# Logic Chess

Chess - is it a purely logical game?

Some people complain that chess is not a 'pure' game, as it contains too many artifical rules, namely: castling, pawns initially moving two spaces, en passant captures, pawn promotion and the stalemate draw.

Well... with those folk in mind, I have created a playable chess variant which is completely pure, and I'm calling it............... 'Logic Chess'.

It is played on a standard chess board with standard pieces and straight-forward rules, so complaining will no longer be necessary.

Rules of the game:

Pawns move the same as in standard chess, but only one square at a time - this eliminates en passant captures. Also, pawns reaching the 8th rank will not be promoted.

Knights, Bishops, Rooks and Queens all move as in standard chess.

Kings move the same as in standard chess, but it is legal for them to enter or remain in check. There is no castling rule.

Each player takes it in turn to make a move and each player must move when it is their turn to do so. White always moves first, the same as in standard chess. There is no stalemate rule.

The game is over when:

1. A player captures their opponent's King.

2. A player successfully forces a pawn to the opponent's side of the board - i.e. - the 8th rank.

3. One player loses on time, the same as in standard chess.

4. Both players agree to a draw.

5. Both players only have a King remaining on the board and no other pieces - a draw.

And finally, here is the starting position of the game:

• 5 weeks ago

ProfObvious, you don't really need to ask me these questions, because if you actually think about all the information on this page, then most of the answers will become fairly obvious. It's elementary, Watson.

• 5 weeks ago

A few questions:

(0) How many games have you played with these rules meanwhile? How well have they worked out?

(1) Have you tried to formulate the rules without reference to "standard chess" - i.e. as a purely logical system which can be understood without prior (chess) knowledge?

(2) Why bother with rules 2-5?

(2a) Who needs a draw? Alternative: a game could be defined as being "undecided", until/unless it's won according to rule 1; Play continues as long as -- or resumes as soon as -- legal moves are made (?).

(2b) Similarly, why bother with "time out"? This implies a time rule (and probably a clock) which you don't need in your rules (you could consider this a practical matter that the players should agree on, outside of your logical rules).

(2c) Why should there be special consideration of the 8th rank (there's no promotion, after all, so it would seem consistent to just say that rule 1 defines the end of the game)?

(3) Why the new starting position? It moves the pawns up to the third rank, which compensates for eliminating the 2-move opening moves - but they haven't always been a part of chess... I suspect you had other ideas when inventing your new starting position?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing as much as trying to understand and appreciate your thinking!

BTW: I found your rules while searching for a purely logical, i.e. symbolic, mathematical and/or formal version of the rules of ("standard") chess, something like the Tromp & Taylor rules for Go, but so far, I've come up with empty hands :-/  You wouldn't know of any other attempts along these lines, would you?   ;-)

• 4 months ago

En passant seems logical to me.  It represents the act of swinging a sword, and landing a fatal blow, even though the enemy pawn tried to run past and avoid the fight.  But pawn promotion does seem a bit odd.

• 4 months ago

No thanks. I don't play chess variants, and that incIudes Chaturanga. I'm ok with the standard game - it's hard to argue with 1500 years of evolution.

• 4 months ago

Your game doesn't seem logically. If you want a different kind of chess. Refer its origin game from my country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaturanga

• 4 months ago

If you insist on being guided only by the laws of logic, then you would eliminate the English language.

• 4 months ago

Personally though, I like the cIassical game the way it is!