Caissus: winboard/xboard manages fine the pgn used here. In windows you have to modify the shortcut to have the flag
winboard.exe /variant=crazyhouse
the only problem with this interface is that it doesn't show the pieces off board, which is VERY annoying for this variant

You will find a very interesting article of the Frankfurt Chess Tigers on this event at: http://www.chesstigers.de/index_news.php?id=237&rubrik=4 (in English language)

Regards, Reinhard.

rabbitoid: LOL .... yes it would be :)

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=8659&u=4398&trnst=0

Andromedical: I joined your tournament Andromedical. I haven't played much Dark Chess in awhile. I was hoping ol' Ed would join it for some Dark Chess, but thems the breaks. It looks like it starts in a few hours. Perhaps we can enlist a few more Dark Chess players?
Should be a fast paced tournament with a two day move limit.

http://brainking.com/game/Tournaments?trg=8217

Why each game of Fisher Random Chess tournament starts with the same setup? This is no fun :(

This is to avoid the luck factor.........

But in tournaments with 2 games with reverted colours per pair of players it would be really enough if these 2 games are the same IMHO.

In this way it would make games of the tournament more interesting, but in the current way it would help to see who plays better the current position or for FRC-Chess interested players(like me) it would help to generate some ideas about various setups......And as i've said in the current way there is no luck factor at all.........

Well, in OTB tournaments you have no time to watch simultaneous played games. Here the situation is a little bit more complicated. May be it could help to disallow any kibitzing until move 5 of any random game.

I don't think this is necessary at FRC.......But perhaps it would be a good idea.....!

Sumerian: I think as there is plenty of opportunity for diversion from any course there doesn't need to be a kibitzing rule. After all, there are a lot of sound first, second, and so on moves from almost any of the initial positions, so the play is largely a matter of taste. Also, correspondence is set up to allow maximum thought and opportunity for research for each player.

fungame: Tournaments in FRCEC don't start with the same position. Everyone has a different position. I agree, they are more fun!

Check out our currently running Fischer and Gligoric Cups at:
http://frcec.chess960.info/FischerCup.htm
http://frcec.chess960.info/GligoricCup.htm

Jose Carrillo
FRCEC Moderator
j_carrillo_vii@yahoo.com
http://frcec.chess960.info/

Caissus: this is a perfect idea,i got it too;the pb with antichess is that its overanalysed!
we should try to put it!

I've created a game of chess amd horde chess and neither shows up in the waiting room, but show up on my main page that they've been created.

What should I do?

Corporation: The games are there, they just do not appear to you in "Waiting Games" because you could not possibly accept the challenge otherwise you would be playing yourself.

Hope this solves your dilemma.

And to prove it, I have accepted one of your horde chess games.

Cheers WQ :)

Corporation: This will help:
http://brainking.com/game/FAQ?ht=8

reza: Ra5-a5 is no legitimate MOVE - you are absolutely right - a move has
a start square and a different destination square, that is its definition ... ~*~

danoschek: not in all games. in checkers, you can have multiple jumps that end up where you started. in cylinder chess I see no reason why it should be disallowed. it comes to a "pass", but so what, if no rule forbids it?

rabbitoid: checkers oogh ... still the position has changed ... it's a flaw period ~*~

danoschek: I'll oogh you! halma?
ok, ok, I take it back. my Kindergarten days are over, too

It is really interesting for me. I have thought on it a lot and have come to this conclusion that in cylinder chess players really should not be allowd to make such moves.

Yes, even in checkers after you make multiple moves, after the move, the position on the board is changed and several pieces are captured.

In cylinder if such moves are allowed many moves can be made by the queen and the rooks that end in no obvious change of the position on the board and such moves seem to me strange and useless.

I'm very much willing to read everybody's opinion about this.

reza: It may not be useless... the position I posted when I started this whole thread 4 months ago has different outcomes if this is considered a valid move or not. Just to bring it back:
-------------
White: Ra5, ph6, Kc3
Black: Kb1, pa6, ph7
White to play, mate in 2
-------------
The proposed solution is
1.Ra5-a5 Kb1-c1
2.Ra5-a1++

And in halma, as rabbitoid pointed out, you can have a move that doesn't change the board at all.

I'm not stating that this should be a valid move or not. I just pointed out what I read in a book, that's all and was wondering for your oppinions. But then again, I remeber a famous game in chess history where someone promoted a pawn to an opponent's piece. And it was considered a valid move at the time since the rules didn't say anything against it (that's why they've been changed *hint**hint*)

it's chess - you all might have forgotten ... ~*~

reza: In Chess (and variants) there is a phaenomene called 'Zugzwang'. It is existing only, because there is no possibility in Chess to simply pass a move. Permitting moves which do not change the situation on the board thus will be nothing else than passing. Thus the Zugzwang element by that will vanish from Chess in such situations. Chess including a possibility to pass a move no longer remains Chess, it becomes a new type of game.

Sumerian: indeed it would theoretically suspend stalemate as well ... it's humbug. ~*~

danoschek: An additional argument against such passing loopings is, that when cycling once creates a move, cycling twice will also do. How will you distinguish such a move from one making 222 cycles? Enumbering all valid moves will end in a never ending chaos. But identifying all into one 'move', will reduce them to a simple passing, which is not allowed at all.

