I was wondering, in Atomic Chess, is it possible to take the king, or do you need to cause an explosion which kills the king?

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.

My opinion is that opening theory is only destroying chess at the highest level. Admittedly, there are those instances where it somehow tarnishes the games of us non-godlike-beings, however I think they are few and in most instances theory actually helps a person to understand the strategies of an opening- theory in this sense being what it should: an explanation of the goals and strategies inherent in the openings with analysis, not just the analysis. However, even if it were the case that theory kills originality, Fischer Random provides for well over one hundred starting positions, each one with myriads of possible goals and strategies that you would never see in "just chess", making it necessary to develop your own theory in each game! In fact my favorite thing about one of my new favorite games is it enhances your positional evaluation skills, cause you need em!

And guess what? I just went to start a new game, and the position was right before my eyes!!! Is there anyway to blank out dumb remarks??? = )

When a person picks up a Fischer Random game from the waiting games board, he is allowed to see the positioning of the pieces before deciding to accept the game. As the person creating the game has no option which position he gets, might it be more fair leave the position a blank before acceptance as to discourage "Window Shopping"? I have no doubts the positions are all equal, otherwise Fischer would have had nothing to do with the game, let alone have created it, but just in the name of fairness, which has a nice name btw. = )

I think I might get hooked on this chess, and fight my way to the world championship!! (Do they have one yet? Maybe I'll set one up. = )

I don't see how not seeing your opponents piece setup can be a bad thing. If you know the rules beforehand you can adopt that into your strategy. Plus if you set up your pieces to fight for certain squares, while making sure you have no obvious or identifiable weaknesses, then if your opponent is attacking or fighting for those same squares you have an offensive/defensive scheme already in place, and if they are not you completely dominate those squares without a single move. The give/take is that your opponent gets other squares. Knowing this you c_a_n set up a formation that provides for offense and defence without seeing your opponents setup beforehand.