Walter Montego: About dark chess: I would have thought it one game that can only be played at a site like this one, with a computer as an arbiter to show each player the illuminated squares. How could this variant be played on real boards? (I suppose 2?)

Alain: I hadn't even heard of this tournament until reading about it here. That'd be an interesting reason to visit England. I'll keep it in mind when I do finally get around to making the trip there someday.

Walter Montego: Well I'm not the main organiser, but I'll suggest Dark Chess, thanks! The reality is, though, that there is limited space on the schedule, and a desire to concentrate on high quality (and hoopefully popular) games. There are many good games, and chess variants out there like 3-check chess, so you can't do evereything:)

Hope to see you there,
Alain

Michael's Shadow Chess: On each turn, you make 2 "moves". One move is your REAL move. One move is your fake "Shadow" move.

Your opponent will see both moves, but will not know which one if your REAL move, and which one is your shadow move (until after they submit their next move[s]) So your opponent will not know which move is real, and will see both - and will be able to make their REAL and "Shadow" move for their turn. (After they submit and confirm their moves, they will only then see which one of your moves were the real one.)

Other rules:

Pawns can still capture like normal (diagonal / En passant) - even if the "captured" piece ends up being the fake shadow piece, the pawn will still be allowed to stay in the new column.

Checks: Unlike normal chess, you ARE allowed to stay in check, you ARE allowed to put yourself in check & ignore being in check. (your own risk) SO FOR EXAMPLE: Your opponent puts you in check. You can then use your fake move to move your king out of check, and then use your real move to put them into check. So now your opponent will have to decide if they want to try to capture your king, or protect their own king with their real/fake moves.

pedestrian: I keep waiting for someone to make a Dark Chess program that I can install in my computer to let me play someone. I'd need two monitors hooked to it to make playing easier. You could place them back to back and play directly across from your opponent. Some more programming and a third monitor and you could have kibitzers watch the game with all three views of the board. I'm sure it'd be a simple thing to have a clock running to time the moves.

Walter Montego: If I understand correctly, this is an event that people attend physically to play chess with an actual chess set, poker with real, physical playing cards and so on. I can imagine certain technical problems playing dark chess over the board... That said, I love the idea of bringing different mind sports together.

Alain: I am surprised they don't have Dark Chess at a tournament like this. Seems like it'd be the perfect type of game for them to have seeing how they have Poker variants, Chess variants, and Stratego.

Standard chess, bughouse, Chess960, Shogi and Xiangqi. Full details at www.msoworld.com.

Aganju: I remember an strong arbitrator, when told by a player the game was a draw, that he could beat either player with either colour from that position. Probably true as well.

furbster: can't really comment on a running game. (I nearly did...)
Looking at the ratings though, and knowing tenuki, I'd say he should know what he is doing, and he is not known for dragging games out.

I'm not very chess minded, can either of these players actually win this game? It's holding up the tourney if not.

Los Alamos Chess (chessik vs. tenuki)

3rd freestyle superchess tournament was won by Edwin Poels with 4-4.
4th tournament is in Zaandam, 13 april. On a 10x10 board...

Did anybody ever checkmate his opponent with his king (Cheshire Cat Chess)? I'm proud of this little gem, and think it might be the first time?
Cheshire Cat Chess (aaru vs. Aganju)

tangram: Edwin Poels won the 2nd Superchess Freestyle tournament at Leiden.
Some brainking players who played": Tangram, Lambik, Superbutch, Schuli, Karel123.

rabbitoid: One.

Justaminute: On another subject for the same variant: does anyone know how the system here handles a double check? does it count one or two checks?

wetware:
The variation I dont likei is extinction chess where you can put your opponentt in checkmate but still lose when your opponent takes, say a second bishop, because you have not taken his king. i would rather normal rules apply in this variation as well.

Atrotos: Agreed.  In the Introduction to Popular Chess Variants, D.B. Pritchard wrote: "All the usual rules, but you also win if you check your opponent three times."

Since there is checkmate in 3-checks chess, there is check also. So for check to be meaningful, it has to mean that the side that is in check, has to move his king out of check in the end of his turn.
So yes it's perfectly logical that you can't win by giving a 3rd check as you have to make a move that will remove the check from your king.

