DarwinKoala: You're forgetting conversions. even in regular chess there's a theoretical possibility of 9 queens. Here too.
In loop chess conversions are far more common, parachuting pawns on the 7th row happens all the time.

rabbitoid: So 2 sets and a plethora of queens. No need for more than 2 full sets is there? Other than the queens.

grenv: You could underpromote to another piece.

Justaminute: yes, but it would seem to be vanishingly rare that you want 5 knights at the same time for example. I guess anything is possible.

Probably I should be safe then, when I add 2 rooks, knights, bishops (double sided) and 4 queens.

Chessgi - how does it compare to Loop Chess? Being able to drop pawns on the first row should make it easier to defend; or does it hardly matter at all?

45 moves in this one: Behemoth Chess (DarwinKoala vs. Resher)

Fwiffo: You will need only one King. Unless you want to make a Knightmate Chess set as well ;)

There's a bug in Screen Chess. Sometimes when I'm White, after my opponent is finished editing his/her starting position, I'm asked to edit mine once more. Have anybody else experienced this?

I believe there once some discussion about how White does not have a forced win in Atomic Chess as played here. I remember grenv defending the position and saying Black can hold his own but must play carefully to make it to equality.

I have been wondering about if White opening the game with 1. P H2-H4 is a good move. In regular Chess this is a poor opening move, but as anyone that plays Atomic Chess knows, all conventional wisdom is thrown out the door. I decided to try this because the move sometimes comes in handy after a few moves with Black with moving the Pawn from H7 to H5. I figured, why not start with it there and then play Black with that move in place. It keeps the Queen off that diagonal quite well and the Rook and Knight on the Kingside can move. It does weaken G3, but I haven't had a problem with that yet.

I suppose my question is; has this been checked into? How well does it go? Is it bad for White? At first it seems passive and a loss of tempo for White, but I haven't figured a way for Black to turn it to his advantage and White can bring out the pieces without much trouble. Maybe I should play grenv a game? Anybody else want to play a few games of Atomic Ches. Each color is fine. I'll start my White side with this opening and you can prepare for it. I move fast and like a Fischer Clock 4.7/1.18/11.1 timer or two or three day limit for regular time.

Regular Chess is medieval war with knights, arrows, and elephants.

Embassy Chess is eighteenth century war with much the same weapons and some stronger ones brought in with diplomats and leaders.

Atomic Chess really is war with nukes, bomb shelters, and Mutually Assured Destruction! It's played with a hair line trigger for destruction on every move.

Walter Montego: Elephants? ... I also think that Atomic Chess is also so very 20C where reckless abandon is rewarded and minions get to carry on their meaningless lives while their generals' fragility is exposed such that the nearest pop will see their demise :)

WhisperzQ: Not sure about that, seems to me reckless abandon will lose Atomic Chess very quickly.On the contrary accuracy and discipline are paramount.

WhisperzQ: Yes, elephants. I think of the Rooks as elephants, marching in a straight line destroying things in their path. Bishop are like arrows or archers, and the Knights already are what they are.

Pawns are the foot soldiers in all of three of the games, but even in Atomic Chess they end up being more important than the strongest piece on the board in many games.

The King is like leaders since the end of the middle ages and beginning of the renaissance, not the strongest piece and surrounded by underlings who are all more powerful than he is, but whom all depend on his leadership to carry the day.

The Queen, Marshall, and Cardinal are the power of the game that they're used in, but are vulnerable to all sorts of palace intrigue and plots from the minor pieces and Pawns..

WhisperzQ:
reckless abandon is rewarded and minions get to carry on their meaningless lives while their generals' fragility is exposed

You've provided a perfect description of loop chess

rabbitoid: You know, I think I agree with you rabbiroid. I have only just played a few games of Loop Chess. My first was just a week or so ago, and it seems this game has no end game and a trade is really not a trade. All the pieces seem much more equal.

Walter Montego: Given endgames are usually defined as involving reduced number of pieces and the number of pieces in loop chess never reduce, you are right, endgames are impossible in loop chess.
I don't think there is much change to pieces values but I do think having the initiative is worth a lot more than in standard chess. Being able to give 4-5 checks on the trot can often lead to a winning position.

Justaminute: Or it staves off defeat for a little longer ... it is surprising the number of times a seemingly wanton flurry of check sacrifices, particularly when additional pieces are acquired in the process even if of a lesser status than the piece sacrificed, can end in a victory. For those who are more skilled they might retreat to a mantra that it was all planned but being a more shallow player I am willing to admit that sometimes it is just a happy circumstance.

