AbigailII, KotDB: Yes, that should be made clear and now that you rightly pointed that out, I realize that I am not sure about the author's intention in that case. I will ask him by e-mail.

BIG BAD WOLF: It's nice to hear that. Thanks.

emmett: Looks like a bug to me - Black should win. (Let fencer know)

This game of Ice Age Chess is not a draw, right? After move 60, it says it was a draw.

nabla: I agree completely that the choice is between the original rules and Robert Huber's revision. It would be inappropriate for us here at BrainKing to patch together a hastily concocted hodgepodge of fiddly litte rules and try to pass the result off as Mr. Huber's work. That sort of thing would only lead to confusion and the tarnishing of an interesting variant.

I support adopting the revised rules. I have not yet played Recycle Chess, partly because I just haven't got around to it, but also because the original rule (where a pawn's reward for bravely crossing the board is cruel annihilation) is simply ugly.

Of course it would have to be made clear whether a promoted pawn, upon being recycled, retains its promoted status (as in BK's Loop Chess) or reverts to pawnhood (as in Bughouse and Crazyhouse).

nabla: An alternative rule could be is "if a promoted piece is captured by a friendly force, it becomes a pawn again". That would prevent Queen cloning.

mangue: You mean "even if I didn't manage to draw" .
Yes, I had a huge material advantage in this endgame, but it was probably still a draw.

emmett: I don't think that we need to be so restrictive, as your proposal would make pawns in hand completely uninteresting. If pawn drops are limited to ranks 2 to 6, they are already of controlled danger, but even that restriction does not seem necessary to me. Don't forget that when you capture one of your own pawns, you are generally "wasting" a move and weakening your position, in compensation for the new pawn you get in hand.

One could discuss forever about how everyone would like the rules to be. But I don't see why Fencer should implement anything else than either the original rules (which he did), either the actual rules as corrected by the inventor (which have been thoroughly playtested by german players).

AbigailII: Yes it is easier to get pawns in hands, as far as you are not concerned with making holes in your position, that your opponent can take advantage of. I have experimented with the Rxa7xb7xc7 opening (yes that is a bit naive) and that was a disaster. In the opening and middlegame, I don't think one gets more pawns in hand than in Loop Chess.
Now when we talk about the endgame, you are right that it is easier to get pawns in hand. But this is a tactical element which can be taken into account by the players. It makes pawns more valuable pieces that they are in normal chess. You may like it or not, but it is not a fundamental flaw, like the impossibility to win "won" games would be.

nabla:even if I did manage to draw there : Recycle Chess (mangue vs. nabla) I admit it is drawish and I would find the game much more attractive with promotions.

nabla: Maybe we should consider have pawn drops, but only return them to an original pawn starting position (i.e. the 2nd row)... They would be able to be promoted after dropped, of course.

nabla: I don't think you can compare Recycle Chess and Loop Chess in that way. It's much easier to get a bunch of pawns in hand in Recycle Chess than it is in Loop Chess.

AbigailII: In that case it would probably be enough to bar pawn drops to the seventh rank (drops to the sixth are much less dangerous), like it is done in some local variants of Bughouse Chess.
But consider that in Loop Chess pawns can be dropped on the seventh and then promoted, and that nobody seems to complain about it.

nabla: Yes, I think that pawns should be able to promote, but I also agree that they can become too powerful because of the ability of dropping them on the seventh row.

Perhaps some compromise rule can work. Pawns can only promote if they either weren't dropped, or dropped on the first four rows. If a pawn dropped on the fifth, six or seventh row reaches the eight, it disappears. You would then need a way to distingish between such pawns.

Although the rules used here are a copy/paste of the version originally posted by the inventor Robert Huber on the chessvariants.com website, I think that Recycle Chess should be played with normal promotion, for the two following reasons :

- Robert Huber has changed his mind inbetween, and all games I have played with him, plus all (numerous) games he played in the circle of german bughouse players were played with normal promotions. Me and him have even designed a (flawed) endgame study which was based on promotion. The only goal of the original rule was to use a single box of pieces, which is of course irrelevant when playing online.

