<BuilderQ: In the beginning of the gaem what you say is true, but I have just found another game where the double move would provide me with a significantly stronger position.

Ibelieve the benefit for black only really begins in the mid to later parts of the game, once a few pieces have been cleared. One of the problems black has is the time it takes to get their pieces to the queening line ... this change would reduce that time by one move and, where games are sometimes decided by only one or two tempi, this is possibly a subtle change which can partly (fully?) redress the inequalities.

If it were to be considered further I would suggest that any black pawn on the rear two rows might be able to move two ranks if possible which would give:
rank one -> rank three
rank two -> rank four
AND rank one -> rank two -> rank four (2 moves).

White could then take using enpassant (sp?) in the usual way for 2->4 or also in a corresponding manner for the 1->3 double move.

What do others think?

Hopefully Fencer will seee this. It now appears as though black pawns on the second rank can move 2 spaces (like a normal unmoved pawn on the second rank) if there is nothing to stop this. This is not what the rules say and I am sure this couldn't happen in the earlier BKs. Fencer, can you fix this please, or else we should change the rules. I actulaly think this is a better arrangement as it provides a little more flexibility and power to the black position which is currently inherentantly weaker. I have one game where this double space move would be a significant advantage to me if it were allowed. Thoughts anyone?!?

Some say poker is determined by luck too

Dmitri ... Chessmaster1000's post flowed from an exchange of PMs where one party (C1000) was placed on the "unfriends" list of another person (me) so a PM response was not available.

You are quite right though, as Chessmaster1000 also points out, white should never win.

And are of somewhat equal ability ... I am sure you would be able to beat most, Caissus, playing either white or black!

Now there is a thought, anti-maharajah chess :)

Still, there is a hope for black, it is not completely pre-ordained ... so far I have a 16:8 win:loss as black (8:0 as white). For the site it is about 3 white: 1 black.

Not quite so Caissus ... black does have some hope in horde chess and a win cannot be forced from move 1 by white.

Kevin: yep, you missed ... dark atomic loop horde 3-check maharajah janus (chess)

So one King could take another?

So I would suggest there is no glitch here!

Grenv ... did you get the piece or was it promoted and then removed?

Yes, pawn promotion is just as in normal chess ... you can choose between Q, R, B or N.

There are many games where I hope for a draw ... bit like playing you in Tablut, but that is more a dream LOL :)

Ug, did i read it right that the checker loses in perpetual check? Interesting thoughts are provoked by this ... is Shogi more aggressive in play?

Ug, I was not aware of the Shogi precedent, but without it I think the logic still stands. It may well be (as we both point out) that the original intention was to avoid a perpetually repeated situation but, as with a lot of rules, there is sometimes a sting and with loop chess I think this is a good sting which places the emphasis on the attacker to avoid the draw. Maybe this is a working out of my Australian nature to support the underdog :)

Interesting because the primary intention of the repeated positions x 3 draw is to resolve a perpetual check where one player may not want to agree a draw. But the opportunity also exists to have the same postition repeated 3 times by other means, even by accident. I once played a game where the situation arose where my King was being chased around the board. I was able to manufacture the same postiion 3 times with about 10-15 moves between each occurance ... when I pointed this out my opponent he was not happy but had to accept the draw (in fact he was real mad as he was 2 minor pieces up!) ... a fluke, yes, legitimate, also yes, played for again, yes! So, what were my opponent's choices, maybe to move differently and avoid the situation if he thought he could win, if not, good play on may part.

I think the same applies here. If a player wants to win then do something different or else accept that there will be a draw. A person in a losing position can use this tactically to better their lot, if you don't like it do something else. A perpetual check may be able to be instigated by someone in a losing position but if you are winning and don't avoid it then you have been tactically defeated (drawn?!).

My vote is that it should be a draw, 3 repeated positions, irrespective of the pieces available for placement.

If you checkout the Horde Chess rules section you will see that there has only been 12 draws from nearly 500 games, about 2.5%, whereas black has won about 25% and white the rest. This would not have a dramatic effect on the balance.

I guess I am a bit of a bunny as I have played 17 games with only 3 as white, but I (he says puffing out his chest) won 8 and only lost 6 of the black games, a little better than the average stats.

Perhaps another option is that this variant is only ever played in pairs of games. Maharajah Chess is even more one sided as black can force mate from the first move.

W.

The reason being that at the end of your turn you have captured his piece (whcih you get to keep) and exchanged your pawn for another piece. In his turn he will be able to take the piece which now occupies your eighth rank, whatever it is, except that it won't be a pawn or a king.

What a cool tool ... for others who read this and want to know ... if you edit the message you will need to put the & lt and & gt back in as the code is translated each time it is posted so in Fencer's post if edited and updated without the resubsitution it would look like this :)

Don't use absolute URLs. Something like this works for everyone:
THIS LINK

Now all Fencer has to do is teach us how to actually get the & lt and & gt (sans spaces) to write to the page without being changed into < and > :)

I do too, but I am sure Dano would thrash me in that too :(

I think you might need to reread the rules. Basically, when you or an opponent takes a piece all the pieces on adjacent squares (except pawns) belonging to both sides are also taken in the "atomic" explosion. Awesome really!

