who likes fortress chess??

I do ... ~*~

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

you pouty ... and what about atomic
and the merciless whispering ? grrrr :P ~*~

If anyone is interested, check out the following game:

http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=165709

Basically, we ended up in a situation where the kings were next to each other. The only way to win the game in situations like this is to force the opponent king into a situation where you can blow a piece up that blows their king up without blowing yours up...

Thanks to slmoore25 for a great game and the permission to post the game for others to learn from!

Zucan

well, here's hoping to someday be a decent player

I just finished a game that has a rather unique final position. Click HERE to see it.

Nice cavalry :-)

Nice ending for those who haven't seen it. Nice job jestone! Just don't do that to me. :)

When I click Jestone's "here" link I get sent to page one http://brainking.com/game/FirstPage

That's because some users do not put the "www" before the link - and your "cookies" are set with the "www" in it.

They THIS LINK which is what he has below (but with the "www")

Thanks.

Don't use absolute URLs. Something like this works for everyone:
<a href=/game/ArchivedGame?g=134248>THIS LINK</a>

Suggestion: If you only have one possible move, the computer makes that move for you and throws the game back to your opponent.

How do you get it to show up without making it a link? :-)

Use &lt; and &gt; instead of < and > :-)

Ah, yes :-) Thanks!

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 like anti-chess because it' a new and improved way of chess now if anybody wants to challenge me just send me a private message and i'll get back to you a.s.a.p thanks!!!

i challenge you to a game of chess just reply to me [snip W.]

hey people that message was for kevin only not anyone else the one about about the reply to stalemate only not the anti-chess one!!!!!!!!

If you want to play me, send me an invite. I'll play you here or on Goldtoken, if you like.

This is NOT covered in the rules!?:

I have a pawn on my seventh rank. If I capture a piece with that pawn, and promote it, then my opponent immediately takes it, does he get a pawn in hand or does he get the piece I promoted to?

The piece you promote to.

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.

Interesting, and that would seem a natural outgrowth of this variant concept, as opposed to trying to keep track of which piece used to be a pawn, etc., if not captured right away.

OK, thanks for the input!

Why have I not won? I cannot make a move.

I think you did win. It's done it to me before where it takes a while for it to realize i've won. So probably (hopefully) if you wait a while it'll realize you have won.

Or, if you don't want to wait, you can message Fencer about it and see what he says.

I am going to run the first ever Fellowship Team Tournament. So, a couple things need to be considered... I found 14 teams that support Atomic Chess. Out of those 14, only 8 teams have people in them. Out of those 8, only 5 teams have more than 2 people in them.

The question is how can we run a tournament with such a wide variance on the number of players currently signed up for Fellowship teams. Maybe we should just say that only 4 player teams are allowed to play. The tourney would then have 4 sections, one for each board. The highest rated player of each team would be in the first section, the second highest rated player of each team would be in the second section, etc.

Do we want this to be the only round? Or should we then take the winners of each section and run the tournament again with just them? We could keep doing this until only one team stands and we have a team champion.

Anyways, I need suggestions on what you all would like to see... I think I would like to start it by the end of September. That way, we can get the word out to all the atomic team players and maybe we can get more people to sign up on the teams. It will also give a chance for players to move around to the teams they want to be on before the tournament starts.

Zucan

A couple things... first, I want this first one to be Atomic Chess related... It should be labeled "First Atomic Team Fellowship Tournament!".

Secondly, Fencer does not yet have support for playing team fellowship games on here, so I am doing it by hand, which means making the tournaments invite only and manually populating the sections, if I can manage to do it.

If you have any questions, just ask!

Zucan

Do you think Anti Chess would be better if when you can only make one move the computer automatically makes that move for you?

This has been suggested before, and Fencer does not want to have the system perform any automatic moves. There are two reasons he told me.

1. He wants both players to be able to send a message with each move, regardless of if they move a piece or not.

2. In certain games, multiple forced moves in a row (sometimes many) are possible (Backgammon, reversi, etc). This could be confusing to new players if the board was suddenly way different from when they last saw it.

Last time it was a trio of horses working together to achieve the goal. This time it might be called the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, with some help of the lowliest of the lowly, a pawn, to deliver the coup de grace.

Let's pick up the action around Move 20.

(In all fairness to my worthy opponent, he returned the favor in our 2nd game in the tourney. Ya' win some and ya' lose some, right?)

I would like to participate in to a loop chess trnmt, but i don`t know how to apply, please i need some help.

Simply go to the tournament page, click on "Loop Chess", and click the link above the currently signed-up players list that says "Sign me up for this tournament". Then you should see your name in that tournament. If there isn't a link and there is a message instead, that means you are ineligible to enter the tournament (membership level, rating, etc) and that message will tell you why.

truckman: Try, for example, this tournament.

Thank u Fencer, i think u know my mentor Jestone. Again thank u very much.

Is black at such a disadvantage that a draw could be considered a win for black? Some Pente rules allow for the player going 2nd to record a win if the board becomes filled because going 2nd places them at such a huge disadvantage (with no move restrictions) Why not apply this rule to this game?

Comments?

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 2 games I posted, I posted as 2 game matches. I don't think I'd ever post a single game...then of course a win (white) draw (black) results in a win overall. I'll admit...I did not notice that there had only been 12 draws, so I see that this change would have very little effect.

If so, and you'd like an Anti-Chess game, please invite me. If I have a free slot, I'll be happy to take your game. :-)

A game is drawn if a position is repeated 3 times. Does "the position" include the pieces that are available for placement?

For example, the white king is on b2, and a black night is on a4 giving check. Do the following moves create a draw?

K-b1 N-c3+
K-a1 P@b2+ (placed pawn)
Kxb2 N-a4+
K-b1 N-c3+
K-a1 P@b2+ (placed pawn)
Kxb2 N-a4+
K-b1 N-c3+
K-a1 P@b2+ (placed pawn)
Kxb2 N-a4+
If the pieces available for placing are considered, no position has been repeated. But if they aren't, this is a draw by repetition

This isn't a perpetual check, since black will eventually run out of pieces to place at the b2 square.

No draw is created automatically. If you think that some draw rule should be applied to your game, give me its ID and I will declare a draw.

A draw that reduces the number of re-usable pieces doesn't make sense.

That's right.

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.

In chess the situation is resolved after three repetitions of position with the same side to move, in effect this is a way of avoiding the situation continuing indefinitely. In this case in loop chess the situation will not continue indefinitely so there would be no logic to call such a case a draw. Shogi re-uses captured pieces and has done so for 400 years, this gives shogi a species of seniority for these kind of cases, in shogi the number of pieces must also repeat.

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 :)

In fact the full story with shogi is that a draw by repetition only occurs if it doesn't involve continuous checks, perpetual check loses for the checker because the draw isn't by mutual intent.