PowerPygmie, thanks for joining my tournament. I'm the last person to discourage anyone from joining, but just to make you aware, you are only allowed to join in one tournament at a time. You won't be allowed to join another until this one is finished, and there are some prize tournaments on offer.

Oh what the heck, I'll make mine a prize tourney, how's that?! 6 month knight membership to the winner!

Awesome! Not that I'll win the first time I touch a Maharajarah, but it's a nice incentive. I know some of the tourneys are for prizes, but it seems that I'm too new to join most of them. I've managed to find two of them, and they both had restrictions on when new accounts can be created. I'm too new.

Also, I have some practice games on the board, if anyone wants to join. No rating adjustments, just for fun.

Well, PowerPygmie, I don't think you'll find much of a challenge with me! I've lost a LOT more games than I've won! Both as black AND white! Shame on me! Ha ha! I like the game but I'm definitely no good at it!

I would like to join on this tournament but since Maharajah is a Black wins game, it is pointless.
So what would happen if all games would end with a Black win? Who would be the winner? A tiebreak? But then again if Black players would continue to win then what would happen?

Chessmaster, I've done one game per colour. So when the tourney starts, for each person you will play one game as black and one as white.

PowerPygmie, you should be aware of that too. It means double the amount of games you'll need spaces for.

Chessmaster, would you like to join the tourney? There are 6 people signed up, I'd like to start it soon :o)

I think that Chessmaster's point is that there is unlikely to be a single winner since many players will never lose as black. How would the prize-winner be determined in such a case?

I explained that. There will be one game of each colour per person. So if Chessmaster was to enter, he would play me as white, and as black. We'd have 2 games on the go. It makes it fair.

Well i don't think you understood what was my point, correctly. I don't say something is not fair, i only say what would happen if all games would end with a Black win***? Who would be the winner? The tournament in a case of a tiebrake would never stop as all players would win with black and lose with white.

*** = It's not a hypothetical question, like what would happen if black players will win all games at Chess, since Chess is not solved but Maharajah is a Black-win game 100%.

Hmm... in that case, I say we have a tiebreaker tournament, invitation only, for obvious reasons. The game? Tic-Tac-Toe! *rofl*

Honestly, it's a good point, and one I wondered about, but I don't really think people are going to squabble over the results.

Besides, it seems to me that you're assuming best play. Which, as you yourself know, doesn't happen all that often in live-fire games anyway.

seems odd, since if there are ten people in it hte prize will be divided ten ways....... playing a set, on as eahc color, is not going to change the fact that white doesn't have a chance to win this game. white should have two maharaja's, perhaps one of them being a "king" that cannot be lost or else white loses. I think Gary Barnes might have suggested that a long while back.

LOL! It isn't that complicated in my eyes! I play terrible games. Many people here have won games against me when I have played as black. Playing as black is NOT an assured win (for me at least). Which immediately changes the SB scores. I honestly can't see that all 5? other entrants would win in exactly the same way, to achieve exact results.
I'll provide more prizes if necessary, within reason. But I doubt it will be necessary! I can't see there being more than 3 or 4 overall winners.

I'll be starting this tournament later today. I'll be interested to see the results!

That's what I'm saying. All this talk about how black *can not* lose assumes that people are playing perfect games. Look around, and check people's ratings. Most of them do not play perfectly.

Yes, the game is imbalanced. In my opinion, white needs *three* Maharajarahs in order to balance the play. But the matches are even, one black and one white, and you're wrong, Dmitri. It's not a guaranteed 10-way tie. In my experience with chess, people generally just don't play as perfectly as you seem to think they do.

Besides, look at the entrants' ranks. Last time I checked, everyone except me is a rook, which means they don't *need* the prize, and it will go to me anyway! *lol*

Unless there's another pawn who wants to compete for it? ;)

Well there we go. The tournament started less than an hour ago and Mely has already scored a win against me. I was playing as black. I didn't even see it coming! LOL!

"Besides, it seems to me that you're assuming best play. Which, as you yourself know, doesn't happen all that often in live-fire games anyway. "

I have memorized the following (easy to remember)moves i found, that assure a 100% win for black and they are playable WHATEVER MOVES WHITE PLAYS:
So it's easy for someone to play live-games perfectly and instantly with black.

edit WQ

Chessmaster, its in pretty bad taste to post that right after I start a prize tourney.
I won't read it or pay any attention to the moves. If I lose, I'll do so honestly. Thats the fun of the game. Following someone elses formula to win is no fun at all. I would hope the other players in the tourney do the same.

Did you even read my message before you responded? I didn't say this game hasn't been solved. I said most people's game play does not show best play. Have you browsed your fellow players' ratings as I suggested?

And yes, as interesting as your solution is, posting it at this time was in very bad taste. No one asked for a solution for Maharajarah Chess. Some of us aren't here to make a life's study of a game, or to memorize move trees. Some of us are just here to have fun.

My first complete game of Maharajarah:

1. Mf3 h6
2. Ma3 e6+
3. Ma4 c6
4. Ma1 b5
5. Mh1 Bb7
6. Mh5 g6+
7. Me5 Qc7+
8. Mxh8 Nf6
9. Mxf6#

White wins. You can't sit there and tell me white has no chance. :P

edit WQ
This game is too easy to play and win with black.

