BrainKing - Fóruns de discussão (Chess variants (8x8))

Moderador: WhisperzQ

, Mort

, Bwild

Chess variants (8x8)

including Amazon, Anti, Atomic, Berolina, Corner, Crazy Screen, Cylinder, Dark, Extinction, Fischer Random, Fortress, Horde, Knight Relay, Legan, Loop, Maharajah, Screen, Three Checks

For posting:
- invitations to games (you can also use the New Game menu)
- information about upcoming tournaments
- discussion of games (please limit this to completed games or discussion on how a game has arrived at a certain position ... speculation on who has an advantage or the benefits of potential moves is not permitted)
- links to interesting related sites (non-promotional)

Community Announcements:
- Nasmichael is helping to co-ordinate the Fischer Random Chess Email Chess (FRCEC) Club and can set up quad or trio games if you send him a PM here.

Lista de Fóruns
Não pode escrever mensagens neste fórum. O nível mínimo de inscrição para o fazer neste fórum é Nível Peão.

Modo de acesso: Qualquer um pode escrever

29. Maio 2008, 16:24:14

Karthum

mostrar as mensagens deste utilizador | mostrar conversa | link

Assunto: Varying the Loopchess Rules

Two ideas for Loop-chess variation:

1. A wonderful idea would be to prevent pawns in Loop-chess from promoting normally. Instead you can pick an opponents piece on the board. The picked piece, e. g. a rook, is removed and the pawn is promoted to a rook. The opponent gets a pawn in the hand.
This brings the tactical idea of removing opposing pieces by promotion, yet carries the disadvantage of not being able to choose pieces for promotion the opponent doesn't control on the board.

2. The second idea is to prevent checkmate by Drop!
That makes good tactics more essential for attacking.

Have fun discussing this or not!

29. Maio 2008, 17:18:20

rabbitoid

mostrar as mensagens deste utilizador | mostrar conversa | link

Assunto: Re: Varying the Loopchess Rules

Karthum:
1 is possible, but would make a new variant. What happens if the opponent has only a king left?

I doubt the utility of (2), the situation should arrive only very rarely. I don't think I've ever had the situation.