficult to synchronize four players.

Sounds great, but I don't think anyone would be my partner :(

I think that the second suggestion (more move abilities to maharajah) is definitely worth trying.

There is a chess variant which has a piece which moves like a knight but with added advantage of also being able to go 3 squares forward and one square to the left or right. The piece can therefore, in the optimum location, cover 16 squares instead of the knight's usual 8. If these moves were added to the current Maharajah (so that he had bishop, rook, knight and knight+ moves) it would really add some oomph to the piece. Maybe this could be implemented as a (another) variant, maybe called Maharajah Plus. Fencer?

How about a Maharajah that lasts for, say, 35 moves achieves a draw and 50 moves a win, irrespective of checkmates. The numbers may need to be adjusted. This then places an onus on black to actively pursue checkmate rather than let it happen as a matter of course as pieces are marched down the board.

Has anyone ever played team chess? Where you have a partner on your team? When you capture a piece form your opponent, you give this piece to your partner to use wherever he/she wants. This was great fun back in my junior high school days. I wonder if this can be implemented here?? Fencer, any possibility??

One rook is like 5 pawns I think

I like the idea but what would the winning position for black be? Would there still be checks?

To change the game for a better balance we can try to play with two Maharadjas one on a1 and one on h1?

If you calculate with pawns: Queen 9, both rooks 9,knight and bishop 3, and 8 pawns you need 38 Pawns for black then you have a balance.

Loop chess is a great chessvariant,which is played on several internetservers. The normal name of this variant is "Crazyhouse". The best if you use the knights and try to come near the king

What strtegies does everyone like to use in Loop Chess. One of my opponents made the critical error of playing a gambit as black. I got a pawn free and managed to use it to shore up my defence and then poke holes in his. great stuff

Thank You, Kevin.

Yep, you can put it wherever you want :-)

If I took opponent's white square bishop,
can I place it on a black square?

Two scenarios to consider - your thoughts requested:

1. If I place my King next to my opponent's King and continue to keep it adjacent as they move their King around the board, then I assume my opponent cannot directly explode my King because it would also explode their King. Is this correct?

2. If there is no check or checkmate does that mean that there is not a stalemate condition where he has no move which will not result in his subsequent destruction.

This would leave only the following stalemate conditions:
- 50 moves without a capture or pawn move;
- board repeated 3 times;
- no possible move (would only hapopen when the King is completely hemmed in but has not been exploded and all other pieces (if any) cannot make legal moves).

I would like to say this game is very fun. I was checkmated in the tournament against grenv. But, hey I don't need to cry about it. I will take the lost for it and next time he or anyone else won't be able to checkmate me, since the rule are change now. I'm here to play not complain. It's just a game not something for money. :^)

Just wanted to check that pawns are promoted to a piece of choice when they reach the other side of the board.

Not wishing to harp (but I will) my point is that this is not the first rule change and the reason I lost the previous (tournament) game was that the rules changed mid-game and my game strategy was then shot to pieces. Also, I am sure I am not the only one who is in this position.

All this said, even if the previous game scores are not negated, should we play for long enough the cream will rise to the top and those who have won under dubious circumstances will have true status confirmed.

In the case where the checkmating piece could have been exploded I would recommend cancelling that game. The others are ok since the rules were applied correctly. I do like the current rules better, but i don't think the game has changed significantly enough to wipe out the history.

I have been "punished" with two losses, one in a tournament, because of rule changes or inconsistences. Why not restart the rating system again from the time of the latest rule changes and cancel all games which began before this date?

Why should he be punished with a loss when he deserved a draw, just because the rules were changed after the game was completed instead of before? :-)

In that case is it possible to change the results of Game ID: 37204
to a draw?

Another suggestion, which only provides a very slight advantage, would be to have the pawns move first.

Also, what about defaulting so that the higher ranked player is forced to play as black?

:)

Okay, I will remove checks and checkmates completely. It should solve all problems.

Given that we are experimenting here, probably let's restrict Black from making the extra move with the same pawn. all we want to do here is give Black nearly equal chances of beating White. Re your second point, fine (except that I believe that Black will always have space for an extra move). I suppose in the last stages, Black may be trying for Stalemate.

whisperz appears to be correct. This would seem to be a bug, even with the current rules.

Tony,
I think it would also be necessary (if we give black an extra move when capturing a piece) to ban him/her from moving the pawn which made the capture as the extra move. Also, black should be allowed to refrain from making the extra move if he/she finds it advantageous not to.