 |
|
 Chess variants (8x8)including Amazon, Anti, Atomic, Berolina, Corner, Crazy Screen, Cylinder, Dark, Extinction, Fischer Random, Fortress, Horde, Knight Relay, Legan, Loop, Maharajah, Screen, Three Checks For posting: - invitations to games (you can also use the New Game menu) - information about upcoming tournaments - discussion of games (please limit this to completed games or discussion on how a game has arrived at a certain position ... speculation on who has an advantage or the benefits of potential moves is not permitted) - links to interesting related sites (non-promotional) Community Announcements: - Nasmichael is helping to co-ordinate the Fischer Random Chess Email Chess (FRCEC) Club and can set up quad or trio games if you send him a PM here. Sinulla ei ole oikeutta kirjoittaa tälle alueelle. Tälle alueelle kirjoittamiseen vaadittu minimi jäsenyystaso on Brain-Sotilas. Moodi: Kaikki voivat lähettää viestejä
<< < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 > >> 27. Maaliskuu 2003, 08:59:06 Otsikko: Re: Double Check  Double check counts as one check. 27. Maaliskuu 2003, 07:11:45 Otsikko: Double Check Does a Double check count as one or two checks against your opponents King? 27. Maaliskuu 2003, 06:43:00 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. 27. Maaliskuu 2003, 03:10:11 Otsikko: MY feeling my feeling is that in horde chess black seems kind of overpowering
feel free to message me with your thoughts 23. Maaliskuu 2003, 00:22:03 Otsikko: Re: 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... 21. Maaliskuu 2003, 20:15:30 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. 21. Maaliskuu 2003, 12:02:27 Otsikko: I think the programming would be hard The two games would have to be connected and prolly shown split screen. 21. Maaliskuu 2003, 03:37:49 Otsikko: Re: Loop Team chess 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... 19. Maaliskuu 2003, 14:13:19 Otsikko: I need to learn Something about this game too. I ay stop all the variations, just ban the top 50 chess openings from matches... 19. Maaliskuu 2003, 12:12:44 Otsikko: Re: Loop Team chess Hmmm, it would be pretty difficult to synchronize four players. 19. Maaliskuu 2003, 09:09:56 Otsikko: Re: Loop Team chess Sounds great, but I don't think anyone would be my partner :( 18. Maaliskuu 2003, 09:00:04 I think that the second suggestion (more move abilities to maharajah) is definitely worth trying. 18. Maaliskuu 2003, 01:45:49 Otsikko: More thoughts ... 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? 18. Maaliskuu 2003, 01:40:40 Otsikko: Another option to redress the balance of power 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. 17. Maaliskuu 2003, 21:31:17 Otsikko: Loop Team chess 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?? 14. Maaliskuu 2003, 18:33:35 One rook is like 5 pawns I think 14. Maaliskuu 2003, 00:54:33 Otsikko: Re: Balance I like the idea but what would the winning position for black be? Would there still be checks? 13. Maaliskuu 2003, 17:21:59 Otsikko: Balance To change the game for a better balance we can try to play with two Maharadjas one on a1 and one on h1? 13. Maaliskuu 2003, 16:07:20 Otsikko: Balance 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. 13. Maaliskuu 2003, 15:32:01 Otsikko: The name 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 13. Maaliskuu 2003, 12:52:20 Otsikko: Ideas 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 7. Maaliskuu 2003, 21:36:09 Yep, you can put it wherever you want :-) 7. Maaliskuu 2003, 10:25:13 Otsikko: rules If I took opponent's white square bishop,
can I place it on a black square? 6. Maaliskuu 2003, 16:26:04 Otsikko: Stalemate 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). 6. Maaliskuu 2003, 14:14:49 Otsikko: Checkmate 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. :^) 6. Maaliskuu 2003, 05:07:16 Otsikko: Promotion of Pawns Just wanted to check that pawns are promoted to a piece of choice when they reach the other side of the board. 5. Maaliskuu 2003, 07:24:12 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. 5. Maaliskuu 2003, 06:37:52 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. 5. Maaliskuu 2003, 05:49:39 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? 5. Maaliskuu 2003, 05:40:23 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? :-) 3. Maaliskuu 2003, 20:32:23 Otsikko: Re: In that case is it possible to change the results of Game ID: 37204
to a draw? 3. Maaliskuu 2003, 12:59:58 Otsikko: A couple more suggestions 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? 3. Maaliskuu 2003, 10:10:48 Okay, I will remove checks and checkmates completely. It should solve all problems. 3. Maaliskuu 2003, 09:33:13 Otsikko: Re: Black Improvements 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. 3. Maaliskuu 2003, 07:20:36 whisperz appears to be correct. This would seem to be a bug, even with the current rules. 3. Maaliskuu 2003, 00:09:07 Otsikko: Re: Black Improvements 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. 2. Maaliskuu 2003, 22:59:24 Otsikko: Re: Something wrong with the program here... There are no checks in this game! 2. Maaliskuu 2003, 13:43:38 Otsikko: Something wrong with the program here... 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 :-( 2. Maaliskuu 2003, 10:25:35 The questions still remains ... why did I lose a game when I could effectively remove the ckeckmating piece with an atomic explosion? 2. Maaliskuu 2003, 10:17:00 Otsikko: Checks and checkmates We should try removing the checks and checkmates... 1. Maaliskuu 2003, 18:30:47 Otsikko: Re: Black Improvements The game is rather long anyway; adding pawns would make it longer. i also like gimli's idea (as well) to speed things up! 1. Maaliskuu 2003, 14:20:31 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. 1. Maaliskuu 2003, 11:24:22 So what about to try to add two or four extra black pawns? 1. Maaliskuu 2003, 08:47:49 Otsikko: Re: 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. 28. Helmikuu 2003, 16:14:32 Otsikko: Countering White's Advantage 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. 28. Helmikuu 2003, 16:01:45 That's interesting idea. So when black captures a white piece (not a pawn), he can immediately make the second move? 28. Helmikuu 2003, 11:49:01 Otsikko: black's Game 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. 27. Helmikuu 2003, 21:04:31 Otsikko: Re: No checks or checkmates 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)? << < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 > >> |
Päivämäärä ja aika
Ystävät palvelimella
Suosikki keskustelut
Yhteisöt
Päivän vinkki
|
|
Tekijänoikeudet - Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, kaikki oikeudet pidätetään. Takaisin alkuun |