tipau: Ha, not a bad trick. White has to play f3 (either instead of Nf7 or after black castles), followed by e4 and seems to come out better to me (on first glance).

4 more players needed
random elimination wild chess

http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1636349
move 25
my pawn did not promote

grenv: Ive thought 3.h4 was one of the more risky lines for white, after:
1.Nf3 e5 2.Ng5 f5 3.h4 Nc6 4.c3 Nd4 5.cxd4 Bb4 6.Nc3 Nf6 when 7.Nf7 0-0! gives black some good play (although I still wouldn't touch 1...e5)

Fencer: Filip, my boards have gone back to the borderless style. Now that I've a had chance to see both, I like it this borderless way. I've never had a problem knowing which game is which. Two reasons come to mind for me. One, I don't play regular Chess. Two, you have the name of the type of Chess I'm playing next to the board. It says "Extinction Chess" in bold letters under the left hand corner of the board. Hard to miss that. Ka-boom, eh?

Even though I like how it is being the old style you might want to add something about the borders for the games in the "Settings" page for those that might want different colors for some reason.

BIG BAD WOLF: I have learnt my leasson the hard way moving in an atomic game like it was real chess and kaboom I went. I like the idea of boards, never know which is which but it reminds me to check! (pun haha:)

grenv: problem is I play so little ex. chess that it there is not something jumping out at me and saying "Hey, don't lost all of 1 piece", it's easy for me to forget.

BIG BAD WOLF: The price of playing so many games you can't remember which is which, lol.

Walter Montego: The problem is if it has the same border (no color) as regular chess, if you are not paying attention and just going from game to game, you could easly make a stupid move in Extincion chess thinking it was regular chess.

Walter Montego: Somebody complained it should have a colored border. But I can revert it to the former transparent one, of course :-)

Play Ambiguous Chess for a 1-year rook membership !

Fencer: And without a border it was fine. I didn't even notice. The blue is something you notice. I don't see the reason for it, but it also doesn't matter. If I had the choice, I'd put it back as it was or choose a different color.

Besides, I've been playing Extinction Chess on your site for over two years now. It seems kind of strange to just change the look of the game now. What made it happen?

tbart: No, it is the official rule for "Crazyhouse" (and Bughouse) but not for "Chessgi" (=Loop Chess) which is probably the oldest of the three games.
It was already discussed here, because all Bughouse players (me included) are acquainted to promoted pieces reverting to pawns, but there is no reason why it should be the same in Loop Chess.

when a guy takes a promoted queen it should revert back to a pawn not remain as a queen for opponent to place. Thats the offical rule.

Marfitalu: Good question, there is no outstanding reason for it, the main reason was simplicity.
I thought about three possibilities :
- The more natural one seems to consider castling as a king move. Then castling is ambiguous can always be replaced by a rook move, and the right to castle would in fact be a disadvantage for the player who can castle. For this reason I don't like this one.
- Consider castling as a two-piece move, hence unambiguous. This is now perfectly sound. But we would also have to state whether it is possible to castle under or through check. As the straightforward set of rules state that check does not exist and that the goal is to take the king, one would have to allow that. Personally I don't like at all the possibility to castle under or through check, like it is the case here in Atomic and Extinction. But this is probably a matter of taste.
- Banning castling is simple, clear-cut, easy to implement and can be phrased in very few words. That is what I like about it :-)

PS Someone composed a retrograde analysis problem of Unambiguous Chess, a variant I invented before Ambiguous Chess, where ambiguous moves are simply illegal (this variant is less playable but fun for problem composition). He asked me whether he could state that castling was an allowed unambiguous move, as his problem needed it, and I told him it was OK with me.

Walter Montego: There was no border color before.

Fencer: It was fine the color it was, though the new color isn't so bad either. What difference does it make? Can it be made something that the player can set for himself? Just have default colors for each game and if someone wants a different color for some reason, they can change it themselves.

Pythagoras: What colour do you propose?

Pythagoras: You will.

رضا: .
.
.
I was hoping for a different kind of support and you come up with this...?


Oh well, i may hate it less if time will pass....

Pythagoras: I think you should start getting used to it ....

.
.
.
I protest!
This new light blue(cerulean) colour you put for the Extinction Chess game, is getting on my nerves!

Is there any chance to change it to something more human or should i start getting used to it....?

definitely

mangue: Point taken, however I still maintain that h4 is better and wouldn't even consider Nf7.

yes, but not too quickly...

mangue: I think black has the best of that position actually after Bb4 and Nc6

grenv: NOT 3.Nf7?? which quickly loses to 3...Qh4
does it? after 4. g3 - Qc4 5. d3 - Qxc2 6. Nxh8 it is surely better for white, is there anything better?

andreas: You're correct, there is nothing illegal about such a move. In fact it is frequently a tactic used to avoid direct capture and can prolong the endgame.

Is it legal in Atomic chess for king to move close to opponents king? For example, white has a king on e1 and black on d3. Can black king move to d2?

From simply reading the rules it seems to be Ok, white can't capture black's king with Ke1xd2 because his king would be destroyd in explosion as well.

mrundersun: There are some traps for white, but if played correctly it's a bad opening for black in my opinion.