What you say would be logical if there was no check and one in order to win will have to either capture the king(and not checkmated him) OR threaten him(check him, but the term is ambiguous in this context) 3 times. Whoever manages to do one of the 2 first wins.
Then your 3rd threatening("check") on the king would win even if at the same time the opponent was threatening to capture yours.

It's like atomic Chess where even if your king is threatened exploding the king has a preference, so if you can leave your king hanging by delivering an explosion on the opponent's king, you win. But in atomic there is no checkmate.

What you propose is a different type of game with different strategy.

Chaosu:The question is about 3 Checks Chess, I presume?  I disagree with you: I think that your first priority in any move you make is to escape check (if you have been placed in check and can do so).  Just as in standard chess.

Your new variant would allow both kings to be in check simultaneously...and might even allow you to ignore the fact that you've been mated, in order to deliver a 3rd check.  Do you think that *those* possibilities are good ideas?

I just got into a situation where I'm leading in checks 2-1 and I got a possibility to check in my next move however opponent ties 2-2 and I have to move out of my check instead of finishing the game. Is it meant to be that way? According to rules I think it is but that doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

second “Freestyle” superchesstournament 1 december Leiden, The Netherlands
We play with superchesspieces. Every player had 2 pieces to choose from the available superchess pieces (see also www.superchess.nl )

Every game is played with 4 pieces per player.
1 december 2012 Old Catholic Church, Cronesteijnkade Leiden, The Netherlands.
Program: 12.30-17.30 4 rounds Swiss System
30 minutes per persoon 13:00 1e ronde 14:00 2e ronde 15:15 3e ronde. 16.15 4e ronde . You dont have to play all rounds. Fun is the important thing!.
info fredkok (at) ziggo.nl

July 5th in Voorhout, 2 Experimental Chess Tournaments called: "Mad Pawns Tournament". Played with T pawn, Ren pawn and Mobilisation Pawn.
1st tournament (10 participants)
Group A 1/2 Coen Leentvaar (lambik on brainking) and Robin Wooter (schuli on brainking)
Group B 1.Justin Vonk

2nd Tournament (Swiss, 9 participants)
1. Fred Kok (tangram on brainking)
2. Harry Sistermans

June 6 th in Leiden. Experimental Chess tournament with 11 new pieces (4 new pieces a game) For example the Joker (imitates last move opponent), the Magician (Freezes Opponents pieces), the Emeror (a king with aditional movement), You can give double mate!

UPDATE: results:
1/2. Fred Kok (tangram), Edwin Poels 2 1/2
3. Coen Leentvaar (lambik) 2
4. Rob Stolzenbach (superbutch), Jeroen van Eijk (karel123) 1
6. Peter Blommers -

I give again the link for the video as clicking on the previous link gives some problems. Very odd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSz63jh0LDs

Hi, i have created a video with commentary for a game of mine against a very very good Atomic Chess player, Egzot.
The game was very interesting and had an extraordinary interesting endgame!!

Egzot had a win but played just one single move wrong and it turned the win into a loss for him, so a win for me.
This is the game: Atomic Chess: Egzot-Atrotos 0-1

And the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSz63jh0LDs

Forgive some typos. :)

Chess master Jop Delemarre did it again. His 6th Superchess title with a score of 6/7 before Belgian Champion Schuurbiers (5 1/2) and Kok en Schelhaas (5)

= May 26th at Leiden the Netherlands: Dutch Superchess Championship. more info at www.superchess.nl in a few weeks.
= June 16 th "Freestyle" superchess tournament (by invitation) at Leiden, The Netherlands with many onorthodox pieces. Choosen pieces till now:
-the Angel,
the Magician,
the Joker
the Emperor
the Prince
the Counselor
the Veteran.
the Dragon

See also www.superchess.nl

Lightbug: Another interesting thing which I have only just realised is that black cannot win by "winning rule" number 3 ... here is a link to the rules Massacre Chess Rules

WhisperzQ: That sounds interesting. There could be opening theory for Massacre Chess. Since people are obsessed with fairness in games, trying to find a set setting might be very interesting. There could be openings and theory regarding whether it is better to use minor pieces to attack queens immediately, or is it just as good to protect your queens by attacking minor pieces at the start.

