Double check counts as one check.

Does a Double check count as one or two checks against your opponents King?

It is actually white's game, normally. If black leaves an empty column, white can go in with a rook or queen and start at the back taking all black's pawns, with nothing black can do. It is very hard not to eventually leave an open column as black. Try it.

my feeling is that in horde chess black seems kind of overpowering

feel free to message me with your thoughts

Well it sounds like people are saying it would be too hard.... but,

1) you can tie the moves together, so your partner can't move until you do, and

2) you dont need to show both screens. maybe just a link will do?

But like I said I'm not a programmer, and others would know better, and it sounds like it will be too difficult to do... oh well...

And also, one player could purposely prolong their move if they know their opponent can capture a rook for example, and not play their move until they get that rook.

The two games would have to be connected and prolly shown split screen.

Whisperz, not be your partner?? What are you talking about, you've got an awesome rating! lol...

I don't know much about programming, but how hard would it be "synchronize"? Hmm, it would be 2 separate games actually, and when I win a piece instead of giving it back to me, like in Loop Chess, you just give it to my partner! Then if one of loses, we both lose, obviously. I think the hard part would be setting up invites and finding partners first before you have a formal invite to a match? Well, what do I know, I'm just a banker, with no knowledge of programming! But would love to see it though...

Something about this game too. I ay stop all the variations, just ban the top 50 chess openings from matches...

Hmmm, it would be pretty difficult to synchronize four players.

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

I think that the second suggestion (more move abilities to maharajah) is definitely worth trying.

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.

Has anyone ever played team chess? Where you have a partner on your team? When you capture a piece form your opponent, you give this piece to your partner to use wherever he/she wants. This was great fun back in my junior high school days. I wonder if this can be implemented here?? Fencer, any possibility??

One rook is like 5 pawns I think

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

To change the game for a better balance we can try to play with two Maharadjas one on a1 and one on h1?

If you calculate with pawns: Queen 9, both rooks 9,knight and bishop 3, and 8 pawns you need 38 Pawns for black then you have a balance.

Loop chess is a great chessvariant,which is played on several internetservers. The normal name of this variant is "Crazyhouse". The best if you use the knights and try to come near the king

What strtegies does everyone like to use in Loop Chess. One of my opponents made the critical error of playing a gambit as black. I got a pawn free and managed to use it to shore up my defence and then poke holes in his. great stuff

Thank You, Kevin.

Yep, you can put it wherever you want :-)

If I took opponent's white square bishop,
can I place it on a black square?

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).

I would like to say this game is very fun. I was checkmated in the tournament against grenv. But, hey I don't need to cry about it. I will take the lost for it and next time he or anyone else won't be able to checkmate me, since the rule are change now. I'm here to play not complain. It's just a game not something for money. :^)

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.

In the case where the checkmating piece could have been exploded I would recommend cancelling that game. The others are ok since the rules were applied correctly. I do like the current rules better, but i don't think the game has changed significantly enough to wipe out the history.

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?

Why should he be punished with a loss when he deserved a draw, just because the rules were changed after the game was completed instead of before? :-)

In that case is it possible to change the results of Game ID: 37204
to a draw?

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?

:)

Okay, I will remove checks and checkmates completely. It should solve all problems.

Given that we are experimenting here, probably let's restrict Black from making the extra move with the same pawn. all we want to do here is give Black nearly equal chances of beating White. Re your second point, fine (except that I believe that Black will always have space for an extra move). I suppose in the last stages, Black may be trying for Stalemate.

whisperz appears to be correct. This would seem to be a bug, even with the current rules.

Tony,
I think it would also be necessary (if we give black an extra move when capturing a piece) to ban him/her from moving the pawn which made the capture as the extra move. Also, black should be allowed to refrain from making the extra move if he/she finds it advantageous not to.

There are no checks in this game!

I beat SilentBob by putting my king next to his so I thought that I'll do the same against Blind-Fury but this time he won! Please explain.

Malcolm :-(

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

We should try removing the checks and checkmates...

The game is rather long anyway; adding pawns would make it longer. i also like gimli's idea (as well) to speed things up!

And what about my suggestion - black pawns can move over two fields from 7th line like in ordinary chess game. But tonyh's suggestion is interesting too.

So what about to try to add two or four extra black pawns?

That's my thinking. I honestly doubt that it would give Black too great an advantage; in fact, I'm not sure it goes far enough to repair the imbalance.

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.

That's interesting idea. So when black captures a white piece (not a pawn), he can immediately make the second move?

Could we improve Black's chances still further by giving Blkack an extra move, whenever he takes a piece (and not a pawn). So black might get, say, 6 extra moves, which might make all the difference.

I agree as well. I would have been quite happy with a draw. Because there is no checks does that mean we can castle while we would have been in check (if you know what I mean)?