I never said black has to play the perfect game to win, far from it. black can lose several pieces and still win. It is a pointless game.

Well, my guess is:

1. There are a few purists who might scream bloody murder if the rules for their game were tweaked.

2. Fencer hasn't yet discovered the best way to balance this game and is either still looking into it or letting us hash it out.

Just my $.02 worth.

And Chessmaster: You could be right about the three Maharajarahs. I haven't had a chance to test the playability of that. What was your starting position for them? I was thinking of placing one each on the rook and king positions, and allowing them to be checked or captured, as long as there is at least *one* Maharajarah on the board that is not checked.

If you need further balance, maybe we can restrict that to still having no checks or captures on White's side, but that seems a bit silly to me. Ah, well... I'm going to bed.

Why doesn`t Fencer balance this game? Does anybody know this? It could make this game more interesting.
For instance either by additional maharadjas or by my suggestion "Amazone chess" - on the board "other chessvariants".

OK, sorry for the little mess.

Thanks WhisperzQ, its appreciated.

Due to comments following Chessmaster's "PowerPygmie" post it has been edited as has another reference. By all means continue the discussion and when Harley's tournie is over reposted might be considered appropriate.

edit WQ
This game is too easy to play and win with black.

When i first saw the game i thought it would be fun to play, but very soon i realised that it is a black wins game. Then it came the challenge to find a line for black that wins whatever white plays. And i discovered the forced mate in 24, with 22 moves for black that are playable no matter what white will play. Now it's a challenge to find a line, that will contain moves that would lead to a forced mate and that it would be playable no matter what white plays. And if possible to be a mate in 24 or less. Can anyone find such a line?

If you add one more Maharajah piece then again i think it's a black wins game. I will try to prove it some time. But what about 3 Maharajah's? Do you think is this game balanced? I don't think that and i found that if black don't play some moves it is a mate in 8. So actually it must be a white wins game.

My first complete game of Maharajarah:

1. Mf3 h6
2. Ma3 e6+
3. Ma4 c6
4. Ma1 b5
5. Mh1 Bb7
6. Mh5 g6+
7. Me5 Qc7+
8. Mxh8 Nf6
9. Mxf6#

White wins. You can't sit there and tell me white has no chance. :P

Did you even read my message before you responded? I didn't say this game hasn't been solved. I said most people's game play does not show best play. Have you browsed your fellow players' ratings as I suggested?

And yes, as interesting as your solution is, posting it at this time was in very bad taste. No one asked for a solution for Maharajarah Chess. Some of us aren't here to make a life's study of a game, or to memorize move trees. Some of us are just here to have fun.

Chessmaster, its in pretty bad taste to post that right after I start a prize tourney.
I won't read it or pay any attention to the moves. If I lose, I'll do so honestly. Thats the fun of the game. Following someone elses formula to win is no fun at all. I would hope the other players in the tourney do the same.

"Besides, it seems to me that you're assuming best play. Which, as you yourself know, doesn't happen all that often in live-fire games anyway. "

I have memorized the following (easy to remember)moves i found, that assure a 100% win for black and they are playable WHATEVER MOVES WHITE PLAYS:
So it's easy for someone to play live-games perfectly and instantly with black.

edit WQ

Well there we go. The tournament started less than an hour ago and Mely has already scored a win against me. I was playing as black. I didn't even see it coming! LOL!

That's what I'm saying. All this talk about how black *can not* lose assumes that people are playing perfect games. Look around, and check people's ratings. Most of them do not play perfectly.

Yes, the game is imbalanced. In my opinion, white needs *three* Maharajarahs in order to balance the play. But the matches are even, one black and one white, and you're wrong, Dmitri. It's not a guaranteed 10-way tie. In my experience with chess, people generally just don't play as perfectly as you seem to think they do.

Besides, look at the entrants' ranks. Last time I checked, everyone except me is a rook, which means they don't *need* the prize, and it will go to me anyway! *lol*

Unless there's another pawn who wants to compete for it? ;)

LOL! It isn't that complicated in my eyes! I play terrible games. Many people here have won games against me when I have played as black. Playing as black is NOT an assured win (for me at least). Which immediately changes the SB scores. I honestly can't see that all 5? other entrants would win in exactly the same way, to achieve exact results.
I'll provide more prizes if necessary, within reason. But I doubt it will be necessary! I can't see there being more than 3 or 4 overall winners.