Unfortunately, I don't know what kind of setting would be considered fair. Perhaps some kind of pattern that would be easy to remember like all the knights going through the long diagonals to start with.

Additionally, half the bishops should be on one color and the other. A rook on each file or row some how.

Lightbug: Although I think I would agree about the advantageousness of initial positioning of knights towards the centre of the board I wonder whether a fixed setup could lead to an analysis which would result in a forced win for one side, or at least get to a position of significant advantage?

I've noticed that sometimes one player might have a slight advantage of their knights have been placed more centrally. Knights at the edge in this game seem to be bad. Perhaps a set setting might be interesting.

rabbitoid: many players (me also) capture the opponent's queens first, because they are most mobile. rabbitoid's rule generalizes this (maximize your moves and minimize those of your opponent). Besides from that, I don't know any strategic rules for the opening and middle game (this is probably why I'm not good at the game).

In the endgame, it is all tactics: calculate the order of your moves so that you can make the last capture.

It has potential. It looks a mess, but there are probably some strategic ideas that need to be applied, such as "take in such a way as to maximize the number of available moves for yourself, minimise those for the opponent" (seems reasonable) or things that need figuring out such as "go for the queens first" (or maybe should it be knights?) difficult to analyse.

Who thinks this is a good game? Or is it just a random mess without much skill? Can the random arrangement of pieces be unfair for one side?

Lightbug: Concentrating on defence in this variant is probably the worst tactic. The offence wins almost always.

Lightbug:
win or lose, I rarely have games that go beyond 30 moves in loop chess so I don't think the attacker needs any additional help.

Has anyone thought of restricting pawn drops to files where a player does not already have a pawn? This might make them less deadly and less likely to be "abused". I've noticed that sometimes players can barricade their king by dropping additional pawns on the 3rd rank making an attack against the king too difficult and makes the game slow. I think pawn drops were designed to go on the 7th rank or somewhere else to attack 2 pieces, but barricading the king makes the game not fun and makes me want to play Shogi where there restriction exists.

Walter Montego: I've seen some others, but I don't think it's good with black... however it seems better in the reverse scenario with white.

if you play as black you could try something like
3...Bc5 4.d4! Bb6 5.Nf7 Qe7 6.Nd6 Kf8 7.Nxb7

i don't remember any other move 1 by black being viable, but perhaps someone else has a better memory than me.

grenv: I did not know that Black could move elsewhere than 1. ...P F7-F6 when White started with 1. N G1-F3 without losing the game in a few moves. Now I'm curious about this 1. ... P E7-E5 first move by Black in response. I am going to have to try it! Does it play better than my usual, and until right now I thought only choice of 1. ... P F7-F6?

Reason I like it is that it differs from the opening in reverse at a critical point.
1.Nf3 e5
2.Ng5 f5
3. h4 c6
4. Nxh7

however since white played 1.h4 this capture is impossible and therefore a new line is needed. I think black erred with Nh2 in this game. . . white can't actually force a win i think if black plays something like b5.

I think the opening here is worthy of analysis by anyone interested in Atomic Chess
Atomic Chess (grenv vs. Walter Montego)

Walter Montego: Sorry left out a move, was in my head instead of on a board :( probably not valid now that i think about it.

1.h4 Nf6
2.f3 Nd5
3.Nh3 e6
4.e3 Qxh4

grenv: I do not understand how Black's third move is possible as his Queen is surrounded by pieces and could not move to capture the Pawn on H4.

maybe 4.b4 is better to avoid Qxb2... but once it's done perhaps 7.a4

Doesn't prove much yet.

What about this line for example...
1.h4 Nf6
2.f3 Nd5
3.Nh3 Qxh4

Walter, rabbit: I would like to see this opening in a game played by people who specialize in Atomic Chess or who have proven to have exceptional skills in it, such as FromHell or kleineme.

rabbitoid: Yes, this first game is just showing that I'm not that good at Atomic Chess.

How to analyze this game or others is something that takes a lot of study, persistence, and some open mindedness. It certainly helps to know the game very well too.

Atomic Chess (Walter Montego vs. Pedro Martínez)
Whatever the outcome, the current verdict on 1.h4 is "unproven either way".