World #5 GM Hikaru Nakamura and Rybka take on Stockfish! Live on Chess/TV and Open to ALL MEMBERS! Click here to watch!
Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

how would Chess change if opponent lone king = win?


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1

    algorab

    a)The player wins If the opponent king last minion is captured

    b) The last minion can be captured by the king even if it's defended

    How IYO would the game change if this winning condition is added to or replaces the checkmate?  It should shorten many endgames probably...

    Ex:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    White wins whatever Black does because the pawn can't escape the capture by the rook and the ensuing instant loss

    Ex2:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    White wins whatever black does because the king can capture the last minion

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #2

    sftac

    This is a family site.  Sorry, I'm not up for discussing 'naked' chess pieces, including Kings.  Suggestion:  use the term 'lone', as in lone King.

    sftac

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #3

    browni3141

    sftac wrote:

    This is a family site.  Sorry, I'm not up for discussing 'naked' chess pieces, including Kings.  Suggestion:  use the term 'lone', as in lone King.

    sftac

    Even a two year old can handle the word naked. It's completely appropriate here. Don't derive any meaning that isn't there.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #4

    theoreticalboy

    What if he means you win if you steal the opposing king's clothing?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #5

    RoffleMyWafflez

    sftac wrote:

    This is a family site.  Sorry, I'm not up for discussing 'naked' chess pieces, including Kings.  Suggestion:  use the term 'lone', as in lone King.

    sftac

    Are you that paranoid of nudity that the word "naked" properly used in a different and proper context bothers you?  Grow up.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #6

    trysts

    The bishops are naked!!!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #7

    algorab

    no ideas guys? Smile

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #8

    blake78613

    It would be a step backwards, that was the rule in the middle ages.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #9

    algorab

    blake78613 wrote:

    It would be a step backwards, that was the rule in the middle ages.


    what was wrong? it was with or without checkmate rule?

    BTW you can use it for puzzles

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    I was wondering if in a pawnless K+R vs K+N ending the stronger side can force a win with this rule

    Regards

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #10

    Meadmaker

    I don't think it would add anything to the game.  What's the point of it?

     

    I have a suggestion going the other way.  When the king loses his last defender, the opponent has a fixed number of moves in which he must force a checkmate.  The exact number depends on how many pieces he has.  If you have a lot of pieces, you must checkmate quickly or accept a draw.  This variation adds a lot of flexibility and gives some hope to a player with a hopelessly lost position.

     

    See Makruk, also known as Thai Chess or Siamese Chess.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #11

    RoffleMyWafflez

    Meadmaker wrote:

     I have a suggestion going the other way.  When the king loses his last defender, the opponent has a fixed number of moves in which he must force a checkmate.  The exact number depends on how many pieces he has.  If you have a lot of pieces, you must checkmate quickly or accept a draw.  This variation adds a lot of flexibility and gives some hope to a player with a hopelessly lost position.

     

    See Makruk, also known as Thai Chess or Siamese Chess.

    Aren't draws already common enough without making it even harder to claim a win?  And if you gave players in a hopeless position hope, the position wouldn't be hopeless anymore.  What next, shall we give the player down in material a free move so he has a chance?  While we're at it let's just change the rules of chess so that weak players automatically start with a positional advantage, that way amatuers have a chance to be the world champion!  Yay!  No one has to worry about playing strong moves anymore!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #12

    Meadmaker

    RoffleMyWafflez wrote:
    Meadmaker wrote:

     I have a suggestion going the other way.  When the king loses his last defender, the opponent has a fixed number of moves in which he must force a checkmate.  The exact number depends on how many pieces he has.  If you have a lot of pieces, you must checkmate quickly or accept a draw.  This variation adds a lot of flexibility and gives some hope to a player with a hopelessly lost position.

     

    See Makruk, also known as Thai Chess or Siamese Chess.

    Aren't draws already common enough without making it even harder to claim a win?

    In Makruk?   I don't know.  I've only played a couple of games, and they've never gotten down to that point where the move counting rule kicks in.  According to a book of strategy that I have on the game, the counting rules are quite significant.

    I wouldn't actually want either variation.  Chess isjust fine as it is.  If the truth be told, I just thought that people might be interested in a different variation on the suggestion, including knowing that somewhere in the world, specifically in Thailand, that was already the dominant form of Chess.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #13

    waffllemaster

    It would destroy a lot of drawing possibilities I believe... not necessarily a bad suggestion for those who don't like the frequency of top level draws.

    However IMO I dont' like the direction it kills draws from, namely the endgame.  I'd rather shatter opening theory than endgame theory :)

    It's interesting to think about.  IMO many players (myself included) feel that it will take more than one lifetime to master chess, no need to change anything!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #14

    algorab

    waffllemaster wrote:

    It would destroy a lot of drawing possibilities I believe... not necessarily a bad suggestion for those who don't like the frequency of top level draws.

    However IMO I dont' like the direction it kills draws from, namely the endgame.  I'd rather shatter opening theory than endgame theory :)

    It's interesting to think about.  IMO many players (myself included) feel that it will take more than one lifetime to master chess, no need to change anything!

    Chess is perfect as it is , no doubt . This ancient rule probably would make it more materialistic for ex this is a win for white

     

     

     

     

     

     

    but maybe there are twists/ nuances we don't know about so maybe it could be worth a try Smile 

     

     

     


     


Back to Top

Post your reply: