Jaak: Yes, it is a draw if both player have one piece left, even if one piece can capture the other.  The reason is that the object of the game is to get two pieces into the opponent's castle.  The reason that the capturing of all of the opponent's pieces while having two or more of your own pieces left is defined as a win is simply because those two pieces can proceed unhindered into the oponent's castle.  This definition avoids the silly process of moving pieces move after move while your opponent just sits there.

However, one piece vs. zero pieces is a draw, not a win, because it is not possible to castle two pieces if you only have one.

rod03801, Pedro Martinez, and Ceiter have done a great job of discussing the Knight's Charge, so I'll just add a few words.

The Knight's Charge is never mandatory.  However, if one of your pieces is in position to Jump one of your opponent's pieces, you must make a capture sometime during that move.  (The one exception is when you have Jumped into your own Castle.  Even if there is an available Jump somewhere, you must leave your Castle immediately.)

Anyway, if a Jump is available, you can accomplish the mandatory capture either by the Jump, itself, or, if one is available, by a Knight's Charge.  When a Jump is available, and you start your Knight Cantering, you must end up capturing with that Knight (i.e., by a Knight's Charge).  So, when a Jump is available, a Knight is not allowed to Canter and then stop its move before Jumping.

I hope that's clear--I'll be happy to elaborate further, if necessary. 

Fencer: Chivalry is simply Camelot with more pieces and a bigger board.  Similarly, Cam is Camelot with fewer pieces and a smaller board.  My invention, Camette, takes the smaller board and fewer pieces to an extreme.  All three variants are fun to play, but from personal experience, I think Chivalry is a bit too crowded, and Camette is a bit too simple.  So my vote for a Camelot-like variant would be for Cam.

That said.....

In my opinion, by far the best Camelot variant is Grand Camelot.  Grand Camelot is Camelot for four players (two teams of two players, each).  Camelot, as you probably know by now, is extremely tactical, and just occasionally strategic.  Grand Camelot is a very enjoyable, relatively even blend of tactics and strategy.

Don't get me wrong--I love Camelot.  But I also love Grand Camelot--it's a blast to play.

DarwinKoala: If I might be forgiven for discussing some Camelot history....

You had a valid historical reason for wondering if being reduced to one piece constitutes a loss.  The current (World Camelot Federation) rule that governs, though, is:

The game is won if a player captures all of his opponent's pieces, and has two or more of his own pieces left.

This rule clarifies the question of whether two or more vs. one is a win.  It is not a win; its outcome, possibly a draw, is yet to be determined.  In the 1930 rules, and in the initial editions of the 1931 rules, a win by elimination required the elimination of all of the opponent’s pieces.  In later 1931 editions, however, the wording was changed to “elimination of all, or all but one, of the opponent’s pieces.”  This change in wording resulted from the fact that it is not possible for one piece to stop another (opposing) piece from entering its Castle.  Thus, if one side has two pieces and the other side one piece, it is impossible (with normal play) for the one to stop the two, even if the stronger side already has one of its pieces in the opponent’s Castle, and even if the weaker side temporarily has the opposition (a position where the pieces are on the same rank, file, or diagonal with an odd number of squares separating them, and the stronger side must move, thereby allowing the weaker side to stop the advance of the stronger side’s piece).  This change in wording, however, not only failed to take into account possible misplays by the stronger side; much more importantly, it failed to take into account situations where the weaker side could initiate a combination (a series of forced moves that leads to a significant change in positional or material advantage) that would, although reducing itself to one piece, reduce the stronger opposing side to one piece or no pieces, thus securing a draw.

So, when you're reduced to one piece you haven't lost yet.

Hope this helps!

AbigailII: It is not a draw.  See the World Camelot Federation Official Rules of Cam: http://www.worldcamelotfederation.com/Cam_Rules.htm

I'll notify Fencer of this.

I would like to discuss something that appears to be commonplace behavior on BrainKing.

Let me preface my remarks by admitting that I've only been playing on this site for a short time, and then, almost exclusively Camelot, so perhaps my observations are only a holiday phenomenon, or perhaps they don't apply to other games.

Anyway, it is my impression that it is the norm here to continue playing the game, even when the outcome is obvious, and the cause is hopeless.  Resignation in that case seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

Let me be the first to point out a couple of things:

1.No player is forced to resign; obviously, each player has the absolute right to continue playing to the bitter end.

2.There are positions where a player seems to be hopelessly behind in material, yet has traps, tricks, attacks, or some other means of pulling a win or a draw from the jaws of defeat.

3.There is some benefit in continuing to play, and in so doing, learning from the technique displayed by the opponent as he or she moves on to victory.

That said, my background for over 40 years has been tournament (over-the-board) chess where if you are playing against a player much higher rated than yourself, and your position is hopeless with absolutely no chance to even draw the game, you resign.

I was just wondering if others have noticed this reluctance to resign in lost positions.

Again, I'm not complaining--it's every player's right to continue the fight!

AbigailII: In tournament chess, one method for punishing an opposing player who refused to resign was as follows.....

You have a king, rook, bishop, and four pawns.  Your opponent has only a king.  He won't resign.  Instead of mating with rook and king, you push all four pawns to promotion (queens).  Now you have four queens, rook, and bishop, and a crowd starts to gather around your table, all snickering about why he hasn't resigned.

Pretty cruel, I suppose, but it sure taught a tough lesson really fast.