I hope the choice of this word was because of an unexperienced english speaker :)

chessmec: ? i did.

grenv: So in what language are stupid and inexperienced synonyms?
Please, read my posting carefully till the end, and in a context-sensitive way, please.

chessmec: So in what language are stupid and inexperienced synonyms?
Also it is absolutely incorrect that an inexperienced player would see the strategy espoused here easily, certainly a stupid person would have no hope.

grenv: I think Chessmaster1000 means "unexperienced" instead of "stupid". I suppose this was a translation problem.
In general: We, who do not have English as native language, have something problems choosing the right word. WalterMontego, isn't it?

Chessmaster1000: You may not have to think about it, but others might. Calling those people stupid will not win you any friends.

White: King + Rook
Black: King

White's plan:

Keep the Rook 2 files and 2 ranks away from the King in each move, having in mind the next move of black too.

Keep the King 2 files and 2 ranks and 2 diagonal squares away from the King in each move, having in mind the next move of black too.

Black's plan:

Keep the King 2 files and 2 ranks and 2 diagonal squares away from the King in each move, having in mind the next move(s) of white too.

Why it's so difficult...........?
Sorry if by saying the words "idiot and inexperienced", someone felt insulted or whatever.........As always my absolute language was misunderstood........I just meant that it's so easy to play for both sides without even have to think........Your other conclusions for my statements are not mine.........!

Fungame:
There is nothing idiotic if someone is not master in some game, neither the opposite, if someone is able to play some games at higher level.
And tell me where i have written such a thing.....?

And Pedro Martínez: you also remind me someone called Martinez from Gothic Chess board with some statements that i didn't agree at all. I don't remember the name.......
(Just kidding, although you will take it differently, i bet.....!)

Pedro Martínez: Yes, I know exactly, in some games I didn't make the first move yet! And if there is some period where my connection is good, I waste time with writing to boards

LOL @ grenv...

fungame: sorry, fungame, I didn't mean to prolong that game...too many games going...you know what I'm talking about...

Pedro Martínez: Ouch.

On the other hand, the question was asked, and then apparently we were told an idiot would know, so a fair comment.

Chessmaster1000: There is nothing idiotic if someone is not master in some game, neither the opposite, if someone is able to play some games at higher level, it doesn't automatically mean his life has greater value or something. BTW Pedro, why don't you resign this game with me and only play it with the slowest possible tempo?
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=793867
U want to win or something, or you just care about your rating so much, waiting for mine to raise?

You remind me of Trice, Mr. Tsavdaris...

Chessmaster1000: That's a little arrogant, I think many inexperienced players playing the KR would lose to the king, especially if they thought they could win. For instance the method a rook beats a king one on one may be tried, and this would lose.

These traps are obvious even for an idiot-inexperienced player so if we have a KRK Anti-Chess endgame it's toooooo easy to avoid them for both sides and have a draw.........

WhisperzQ: sorry, I don't know. the table in the link only states the expected result, not the means to achieve it.

rabbitoid: Assuming best play ... there are traps to be avoided for the unwarry!

Pedro Martínez: draw.
see http://www.matf.bg.ac.yu/~andrew/suicide/StanGold/etables.htm

Thad: It depends on the situation on the board but if you are referring to this game:

http://brainking.com/cz/ShowGame?g=740622

I think it is a draw...

Can anyone tell me if K vs KR is a draw in antichess (assuming proper play)?

You often get periods of non posting on this board.

since 26. Mai 2005 no posting. hmm, why?!

Last warning.

Walter Montego: Yes I realise the block can stop it being resolved in PM, but I won't have it resolved on here.

Join the Flame Pit.

Jules: Ah, my dear Jules. Without any moderation at all, I had deleted the three posts the chessmec found offensive. He in turn deleted his post concerning mine and danoschek's. As you've noted, danoschek has you on hide too. As far as I know, you didn't see any of the dispute except maybe danoschek's posts and the one that I typed after I deleted the rest of them. I do care about being put on block by someone, though there's not much I can do about it.

I thought the last post that I typed explained in a non-threatening or harrassing way a way for danoschek and I to settle our differences or failing to do that to make sure that we'd stay away from each other. As I asked chessmec in some private messages, how else can I communicate with him? And you yourself have done as I did and posted here. Hopefully he doesn't have us both on hide in this discussion board. As I've not gotten a reply, move, or noticed him changing the blocked user status in our game, I am going to assume he doesn't want to talk about it and will avoid him in the future. Perhaps he does want to talk about and had logged off. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for a day or so. I'll delete this post if you think it is inappropriate also, but could you get word to him somehow in that case? I might delete it with out prompting in any case.

I really don't care about that. :)

I've deleted the posts and that's the end on the boards I moderate. If you and/or Walter carry on this 'dispute' on the boards I moderate you will be hidden.

Ok Guys, Enough.

I've deleted the posts, so please don't carry it on.

rabbitoid: This actually has been called Recycle Chess and is a very cool variant : http://www.chessvariants.org/difftaking.dir/recyclechess.html . Unlike Loop it can be played over the board without problem. Try it !