- When the game is played without promotion, it becomes very hard to win endgames, because the pawns become quite useless. For instance, the defender king can head for the 7th and 8th ranks where no pawn drop can molest him any more. This is likely to become a real problem when the general skill level will increase, because in this game it is much harder to win by a direct mating attack than in Loop Chess, both because traded pieces disappear forever and because the king can escape by taking his own pieces.

When I asked Fencer if he could reestablish the promotion rule, he told me that he did not want to make the change for the moment and that the matter should be discussed here first, because :

- He doesn't like to make rules change after the game was published.

- He played some live Recycle Chess with Bobes, who said that promotions were problematic, because they allowed a player to multiply queens too quickly by playing the queen on the eight rank, dropping a pawn on the seventh, capturing the queen with the pawn, dropping another pawn on the seventh, and so on. While this observation certainly makes sense, I don't think that it overweighs the draw danger. And if a player has enough time to set up such a repetitive manoeuvre, he can probably win in other ways too.

So, Recycle Chess players, what do you think about it ?

Not the shortest but very frustrating!

The Rook Shuffle

Does anyone feel for this? Of course add the Chancellor and the ArchBishop in both cases. Game last 10 turns. And how about adding http://www.chessvariants.org/diffobjective.dir/knightmate.html Knightmating Chess?

dresali: Yes, although this is the only site I know of that allows the double move from the second rank for pawns starting on either rank ... although I think this is slight advantage to black I think white is still way in front.

BIG BAD WOLF: True. Well, I just learned something new again. I've been learning as I play with this great variation. Now I have to check to see if I've actually won any Ice games yet.

emmett: From the rules: "....(it is not adjacent to any other piece in any direction)"

It says "ANY" other piece, so it seems enemy pieces count also.

I'm not sure, but I thought that my black knight at b4, and my black bishop at g2 should have disappeared under the ice after move 20 in this game. Is it because they were touching an enemy piece, and that saves them?

Just making sure, in Horde Chess, can pawns that
advanced from the first rank to the second rank make
a double step from the second rank if possible?
Thanks for the help.

There is no automatic draw in chess, you have to claim a draw. But if you do not know if the opponent moved a pawn, you cannot claim a draw.

It is like the 3 times the same position. In dark chess, you often do not know what the opponent moved, so it is impossible to claim it.

Just my two cents on dark draws...

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.

good point ;-)

Thanks for the reply!

Although, it's easy to prove that there were no pawn moves if there's no pawns left =)

there is almost no draw in dark chess, because you can never know if the 50 rules exist (how can you be sure your opponent did not move a pawn). So even after playing 500 moves, if your opponent still refuses to draw, you can do nothing.

Also in normal chess, KNN against K is not automatically draw, only KN against K is draw.

If you are sure there were no pawn move and no captures in the last 50 moves, you can claim a draw by Fencer, but it will be hard to prove...

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.

In normal chess king+knight+knight VS king = draw, does this also apply to dark chess???

I'm playing a game at the moment with king+bishop VS king+pawn, is the game a draw when I take his pawn?! i.e. should I try to capture his king instead of the pawn or should I take the pawn and then go for the king?

does the 50 moves rule apply when all pawns are gone as in chess?

Regards

Mezzanine

it is a big advantage to play black in this game, imho

BIG BAD WOLF: Well, you are right on the first point. I didn't quite realize that the ice came after black's move on 60. I thought it was after white's on 60.

You are also right on the 2nd point.

emmett: Well if you don't, black will capture it... since the ice does not come back until after blacks 60th move (right before your 61st move)

But it is an interesting position - that is if white puts black in check on the 20th move, should black have to move his king even though right after that ice will block the check?

I was counting on the ice to freeze on move 60 in this ice chess game... But I am forced to move my king in check right now. It doesn't make sense since I know that the ice will be between the attacking rook and my king on move 60. I shouldn't have to move my king. Well, I could move him to A2. There is nothing in the rules defining this situation. I was counting on the ice, so I should not have to move my king. Responses?

furbster: Lol. Another obliging king! ;-)

AbigailII:
Things are not determined by a dice roll, but by luck. Consider a game of rock paper scissors,
nothing is hidden there either, a single game of
it is still completely luck dependant.

