 |
|
 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. Sa ei tohi sellesse vestlusringi kirjutada. Madalaim lubatud liikmelisustase sellesse vestlusringi kirjutamiseks on Ajuettur. Režiim: Igaüks võib postitada
<< < 1 2 3 > >> 23. august 2011, 03:29:36 Teema: Re: 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. 22. august 2011, 21:21:41 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. 22. august 2011, 21:21:11 Teema: try again 22. august 2011, 21:20:11 Teema: moving from feature requests. I think the opening here is worthy of analysis by anyone interested in Atomic Chess Atomic Chess (grenv vs. Walter Montego) 18. august 2011, 19:08:17 Teema: Re: 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 18. august 2011, 17:37:11 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 11. august 2011, 13:04:40 Teema: Re: Analogy of types of war regular Chess to Embassy Chess to Atomic Chess WhisperzQ: Not sure about that, seems to me reckless abandon will lose Atomic Chess very quickly.On the contrary accuracy and discipline are paramount. 27. juuni 2011, 20:35:13 Teema: Re: Loop Chess set 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. 27. juuni 2011, 15:43:36 Teema: Re: Loop Chess set rabbitoid: So 2 sets and a plethora of queens. No need for more than 2 full sets is there? Other than the queens. 23. mai 2011, 21:04:03 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. 13. veebruar 2011, 00:29:50 Teema: Re: 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. 12. veebruar 2011, 17:00:19 Teema: Re: 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. 12. veebruar 2011, 16:07:41 Teema: Re: 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. 12. veebruar 2011, 15:52:03 Teema: Re: 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. 12. veebruar 2011, 05:56:14 Teema: Re: 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. 11. veebruar 2011, 16:50:14 Teema: Re: 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;. 11. veebruar 2011, 14:41:54 Teema: Re: 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. 11. veebruar 2011, 14:19:35 Teema: Re: 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. 11. veebruar 2011, 12:45:06 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. 29. aprill 2008, 14:57:52 Teema: Re: joshi tm: I thought there must be a rational explanation, just couldn't see what it was :) 28. aprill 2008, 00:40:06 Teema: Re: 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. 6. september 2007, 02:34:30 Teema: Re: 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. 5. september 2007, 02:29:44 Teema: Re: 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. 4. september 2007, 01:02:18 Teema: Re: 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? 3. september 2007, 19:41:00 Teema: Re: mangue: Short games in Atomic are a result of mistakes. How is that interesting? 3. september 2007, 17:00:35 Teema: Re: mangue: At last, the voice of sanity. not that dice chess is a sane game at the best of times. 1. august 2007, 02:58:21 Teema: Re: Draw offers in Behemoth chess mangue: The last suggestion would seem to be the answer here. 27. juuli 2007, 02:26:35 Teema: Re: Abigailll:Subject:Behemoth,mate,strategy 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. 15. juuli 2007, 03:53:14 Teema: Re: Behemoth Chess 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? 2. veebruar 2007, 17:12:59 Teema: Re: 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. 2. veebruar 2007, 15:00:17 Teema: Re: Dark Chess = draw? 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. 20. jaanuar 2007, 15:37:14 Teema: Re: Shortest Dice Chess game? whirlybabe: A good argument for not moving the pawns in front of the king early maybe. 15. jaanuar 2007, 20:41:13 Teema: Re: 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. 15. jaanuar 2007, 20:19:09 Teema: Re: 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. 15. jaanuar 2007, 17:34:17 Teema: Re: 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. 13. jaanuar 2007, 15:09:57 Teema: Re: panzerschiff: With 2 dice do you choose between them? 11. jaanuar 2007, 17:06:40 Teema: Re: 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. 8. november 2006, 20:17:29 Teema: Re: Dark Chess + en passant = ? King Reza: lol Jugar = to play Ajedrez = chess Should be just below the "Hola Reza" in the login box. :) 8. november 2006, 19:16:44 Teema: Re: Dark Chess + en passant = ? 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. 1. november 2006, 20:11:14 Teema: Re: Dark Chess + en passant = ? Walter Montego: If you ever see a live dark chess site or game let me know! 1. november 2006, 16:31:31 Teema: Re: Dark Chess + en passant = ? nabla: But on every site I've played en passent is allowed, so I think these rules have possibly been superceded by usage. 26. oktoober 2006, 16:51:07 Teema: Re: Dark Chess + en passant = ? King Reza: ok, I get it after re-reading. lol. It depends which syllable you emphasize :) 26. oktoober 2006, 15:59:46 Teema: Re: Dark Chess + en passant = ? 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" :) 4. oktoober 2006, 16:23:24 Teema: Re: 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. 3. oktoober 2006, 17:59:45 Teema: Re: Cubs93: I still don't understand why capturing the king would be considered a draw. 2. oktoober 2006, 21:03:22 Teema: Re: look this 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? 4. juuli 2006, 19:57:56 Teema: Re: Chicago Bulls: It's not different at all, in fact why would anyone consider exd5???, it loses the game immediately. Why allow stupid mistakes? 4. juuli 2006, 17:31:54 Teema: Re: 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 4. juuli 2006, 16:32:04 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. << < 1 2 3 > >> |
Kuupäev ja kellaaeg
Sisselogitud sõbrad
Lemmik-vestlusgrupid
Sõpruskonnad
Päeva vihje
|
|
Tsensor: 
Autoriõigus © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, kõik õigused kaitstud. Tagasi algusse |