These days i have enough other things in life which require my concentration that chess, of any description, for me is a mere diversion from the rigors of the real world.

WhisperzQ: I lost a game in this manner. When it ended I had seven pieces available as he kept checking me, but I couldn't get them into play with each move I made being a forced capture and next thing you know, checkmate.

Atomic Chess (Walter Montego vs. Pedro Martínez)
Whatever the outcome, the current verdict on 1.h4 is "unproven either way".

rabbitoid: Yes, this first game is just showing that I'm not that good at Atomic Chess.

How to analyze this game or others is something that takes a lot of study, persistence, and some open mindedness. It certainly helps to know the game very well too.

Walter, rabbit: I would like to see this opening in a game played by people who specialize in Atomic Chess or who have proven to have exceptional skills in it, such as FromHell or kleineme.

maybe 4.b4 is better to avoid Qxb2... but once it's done perhaps 7.a4

Doesn't prove much yet.

What about this line for example...
1.h4 Nf6
2.f3 Nd5
3.Nh3 Qxh4

grenv: I do not understand how Black's third move is possible as his Queen is surrounded by pieces and could not move to capture the Pawn on H4.

Walter Montego: Sorry left out a move, was in my head instead of on a board :( probably not valid now that i think about it.

1.h4 Nf6
2.f3 Nd5
3.Nh3 e6
4.e3 Qxh4

I think the opening here is worthy of analysis by anyone interested in Atomic Chess
Atomic Chess (grenv vs. Walter Montego)

Reason I like it is that it differs from the opening in reverse at a critical point.
1.Nf3 e5
2.Ng5 f5
3. h4 c6
4. Nxh7

however since white played 1.h4 this capture is impossible and therefore a new line is needed. I think black erred with Nh2 in this game. . . white can't actually force a win i think if black plays something like b5.

grenv: I did not know that Black could move elsewhere than 1. ...P F7-F6 when White started with 1. N G1-F3 without losing the game in a few moves. Now I'm curious about this 1. ... P E7-E5 first move by Black in response. I am going to have to try it! Does it play better than my usual, and until right now I thought only choice of 1. ... P F7-F6?

Walter Montego: I've seen some others, but I don't think it's good with black... however it seems better in the reverse scenario with white.

if you play as black you could try something like
3...Bc5 4.d4! Bb6 5.Nf7 Qe7 6.Nd6 Kf8 7.Nxb7

i don't remember any other move 1 by black being viable, but perhaps someone else has a better memory than me.

Has anyone thought of restricting pawn drops to files where a player does not already have a pawn? This might make them less deadly and less likely to be "abused". I've noticed that sometimes players can barricade their king by dropping additional pawns on the 3rd rank making an attack against the king too difficult and makes the game slow. I think pawn drops were designed to go on the 7th rank or somewhere else to attack 2 pieces, but barricading the king makes the game not fun and makes me want to play Shogi where there restriction exists.

Lightbug:
win or lose, I rarely have games that go beyond 30 moves in loop chess so I don't think the attacker needs any additional help.

Lightbug: Concentrating on defence in this variant is probably the worst tactic. The offence wins almost always.

Who thinks this is a good game? Or is it just a random mess without much skill? Can the random arrangement of pieces be unfair for one side?

It has potential. It looks a mess, but there are probably some strategic ideas that need to be applied, such as "take in such a way as to maximize the number of available moves for yourself, minimise those for the opponent" (seems reasonable) or things that need figuring out such as "go for the queens first" (or maybe should it be knights?) difficult to analyse.

rabbitoid: many players (me also) capture the opponent's queens first, because they are most mobile. rabbitoid's rule generalizes this (maximize your moves and minimize those of your opponent). Besides from that, I don't know any strategic rules for the opening and middle game (this is probably why I'm not good at the game).

In the endgame, it is all tactics: calculate the order of your moves so that you can make the last capture.

I've noticed that sometimes one player might have a slight advantage of their knights have been placed more centrally. Knights at the edge in this game seem to be bad. Perhaps a set setting might be interesting.

Lightbug: Although I think I would agree about the advantageousness of initial positioning of knights towards the centre of the board I wonder whether a fixed setup could lead to an analysis which would result in a forced win for one side, or at least get to a position of significant advantage?

WhisperzQ: That sounds interesting. There could be opening theory for Massacre Chess. Since people are obsessed with fairness in games, trying to find a set setting might be very interesting. There could be openings and theory regarding whether it is better to use minor pieces to attack queens immediately, or is it just as good to protect your queens by attacking minor pieces at the start.

