Just reviewing a game in which Siletbob played Huhu (ID No 25631) in which Huhu was effectively in checkmate but Huhu could still make a move.

The rules (now) clearly state that Silentbob was in a winning position, therefore Huhu should not have been able to move.

Which is correct?

1. I talked to Fencer about my game (ID No 25631)
and he corrected the bug.
2. The rules about check and checkmate are a bit confusing, but I learned them exactly so from all other places where you can play atomic chess. I would suggest to leave them as they are. But I have to agree to grenv's suggestion would simplify the understanding of rules. But this is atomic chess and everywhere else it is played this way...
3. I think there is a bug in the rules description: in the last picture of the rules it says you cannot play Nxe5 because it would cause the kings explosion. This is not true, this move kills the opponent's king and not your own, so it is allowed. You get in check, but this is according to the rules.
4. I don't care about winning or losing one game more or less. Changing the rules is for improving the game, not for winning one player some points. I hope others player can see it so, too ;-)

I was wondering, can the third check be with one's king.
If I were to put my king on an adjacent sqaure to the opponent's, he/she would be in check. Normally this would be illegal since my king could then be captured. However, if it is the third check, is it possible?

In Dark chess the king can take another king to win the game, but in Atomic chess can the king be on adjacent squares thus forcing a draw? i.e. if white's king is on a1 and I put black on b1 my opponent cannot blow up my king thus ending game in a draw. Bearing in mind that checks do no apply in this game.

Please send answer on a postcard to....

Too late, I answered my own question. If my king go to the ajacent sqaure and the other king can't move it does not end in a draw it ends in a victory for me. LOL

Black Knight: I've just looked at the game you won against Silent Bob. Why couldn't Silent Bob's king move? I would have thought that the game should have ended in a draw?

pawns are good cannon fodder, when properly deployed, as an opponent might not like to take a pwn with a piece if he/she thinks that pwn is protected by another pwn.
KNs are excellent for 'unseen' sorties, have won (and lost) a few Qs because the Kn wasn't spotted.
Rs belong to open lines just as in normal Ch. but I would call an open line any line where yr own pwns have been exchanged, even if an opposing pwn is still on that line.
Bishs should be in the open or just 1 move away from that, ie=behind a pwn yr about to push on.
Qs like to be in the open too, but beware of squares where a Kn might lurk unseen.
I find bluffing can be quite helpful, I remember a game where I challenged the K with an unprotected R, knowing my opponent was worried my Q was behind it. He didn't take and moved the K in the open just like I hoped, 2 moves later my Q took it as he moved where he thought my Q could not get to. But my Q wasn't where I made him think it was.

Its a common term used in chess Lara, called checkmate.

I have reviewed the rules and suggest the following text replace the current second dot point in the rules ...

There is no check in Atomic Chess although there is checkmate (see below). A player who's King is in jeopody does not need to move the King but if they do not make a winning move then the opponent will capture the King in the next move. This has three significant consequences: a player can move a piece which would put the King into conventional check (including the King); a player can castle out of, through or into check; and a player can move their King adjacent to the another King. In this last instance neither King can be taken directly because it would explode their own King at the same time, but a situation may arise where one King is pinned against the edge of the board without a non-check move (therefore in checkmate) and thus lose the game.

i still think checkmate is a silly concept in this game the way it is currently defined.

I agree, but rules is rules! What do you think of the proposed revision, is it helpful?

I think it's fine but just not enough. Further I don't think a king next to another king can be checkmate, since I could make any move and my opponent would not be able to capture my king without exploding his.

Again I agree and again the response can only be rules is rules. If checkmate is the inability to move a King out of jeopardy (not the actual act of taking the King by the opponent) then this makes sense (in a funny sort of way).

In other words my win still stands :-)

Nope, it would be against the chess rules.

Here is another scenario that doesn't seem to make sense. If I am placed in a position of checkmate whereby my King is in "check" and I cannot move it any where and I cannot directly take the checking piece the game thinks I have lost. But ... why can't I take another piece which would explode and in so doing eradicate the adhjacent pieces, one of which is the one checking me?

I would like to remove checkmates completely from this game. They make no sense, there is no check, why checkmates?

i second that, checks and checkmates are silly in this game, unless check means any threat to blow up the king, even indirectly.

I agree too ...

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)?

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.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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

We should try removing the checks and checkmates...

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

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 :-(

There are no checks in this game!

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.

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

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.

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

:)

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?

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

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? :-)

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?

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.

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.

Just wanted to check that pawns are promoted to a piece of choice when they reach the other side of the board.

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. :^)

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).

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

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

Thank You, Kevin.

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

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