When i first saw the game i thought it would be fun to play, but very soon i realised that it is a black wins game. Then it came the challenge to find a line for black that wins whatever white plays. And i discovered the forced mate in 24, with 22 moves for black that are playable no matter what white will play. Now it's a challenge to find a line, that will contain moves that would lead to a forced mate and that it would be playable no matter what white plays. And if possible to be a mate in 24 or less. Can anyone find such a line?

If you add one more Maharajah piece then again i think it's a black wins game. I will try to prove it some time. But what about 3 Maharajah's? Do you think is this game balanced? I don't think that and i found that if black don't play some moves it is a mate in 8. So actually it must be a white wins game.

Due to comments following Chessmaster's "PowerPygmie" post it has been edited as has another reference. By all means continue the discussion and when Harley's tournie is over reposted might be considered appropriate.

Thanks WhisperzQ, its appreciated.

OK, sorry for the little mess.

Why doesn`t Fencer balance this game? Does anybody know this? It could make this game more interesting.
For instance either by additional maharadjas or by my suggestion "Amazone chess" - on the board "other chessvariants".

Well, my guess is:

1. There are a few purists who might scream bloody murder if the rules for their game were tweaked.

2. Fencer hasn't yet discovered the best way to balance this game and is either still looking into it or letting us hash it out.

Just my $.02 worth.

And Chessmaster: You could be right about the three Maharajarahs. I haven't had a chance to test the playability of that. What was your starting position for them? I was thinking of placing one each on the rook and king positions, and allowing them to be checked or captured, as long as there is at least *one* Maharajarah on the board that is not checked.

If you need further balance, maybe we can restrict that to still having no checks or captures on White's side, but that seems a bit silly to me. Ah, well... I'm going to bed.

I never said black has to play the perfect game to win, far from it. black can lose several pieces and still win. It is a pointless game.

Not quite. Pawns can't join fellowships.

:)

i personally would also be against the automatic-move thing because i don't like computers doing anything on my behalf that i haven't told them to do. it's a little too 2001: A Space Oddyseyesque for me. a lot too, actually...

Starts September 25th. One year Rook membership up for grabs. Minimum payout is half year Rook or Full year Knight memberships.
It's an open, all are welcome.

Link

http://brainking.com/game/Tournaments?trg=4871&trnst=0

Starta September 25th.
It's an open, all are welcome to play.

2004 Third Quarter Extinction Chess tournament link.

http://brainking.com/game/Tournaments?trg=4873&trnst=0

Can you perhaps give an example for such an impregnable setup?

i thought I had one, Caissus, but i was disabused of that notion :(

if you'd have had one, for sure the same position would be not worse for white. *grin* ~*~

I will try a new impregnable position next black, something like the Roman battle formation turtling around the king...!

I agree with the people who don't like this game, though. It's only value is maybe training for real chess, or a real variant... and I hate to say this, but Chicken Chess is *boring*. I can't stay focused long enough to net the bird; I just fall asleep. *lol*

:P

The rules should say:
"-There is no check or checkmate and no castling

(you know... that movement where the rook and the king move at the same time... at least I think that's what it's called :} )

Either that or I'm failing to see the reason why I can't castle in this game...

As far as I know castling is allowed.

Check and Checkmate make no sense so hardly need to be mentioned explicitely in the rules.

I agree. But if castling is allowed then why couldn't I do it? There was no piece I could take, the king wasn't in check nor crossing check or anything...
I just got surprised. I think that either there is an error in the implementation of the game or the rules should be updated then...

an extreemly good friend of mine just said it looks like a giant royal chicken. lol

<why not add a queen, chancellor, archbishop, and janus to go with the maharajah? or maybe allow the maharajah to move twice. though I wish the graphic for the maharajah to be a dragon or something >.>.

I really want to use the chancellor, archbishop, janus, and maharajah against the standard chess set up. (even though the arch bishop and janus are the same)

that's strange. I seem to remember castling on one occasion, but it may have been another site. Doesn't happen often!

I don't think castling is allowed...but my memory may be fuzzy..I remember that we had this discussion, grenv, because the king is of no particular importance it makes no sense to protect him..

in this game it wouldn't be a protecting move. But it may be a tactical move to expose a piece to the right spot...
I don't know wether it should be allowed or not (I don't know any 'official rules' to guide me by other than the ones on this site). But if it says the rules are 'the same as in regular chess with some exceptions' and castling is not in the list of exceptions then it should be allowed... or the rules corrected :)

I believe this game was 'invented' by the editor of Games magazine some time back. Perhaps someone can find out for sure and see what his rules were.

Thad

Isn't this variation also called "bughouse" and played with 2 boards and 2 players per team?

yes

I just finished a 24 move Atomic game, which for me is pretty long. What's the longest game you've played?

That is a long game but I have one which now up to move 56 with at least few to go ... here ... I think I have a method to achieve mate (as white) but it hasn't come to fruition yet. This is unusual but when you get down to a small number of pieces in the endgame then it can take even longer than conventional chess ... and interestingly in atomic given the scenario of K+Q v K is not a win if black can get the Kings together.