Good to see the discussion has again begun. Most of the suggestions (he says pushing his chest out boasting :) ) were probably mine. Each has some merit but my favourite is the extra extended knight 3-1L move. As DK says, black can play such that all pieces protect each other, but what it does do is allow white to treaten the black King without interference from a string of pawns. Without playing the game I am not sure if this sufficient force to prise open a black defence but think it is really worth a try.

And on another matter, I would like to join the queue to play black against Uil's white Maharajah :)

Sounds great, but I don't think anyone would be my partner :(

There is a chess variant which has a piece which moves like a knight but with added advantage of also being able to go 3 squares forward and one square to the left or right. The piece can therefore, in the optimum location, cover 16 squares instead of the knight's usual 8. If these moves were added to the current Maharajah (so that he had bishop, rook, knight and knight+ moves) it would really add some oomph to the piece. Maybe this could be implemented as a (another) variant, maybe called Maharajah Plus. Fencer?

How about a Maharajah that lasts for, say, 35 moves achieves a draw and 50 moves a win, irrespective of checkmates. The numbers may need to be adjusted. This then places an onus on black to actively pursue checkmate rather than let it happen as a matter of course as pieces are marched down the board.

I like the idea but what would the winning position for black be? Would there still be checks?

Two scenarios to consider - your thoughts requested:

1. If I place my King next to my opponent's King and continue to keep it adjacent as they move their King around the board, then I assume my opponent cannot directly explode my King because it would also explode their King. Is this correct?

2. If there is no check or checkmate does that mean that there is not a stalemate condition where he has no move which will not result in his subsequent destruction.

This would leave only the following stalemate conditions:
- 50 moves without a capture or pawn move;
- board repeated 3 times;
- no possible move (would only hapopen when the King is completely hemmed in but has not been exploded and all other pieces (if any) cannot make legal moves).

Just wanted to check that pawns are promoted to a piece of choice when they reach the other side of the board.

Not wishing to harp (but I will) my point is that this is not the first rule change and the reason I lost the previous (tournament) game was that the rules changed mid-game and my game strategy was then shot to pieces. Also, I am sure I am not the only one who is in this position.

All this said, even if the previous game scores are not negated, should we play for long enough the cream will rise to the top and those who have won under dubious circumstances will have true status confirmed.

I have been "punished" with two losses, one in a tournament, because of rule changes or inconsistences. Why not restart the rating system again from the time of the latest rule changes and cancel all games which began before this date?

Another suggestion, which only provides a very slight advantage, would be to have the pawns move first.

Also, what about defaulting so that the higher ranked player is forced to play as black?

:)

The questions still remains ... why did I lose a game when I could effectively remove the ckeckmating piece with an atomic explosion?

I think this would then give black an advantage which is too great. Another option is to give black one or two extra pawns, maybe the bishop files, or start with say the rook pawns also advanced one rank.

Another option (if it is possible) is to keep two ratings, one for playing as white and one for playing as black.

I agree too ...

Here is another scenario that doesn't seem to make sense. If I am placed in a position of checkmate whereby my King is in "check" and I cannot move it any where and I cannot directly take the checking piece the game thinks I have lost. But ... why can't I take another piece which would explode and in so doing eradicate the adhjacent pieces, one of which is the one checking me?

Again I agree and again the response can only be rules is rules. If checkmate is the inability to move a King out of jeopardy (not the actual act of taking the King by the opponent) then this makes sense (in a funny sort of way).

I agree, but rules is rules! What do you think of the proposed revision, is it helpful?

I have reviewed the rules and suggest the following text replace the current second dot point in the rules ...

There is no check in Atomic Chess although there is checkmate (see below). A player who's King is in jeopody does not need to move the King but if they do not make a winning move then the opponent will capture the King in the next move. This has three significant consequences: a player can move a piece which would put the King into conventional check (including the King); a player can castle out of, through or into check; and a player can move their King adjacent to the another King. In this last instance neither King can be taken directly because it would explode their own King at the same time, but a situation may arise where one King is pinned against the edge of the board without a non-check move (therefore in checkmate) and thus lose the game.

Just reviewing a game in which Siletbob played Huhu (ID No 25631) in which Huhu was effectively in checkmate but Huhu could still make a move.

The rules (now) clearly state that Silentbob was in a winning position, therefore Huhu should not have been able to move.

Which is correct?

How about keeping two BKR ratings on this variation as, I think we all agree, black has, if played correctly, an unassailable advantage. I beleive the real interest would then be in trying to achieve and maintain the highest BKR playing White!

Fencer - just a thought, but can you confirm when and what changes were made to the rules.

5655 - You did not mention that you lost your queen fair and square but won under rules which had been altered. You have no honour!

Okay, I have sent a message to 5655 and await his/her response.

Just had another look at the game (ID 27317) and I would be happy to go back to after White's move 10 (which was Nb1-c3). Is this possible?

Removing the last move would probably not change the outcome, it would need to go back a far way as the game strategy was based on my understanding of the previous rules, likewise another game I lost, although I doubt it would have made a difference there.

The game ID in question is 27317. I would be happy if the game was just deleted from the database (or perhaps taken back to move 1) although I wonder if my opponent would as happy. Shame because I was a queen ahead before it all went awry (in my way of thinking).

So now that i have lost a game (in a tournament no less) what recourse do I have?

I am interested in the last discussion and your explanation. The rules now clearly state taht the King can be left in check but not checkmate. Did the rules you show change regarding this situation or are the rules in error. Please explain ...