Typical line sees black down in material without much counterattack:

1.Nf3 e5
2.Ng5 f5
3.h4!
NOT 3.Nf7?? which quickly loses to 3...Qh4
3... c6
4.Nxh7 Qa5

If you still think black can have an effective game then challenge me as black. :)

1. Nf3 e5 isnt as bad for black as one would think at a first glance. Right now im plaing a couple of games with that defense. if you are intrested in playing white aginst it, please do challenge me.

Chessmaster1000:
What is the point of being so secretive about an opening. Life is to short, just let it out. Mayby then someone else will save the black side.

2006 Second Quarter Open Number 5 Dark Chess

3 day standard vacation. It's an open.

mangue: JinkyOng is playing a couple of games currently. if he doesn't wipe the floor with anything brainking has to offer, that settles it as negative.

kleineme: JinkyOng's posts have been restored (they were only temporarily hidden) after one derogeratory post was deleted.

WhisperzQ

The best would be to ask the master himself, do you have his email

kleineme:

I guess anything is possible, although Fischer always has been real careful about his privacy and I don't think he would be that overt in letting his real identity be known.

Those Internet Chess Games were always speculation as to whether Fischer played them or not. Something like an urban legend among chess players.

Kleinme, Jules did delete my post. Not sure about the reason why...
Regards

PS: i do not like to be censored

Someone: Who has deleted JinkyOngs original post with his two games? Now there are four further posts who don't make sense anymore. In my eyes either his post has to be restored or all subsequent ones have to de deleted as well.

Someone Else: You have asked why I'm sure that JinkyOng isn't Bobby Fischer, but you also deleted your post. Well, I didn't say that, I was just linking to an article where one of JinkyOngs games has been discussed. But now I'm not sure anymore about his identity because I've received a mail which makes it more probable that he is him:

[quote]
Read message

From: JinkyOng
Date and time: 31. March 2006, 17:52:57
Subject: jew

Meine Kampf, read it.
[/quote]

JinkyOng: It has to be "Mein" instead of "Meine"

BlueJ: The rules say "the target locations of the king and the rook doing the castling move are the same as in standard Chess". So your king will go to c1 and your rook to d1.
See http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=67

JinkyOng:
at least you could have chosen some games which were not published previously:
The third coming of Bobby Fischer?

My 101 all games tournament

If rook is a1 and kin b1, how to castling? Is is king in place and rook to c1?

JinkyOng: I guess you tried to show and prove that your superiority is enough to win even by playing incredibly stupid moves at the opening and losing many tempo's and destroying your King safety at all....
And you succedded in doing that, against all these considered strong players that they have proven to be only some weakies for you, right....?

JinkyOng: Chess? Not chess? Perhaps these games should be submitted to the editors of the ARTLEX or Grove art dictionaries. :)

grenv: The game is chess. The play is not chess. The result against strong players in 3 minute blitz game is art.

JinkyOng: What variants are these?

nabla: 2 of my games which can be published.

[Event "ICC 3 0 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Round "-"]
[White "guest381"]
[Black "zhong"]
[BlackElo "2908"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A00"]
[TimeControl "3+0"]

1. f3 d5 2. Kf2 g6 3. Ke3 Bg7 4. Kf4 Qd6+ 5. Ke3 Qb6+ 6. d4 e5 7. Kf2 exd4 8. Na3 Nf6 9. e3 dxe3+ 10. Bxe3 c5 11. Bb5+ Bd7 12. c4 O-O 13. Ne2 Bxb5 14. cxb5 d4 15. Bd2 Nbd7 16. Qb3 Rfe8 17. Nc4 Qe6 18. Nf4 Qe7 19. Rhe1 Qf8 20. Nd3 Rxe1 21. Rxe1 Re8 22. Rxe8 Qxe8 23. Nd6 Qe7 24. Nxb7 Nh5 25. Qa4 Nb6 26. Qxa7 {Black resigns} 1-0

[Event "ICC 3 0 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2001.04.21"]
[Round "-"]
[White "guest71"]
[Black "Beber {IM Robert Fontaine}"]
[BlackElo "2827"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B20"]
[TimeControl "3+0"]

1.e4 c5 2.Ke2 Nc6 3.Ke3 g6 4.Nc3 Nd4 5.d3 Nf6 6.Kd2 d5 7.Ke1 Bg7 8.h3 O-O 9.a3 e5 10.Bg5 Be6 11.exd5 Bxd5 12.Nxd5 Qxd5 13.c3 Ne6 14.Be3 Rad8 15.Qa4 e4 16.dxe4 Nxe4 17.Rc1 a6 18.Be2 b5 19.Qxa6 c4 20.Rd1 Qf5 21.Nf3 Nxc3 22.bxc3 Bxc3+ 23.Nd2 Nc5 24.Bxc5 Bxd2+ 25.Rxd2 Rxd2 26.Kxd2 Rd8+ 27.Kc1 Qe5 28.Bxc4! Qc3+? 29.Kb1 bxc4 30.Rc1 Qb3+ 31.Ka1 Rd2 32.Qc8+ Kg7 33.Bf8+ Kf6 34.Qc6+ Kf5 35.Qc5+ Kf6 36.Qe7+ Kf5 37.Qxf7+ Kg5 38.Be7+ Kh6 39.Qf8+ Kh5 40.g4# 1-0

bobwhoosta:
You win if you capture a _piece_ that causes the explosion of the opponents' King but at the same time doesn't cause the explosion of your King.
This _piece_ can be the opponents King as well.

I was wondering, in Atomic Chess, is it possible to take the king, or do you need to cause an explosion which kills the king?