Sumerian: actually the logic is violated beyond too, I agree ...
I assume we both know the chess riddles that challenge one
to reconstruct the history of a game by a given end position ... ~*~

danoschek: I don't play cCylinder Chess, but I fail to see how making a move that leaves the board in the same position would eliminate stalemates from happening. Since only a Queen, Rook, or Bishop (Hmm, I'm not sure about a Bishop) can make such a move and not the King, a stalemate cannot happen in this manner, can it? It could certainly facilitate in the making of a stalemate though. Suppose I moved my Rook all the way around the board and left the position the same, now a stalemate could indeed happen. That'd be my stupidity for allowing that to happen, wouldn't it? One thing I am curious about this is, suppose a Rook that I can move all the way back to the same square is blocking your Bishop from throwing a check on my King. I would say that the Rook cannot be considered to have moved. Simular to the situation to castling through a check even though the King isn't in check when the castling is completed. How does the game here handle this situation?

Walter Montego: yes you don't see. like I don't see the admittably
challenging boardlogic complying with chess rules either ... btw it was me
who urged to repairing the en passant cross the border too - fixed already ... ~*~ .

Sumerian, danoschek: "it's chess..." well, no, it's not. it's a variant, which has a different set of rules. it says in the rules the only change is the possibility to extend the board so that it loops on itself. it follows that the only limitation to a rook move is that there be no pieces between the starting and ending point.

Sumerian's infinite regression is no obstacle, since there is the 3 move repetition draw rule.

hmmm... actually that's the way out of this loophole: when the rook starts the move, there IS someone standing on the target square: himself. question is, does this count as an obstacle, since the rook has to move out of it's starting position to reach the obstacle, which is therefore no longer an obstacle? this is starting to enter quantum physics... or in dano's favorite expression, humbug. for once I agree

rabbitoid: If your looping rook would be an obstacle to itself, you have to decide, whether the rook should capture itself, or the move finally hereby is blocked. So you at last have the choice to declare this move to be impossible, or having unfinite multi-looping doubles.

Sumerian: so far, in this variant, you can't take your own pieces, so that's out.

but apart from that, that's an idea for a new variant: you can take also your own pieces. for normal chess, this is idiotic, but for loop chess? sacrificing a piece to parachute far behind enemy lines? what do people think?

rabbitoid: An excellent idea ... "sacrificial loop chess".

rabbitoid: That seems to make a simple rule. In regular Chess you can only move to an unoccupied square or one that is occupied by an opponent's piece. The Rook should be not be allowed to move to its starting square as it is occupied before it moves.

rabbitoid: you expressed it much better by pointing that a piece
must move to an un-occupied square - I enjoy to see the group intelligence
which is even higher than mine is lightly capable of fixing the prob ... ~*~ .

Are they no longer considered important variations individually?

Dragon: Yes, though you are at the right board to post about them. Any news?

>http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=8795&tri=41671&trnst=0


Three are in, one more is needed before 2 AM Pacific Time, around 8 hours from now. Andre has it as single game matches, so you only get to play three game for the whole tournament. 3 day time limit.

rabbitoid: This actually has been called Recycle Chess and is a very cool variant : http://www.chessvariants.org/difftaking.dir/recyclechess.html . Unlike Loop it can be played over the board without problem. Try it !

Ok Guys, Enough.

I've deleted the posts, so please don't carry it on.

I really don't care about that. :)

I've deleted the posts and that's the end on the boards I moderate. If you and/or Walter carry on this 'dispute' on the boards I moderate you will be hidden.

Jules: Ah, my dear Jules. Without any moderation at all, I had deleted the three posts the chessmec found offensive. He in turn deleted his post concerning mine and danoschek's. As you've noted, danoschek has you on hide too. As far as I know, you didn't see any of the dispute except maybe danoschek's posts and the one that I typed after I deleted the rest of them. I do care about being put on block by someone, though there's not much I can do about it.

I thought the last post that I typed explained in a non-threatening or harrassing way a way for danoschek and I to settle our differences or failing to do that to make sure that we'd stay away from each other. As I asked chessmec in some private messages, how else can I communicate with him? And you yourself have done as I did and posted here. Hopefully he doesn't have us both on hide in this discussion board. As I've not gotten a reply, move, or noticed him changing the blocked user status in our game, I am going to assume he doesn't want to talk about it and will avoid him in the future. Perhaps he does want to talk about and had logged off. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for a day or so. I'll delete this post if you think it is inappropriate also, but could you get word to him somehow in that case? I might delete it with out prompting in any case.

Walter Montego: Yes I realise the block can stop it being resolved in PM, but I won't have it resolved on here.

Join the Flame Pit.

Last warning.

since 26. Mai 2005 no posting. hmm, why?!

You often get periods of non posting on this board.

Can anyone tell me if K vs KR is a draw in antichess (assuming proper play)?

Thad: It depends on the situation on the board but if you are referring to this game:

http://brainking.com/cz/ShowGame?g=740622

I think it is a draw...