And A,B and C are 'good', since if Black decides to
play A',B' or C', White will win 66% of the time,
so it would be irrational for Black to not choose X, so with everyone playing rationally, the game would end in a draw.

Concerning the swap rule, I see that its probably not as perfect as I first thought, since White can play really bad which leaves Black no 'bad enough' moves, so restrictions would still be necessary.
And all that bad play really isnt so nice at all, thats true ;)
Which still leaves this great game at a way too imbalanced state.

dresali: I grant you that if there is a drawish move for black that a swap rule could "work" (although that would be a very different game, one that is decided on the first move). But it's not at all clear to me that, for any first move of white, there is such a move for black. Not that I really like games where blacks first move has to be a bad one.

As for your perfect information example, I'm a bit confused about your meaning of 'good' and 'mediocre'. Since all moves of white (A, B, C) can be beaten (A', B', C') and alternatively lead to a draw (X), I wouldn't qualify them as "good" moves. Although I guess that if white doesn't have any moves available that win, all moves are equally "good".

I still claim such a game would be a game of perfect information (nothing is hidden or determined by a dice roll). But I'm fine with you seeing it differently.

Ok, agreed, if White plays Qa1 in his first move, there probably wont be any drawish positions anymore
after Blacks first move, no matter what he plays,
so the restriction for White's first move might still be necessary.

Just moving this Cheversi discussion from the Requests Board to here, so if you would like
to read the preceding posts, thats where they are ;)

AbigailII/Perfect information:
Say White has three equally good moves A, B, and C and Black has the Moves X, A',B' and C'.
X garanties a draw, A', B' and C' win against A, B and C respectively, but lose against the other two.
So Black should play X, but he might choose to play a mediocre move and get lucky and win.
In case of simultaneous placing of pieces, a player cant know the outcome of a game anymore
by solely doing enough calculation, so luck comes into play, hence there's no perfect information anymore.

AbigailII/Swap rule:
Of course in your example a swap rule wouldnt help.
That's because in that game there are no positions that are drawish.
But thats not the case in Cheversi.
If after any of White's possible first moves, Black is able to construct
a drawish position with his first move, then adding the swap rule after move 1
would cure the imbalance problem.

I haven't played the game yet, but it would seem more logical if empty squares were filled with ice cubes after they've been unoccupied for a number of moves – say, five. That variation might be called Ice Chess, for example. It would have to be tested first, of course. I have no idea what it would be like to play such a game.

AbigailII: Right indeed. I got carried away too much by the idea and forgot that a dice chess endgame is really just a king x king game ...

Pafl: K vs K+N+B is not a nightmare in Dice Chess. And it's the lone king that has the upper hand. In Dice Chess, a lone king is a very strong piece. Its strength lies in the fact that since there are no other pieces, the king is garanteed to move on each turn - if it's its next to the enemy king it will take the king on its next move (assuming it survives the opponents move). In a K vs K+N+B end game if the lone king is on a square next to the other king, and it's currently not attacked by the N or B, it has a 67% chance of winning the game if it's the opponents turn to move, and a 100% chance of winning if it's its turn to move.

I am trying to make move 21 of an Ice Age Chess game, and it keeps reverting me back to the previous position so that after I move I have to continue trying.... game

Pafl: The game with 54 moves (finished in pawn endgame): Dice Chess (AbigailII vs. andreas)

I'd love to see the * longest * dice chess game here ... what if someone gets into an endgame King+Rook against King ... or even worse K+B+N against K ... what a NIGHTMARE ! :-D

grenv: Another argument for not opening the centre is that it immediately reduces the odds for moving a particular piece. Specifically the knights and rooks are 1/3 to be moved while the bishops, queen and king are asleep in their beds, and that increases the odds of a blitz.

AbigailII: It is not, in the same way that you cannot capture adverse pieces while castling. Similarly, after 1.Nf3 you can't play 2.f2xf3, but you can play 2.g2xf3.

Is 1. 0-0 a valid move in Recycle Chess (taking both the bishop and the knight)? If not, should it?

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

furbster: LOLOL. That's fabulous!! What an obliging king. ;O)