I'll be starting this tournament later today. I'll be interested to see the results!

seems odd, since if there are ten people in it hte prize will be divided ten ways....... playing a set, on as eahc color, is not going to change the fact that white doesn't have a chance to win this game. white should have two maharaja's, perhaps one of them being a "king" that cannot be lost or else white loses. I think Gary Barnes might have suggested that a long while back.

Hmm... in that case, I say we have a tiebreaker tournament, invitation only, for obvious reasons. The game? Tic-Tac-Toe! *rofl*

Honestly, it's a good point, and one I wondered about, but I don't really think people are going to squabble over the results.

Besides, it seems to me that you're assuming best play. Which, as you yourself know, doesn't happen all that often in live-fire games anyway.

Well i don't think you understood what was my point, correctly. I don't say something is not fair, i only say what would happen if all games would end with a Black win***? Who would be the winner? The tournament in a case of a tiebrake would never stop as all players would win with black and lose with white.

*** = It's not a hypothetical question, like what would happen if black players will win all games at Chess, since Chess is not solved but Maharajah is a Black-win game 100%.

I explained that. There will be one game of each colour per person. So if Chessmaster was to enter, he would play me as white, and as black. We'd have 2 games on the go. It makes it fair.

I think that Chessmaster's point is that there is unlikely to be a single winner since many players will never lose as black. How would the prize-winner be determined in such a case?

Chessmaster, would you like to join the tourney? There are 6 people signed up, I'd like to start it soon :o)

Chessmaster, I've done one game per colour. So when the tourney starts, for each person you will play one game as black and one as white.

PowerPygmie, you should be aware of that too. It means double the amount of games you'll need spaces for.

I would like to join on this tournament but since Maharajah is a Black wins game, it is pointless.
So what would happen if all games would end with a Black win? Who would be the winner? A tiebreak? But then again if Black players would continue to win then what would happen?

Well, PowerPygmie, I don't think you'll find much of a challenge with me! I've lost a LOT more games than I've won! Both as black AND white! Shame on me! Ha ha! I like the game but I'm definitely no good at it!

Awesome! Not that I'll win the first time I touch a Maharajarah, but it's a nice incentive. I know some of the tourneys are for prizes, but it seems that I'm too new to join most of them. I've managed to find two of them, and they both had restrictions on when new accounts can be created. I'm too new.

Also, I have some practice games on the board, if anyone wants to join. No rating adjustments, just for fun.

PowerPygmie, thanks for joining my tournament. I'm the last person to discourage anyone from joining, but just to make you aware, you are only allowed to join in one tournament at a time. You won't be allowed to join another until this one is finished, and there are some prize tournaments on offer.

Oh what the heck, I'll make mine a prize tourney, how's that?! 6 month knight membership to the winner!

Greetings. I'm new to the site here, and a great site it is, with a lot of interesting games. I just about fell out of my chair when I saw this chess variation. It seems to me that Black has about 27 points of material advantage over white. That makes for a pretty sucky odds match, in my opinion. An interesting mental excercise, I'll agree. But I also agree that white should never--ever--win this game.

This coming from a chess enthusiast who has never touched Maharajarah. I'll probably play a few games just to check it out. Maybe my opinion'll change.

Try your hand at maharajah chess, this tourney will start as soon as 4 people have signed up!

I would leave it as it is in the current status. It seems to be logical to me.

<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?

In FIDE Chess, the option for pawns to advance two spaces on their first move was introduced to speed up the opening of the game. In Horde Chess, Black could not use that power anywhere near the beginning, so that rule would not accomplish at all the same purpose as in FIDE Chess.

The Black position is inferior in Horde Chess, but applying the double space move in this case seems artifical. Why should the double space option only be for pawns on the second rank? The FIDE Chess setup only has one row of pawns, so perhaps its rules should not be grafted onto the very different Horde Chess.

In any case, I think a more radical change than the double move for second row pawns is needed to equalize the game. How about giving Black two kings, starting in the empty d8 and e8 squares, both of which must be captured for White win the game? Or maybe they could start in the corners? Black needs some way of protecting the pawns at the bases of his/her chains.

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?!?

I think you're right...

Many games, including mine, have been affected.

If you ignore the "blue" spaces which shows what moves were made, and just pay attention to the game notation, the game looks OK.

Kind of looks like the "blue squares" which shows the moves are not in-sync with the game.??