Unfortunately, I don't know what kind of setting would be considered fair. Perhaps some kind of pattern that would be easy to remember like all the knights going through the long diagonals to start with.

Additionally, half the bishops should be on one color and the other. A rook on each file or row some how.

Lightbug: Another interesting thing which I have only just realised is that black cannot win by "winning rule" number 3 ... here is a link to the rules Massacre Chess Rules

= May 26th at Leiden the Netherlands: Dutch Superchess Championship. more info at www.superchess.nl in a few weeks.
= June 16 th "Freestyle" superchess tournament (by invitation) at Leiden, The Netherlands with many onorthodox pieces. Choosen pieces till now:
-the Angel,
the Magician,
the Joker
the Emperor
the Prince
the Counselor
the Veteran.
the Dragon

See also www.superchess.nl

Chess master Jop Delemarre did it again. His 6th Superchess title with a score of 6/7 before Belgian Champion Schuurbiers (5 1/2) and Kok en Schelhaas (5)

Hi, i have created a video with commentary for a game of mine against a very very good Atomic Chess player, Egzot.
The game was very interesting and had an extraordinary interesting endgame!!

Egzot had a win but played just one single move wrong and it turned the win into a loss for him, so a win for me.
This is the game: Atomic Chess: Egzot-Atrotos 0-1

And the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSz63jh0LDs

Forgive some typos. :)

I give again the link for the video as clicking on the previous link gives some problems. Very odd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSz63jh0LDs

June 6 th in Leiden. Experimental Chess tournament with 11 new pieces (4 new pieces a game) For example the Joker (imitates last move opponent), the Magician (Freezes Opponents pieces), the Emeror (a king with aditional movement), You can give double mate!

UPDATE: results:
1/2. Fred Kok (tangram), Edwin Poels 2 1/2
3. Coen Leentvaar (lambik) 2
4. Rob Stolzenbach (superbutch), Jeroen van Eijk (karel123) 1
6. Peter Blommers -

July 5th in Voorhout, 2 Experimental Chess Tournaments called: "Mad Pawns Tournament". Played with T pawn, Ren pawn and Mobilisation Pawn.
1st tournament (10 participants)
Group A 1/2 Coen Leentvaar (lambik on brainking) and Robin Wooter (schuli on brainking)
Group B 1.Justin Vonk

2nd Tournament (Swiss, 9 participants)
1. Fred Kok (tangram on brainking)
2. Harry Sistermans

second “Freestyle” superchesstournament 1 december Leiden, The Netherlands
We play with superchesspieces. Every player had 2 pieces to choose from the available superchess pieces (see also www.superchess.nl )

Every game is played with 4 pieces per player.
1 december 2012 Old Catholic Church, Cronesteijnkade Leiden, The Netherlands.
Program: 12.30-17.30 4 rounds Swiss System
30 minutes per persoon 13:00 1e ronde 14:00 2e ronde 15:15 3e ronde. 16.15 4e ronde . You dont have to play all rounds. Fun is the important thing!.
info fredkok (at) ziggo.nl

I just got into a situation where I'm leading in checks 2-1 and I got a possibility to check in my next move however opponent ties 2-2 and I have to move out of my check instead of finishing the game. Is it meant to be that way? According to rules I think it is but that doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Chaosu:The question is about 3 Checks Chess, I presume?  I disagree with you: I think that your first priority in any move you make is to escape check (if you have been placed in check and can do so).  Just as in standard chess.

Your new variant would allow both kings to be in check simultaneously...and might even allow you to ignore the fact that you've been mated, in order to deliver a 3rd check.  Do you think that *those* possibilities are good ideas?

Since there is checkmate in 3-checks chess, there is check also. So for check to be meaningful, it has to mean that the side that is in check, has to move his king out of check in the end of his turn.
So yes it's perfectly logical that you can't win by giving a 3rd check as you have to make a move that will remove the check from your king.

What you say would be logical if there was no check and one in order to win will have to either capture the king(and not checkmated him) OR threaten him(check him, but the term is ambiguous in this context) 3 times. Whoever manages to do one of the 2 first wins.
Then your 3rd threatening("check") on the king would win even if at the same time the opponent was threatening to capture yours.

It's like atomic Chess where even if your king is threatened exploding the king has a preference, so if you can leave your king hanging by delivering an explosion on the opponent's king, you win. But in atomic there is no checkmate.

What you propose is a different type of game with different strategy.