>http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=8795&tri=41671&trnst=0


Three are in, one more is needed before 2 AM Pacific Time, around 8 hours from now. Andre has it as single game matches, so you only get to play three game for the whole tournament. 3 day time limit.

Dragon: Yes, though you are at the right board to post about them. Any news?

Are they no longer considered important variations individually?

rabbitoid: you expressed it much better by pointing that a piece
must move to an un-occupied square - I enjoy to see the group intelligence
which is even higher than mine is lightly capable of fixing the prob ... ~*~ .

rabbitoid: That seems to make a simple rule. In regular Chess you can only move to an unoccupied square or one that is occupied by an opponent's piece. The Rook should be not be allowed to move to its starting square as it is occupied before it moves.

rabbitoid: An excellent idea ... "sacrificial loop chess".

but apart from that, that's an idea for a new variant: you can take also your own pieces. for normal chess, this is idiotic, but for loop chess? sacrificing a piece to parachute far behind enemy lines? what do people think?

Sumerian: so far, in this variant, you can't take your own pieces, so that's out.

rabbitoid: If your looping rook would be an obstacle to itself, you have to decide, whether the rook should capture itself, or the move finally hereby is blocked. So you at last have the choice to declare this move to be impossible, or having unfinite multi-looping doubles.

Sumerian, danoschek: "it's chess..." well, no, it's not. it's a variant, which has a different set of rules. it says in the rules the only change is the possibility to extend the board so that it loops on itself. it follows that the only limitation to a rook move is that there be no pieces between the starting and ending point.

Sumerian's infinite regression is no obstacle, since there is the 3 move repetition draw rule.

hmmm... actually that's the way out of this loophole: when the rook starts the move, there IS someone standing on the target square: himself. question is, does this count as an obstacle, since the rook has to move out of it's starting position to reach the obstacle, which is therefore no longer an obstacle? this is starting to enter quantum physics... or in dano's favorite expression, humbug. for once I agree

Walter Montego: yes you don't see. like I don't see the admittably
challenging boardlogic complying with chess rules either ... btw it was me
who urged to repairing the en passant cross the border too - fixed already ... ~*~ .

danoschek: I don't play cCylinder Chess, but I fail to see how making a move that leaves the board in the same position would eliminate stalemates from happening. Since only a Queen, Rook, or Bishop (Hmm, I'm not sure about a Bishop) can make such a move and not the King, a stalemate cannot happen in this manner, can it? It could certainly facilitate in the making of a stalemate though. Suppose I moved my Rook all the way around the board and left the position the same, now a stalemate could indeed happen. That'd be my stupidity for allowing that to happen, wouldn't it? One thing I am curious about this is, suppose a Rook that I can move all the way back to the same square is blocking your Bishop from throwing a check on my King. I would say that the Rook cannot be considered to have moved. Simular to the situation to castling through a check even though the King isn't in check when the castling is completed. How does the game here handle this situation?

Sumerian: actually the logic is violated beyond too, I agree ...
I assume we both know the chess riddles that challenge one
to reconstruct the history of a game by a given end position ... ~*~

danoschek: An additional argument against such passing loopings is, that when cycling once creates a move, cycling twice will also do. How will you distinguish such a move from one making 222 cycles? Enumbering all valid moves will end in a never ending chaos. But identifying all into one 'move', will reduce them to a simple passing, which is not allowed at all.

Sumerian: indeed it would theoretically suspend stalemate as well ... it's humbug. ~*~

reza: In Chess (and variants) there is a phaenomene called 'Zugzwang'. It is existing only, because there is no possibility in Chess to simply pass a move. Permitting moves which do not change the situation on the board thus will be nothing else than passing. Thus the Zugzwang element by that will vanish from Chess in such situations. Chess including a possibility to pass a move no longer remains Chess, it becomes a new type of game.

it's chess - you all might have forgotten ... ~*~

reza: It may not be useless... the position I posted when I started this whole thread 4 months ago has different outcomes if this is considered a valid move or not. Just to bring it back:
-------------
White: Ra5, ph6, Kc3
Black: Kb1, pa6, ph7
White to play, mate in 2
-------------
The proposed solution is
1.Ra5-a5 Kb1-c1
2.Ra5-a1++

And in halma, as rabbitoid pointed out, you can have a move that doesn't change the board at all.

I'm not stating that this should be a valid move or not. I just pointed out what I read in a book, that's all and was wondering for your oppinions. But then again, I remeber a famous game in chess history where someone promoted a pawn to an opponent's piece. And it was considered a valid move at the time since the rules didn't say anything against it (that's why they've been changed *hint**hint*)

It is really interesting for me. I have thought on it a lot and have come to this conclusion that in cylinder chess players really should not be allowd to make such moves.

Yes, even in checkers after you make multiple moves, after the move, the position on the board is changed and several pieces are captured.

In cylinder if such moves are allowed many moves can be made by the queen and the rooks that end in no obvious change of the position on the board and such moves seem to me strange and useless.

I'm very much willing to read everybody's opinion about this.

danoschek: I'll oogh you! halma?
ok, ok, I take it back. my Kindergarten days are over, too

rabbitoid: checkers oogh ... still the position has changed ... it's a flaw period ~*~