Is there some bug in the recording of screen chess games, or is it just my computer? For example, am I the only one who sees in this game that the white knight just moved from f5 to e4, capturing a white pawn?

i think there are impregnable setups in this game, which is actually one of the reasons I prefer starting as black.

You don`t know if your opponent has changed his setup.That`s why important for your plans can only be the actions of your opponent in the concrete game.

there's a probability ot 12.5 % that white mates
an opponent with average setup in only 4 moves. ~*~

You can guess how your opponent will set up his/her pieces by looking at his/her past games of screen chess.

BBW,in chess you only can have a good attack or defence plan,if you can interpret the plan of your opponent.
Without to see your opponent`s position your efforts are completely senseless.

As a casual Chess player (Not too good), I really love the fact that Screen Chess & Crazy Screen chess start the way they do. I don't know any of the best chess opening moves, nor do I want to take Chess that serious.

I love the chance i take when i set up my board since i can set it up 3 different ways.
1) Have a good "attack plan" with possible leaving me in a losing position depending on opponenets setup.
2) Have a good defence setup - so no matter how the oppenent sets up, i should be OK - just no strong attack ready.
3) Or a mixture of both - keeping myself some-what defended, while having a small attack ready.

Yes, it put some luck into the game - but I think that is what makes these game great.

NOW having said that, i think the idea of possible having a variant where each player sees the board and you place your pieces alternately would be nice - but I don't think that the current games should be changed.

How come I can no longer view the games that are complete with the whole board shown? It used to be that way. Now it's darkness. In games that I've played it shows it like as if I was playing. If it's two other players, the whole board is dark. Definitely a problem. I would like to be able to see the board in all three views (each player's view and the whole board), at once if possible, but if the only choice is one board, then it needs to show the whole board without darkness. If it's a bug, I suppose someone should tell Fencer, eh? Until it is, I won't be able to view a game of yours that you might want me to check out. Or vice versa. I know I've played a couple that are trippy games that people have asked about or I wanted to show someone who asked about something happening in one of my games.

Is that Pawn in passing capture problem related to this problem, do you suppose? That can be a hassle checking each move because the Pawn is stopped straight ahead, but he has an in passing capture available. Even if he is blocked from moving straight ahead, it is going to require you to think about checking it by clicking the Pawn and then trying the square with the arrow to see if it available or not. That will definitely slow the play of the game down when I have a Pawn on the fifth row. :(

I can't think why the auto move isn't on in DC actually, since you can deduce everything anyway.

Normally if I click a pawn it moves automatically if it only has one available move, so in dark chess to check for possible en passants it wasn't necessary to try the second stage of the move, I only needed to see that the pawn didn't automatically move. Dark chess players should be aware that this is no longer the case (my opponent has just played c6 when I falsely deduced that he must have played c5 on the previous move). We can also select a pawn even if it has no legal move!

I have created a new (two days per move) tournament for loop chess. However, you must be a member of the Looped fellowship. Anyone may join the fellowship. Once a member, please join the Tournament

And that`s why we don`t play poker here at Bk or other games, which have to do with luck. The common standard of the board games is an equal position at the beginning.Otherwise Bk would change to a casino.
I have played a tournement with six games and four of them my opponents have lost positions before we have moved the first time.This cannot make sense.Okay you can play with this rules,but it is (for me) only an half and not a complete game.
I think the most players here see this in the same way.Look at the only little number of played games in the past in both variants.

christine has created a tourny for Loop Chess. Go here to sign up.

true it has been analyzed, and I know by heart how to win after 1.e4 1.d4 and 1.d3. In a shuffle antichess, I am pretty sure there are positions where game is already win before move 1.

Like atomic, the game is probably too wild to get shuffled!

What's more, I fair the extra coding and the extra rules will be to big for the players interrested in that.

If realized, we can have a game then!

Some say poker is determined by luck too

Antichess - this game seems to be very analyzed and many variants are determined.

How,if we could have a variant like "Shuffle-antichess"?
The rules could be the same with the difference, that the pieces on the 1th/8th row are placed randomly.

have two big disadvantages :
1.Both games are starting in the middle of the game ,without an opening.
2.The constellation of the pieces with the following result of the game has to do with luck.

I suggest to change the rules in the following way:
In the first part of the game the pieces will be placed on the board alternately.Both players should can see the actions of their opponents.In screen chess only in the own half of the board,in crazy screen chess on the complete board.
Only if the last piece is placed the players can start to move (like in the boardgame "morris").
I think,with these rules the games can become more interesting, .