Forum

Vote here for the forest you like the most. If you don't know how to play them, I can teach you: -Mini forest: Pawns become bishop, dabbaba, bishop, camel, grasshopper or ferz on the eighth rank. To checkmate, the opponent's king must be captured. The scoring system is point-based, meaning you must score more points than your opponent. -Enchanted Woodland: Cast a spell that will remain on the board for 2 moves before making a move. Spells are limited, they recharge after 5 full turns and therefore the same spell cannot be cast 2 moves in a row. Use the Jump spell on another piece to jump as if it weren't there. Or use the Freeze spell to prevent pieces from moving or staying within a 3x3 area of ​​effect. Be careful: any piece, including yours, will freeze if it enters the spell's area. Use spells to find a checkmate or capture the king. Pawns are promoted to bishop, camel, ferz, grasshopper, bishop, dabba or alibaba on the 12th rank. -Amazon Jungle: The winer is the player with the most points. Earn enough points to claim victory or checkmate your opponent. The royal grasshopper is worth 20 points and each amazon is worth 12 points. Your king's points and all remaining amazon points on the board will be given to your opponent if you fold or claim victory. Pawns are promoted to chancellor, archbishop, or wildebeest at the eighth rank. Now, which one do you choose?

Mini variants are small (or supposed to be) variants or small variations of others. At the moment there are only 6 mini variants, but I have a question, why did they create mini variants?

Literally, if I combined Atomic with Crazyhouse, the game would last hours and hours... until the game becomes boring and meaningless.

https://www.chess.com/variants/custom/analysis

Vote here for Atomic or Giveaway.

This is a new Atomic release, with new pieces: the soldier (advances and captures forward), the dabbaba (jumps 2 squares horizontally and vertically) and the grasshopper (jumps in any direction jumping over the first piece that falls immediately behind it).  Pawns promote bishop, knight, rook, queen, grasshopper and dabbaba to the eighth rank. Created by me (possibly Chess is thinking of adding an Atomic II), please rate it for me.

Today we are going to discuss a new topic: why are there few variants? Although, every year they add new variants, but today I checked and there were very few that exist today. I will ask you a favor, dear viewers, publish positions that you would like to see variants, for example: It's called Savage War.

Superpermutation Chess The game follows the rules of Standard Chess exactly, with the following exceptions: - There are no capture in Superpermutation Chess. The only exception is the King. Only the King can capture the opponent's pieces. - There is no castling and en passant in the game. - When a player moves a piece to the target square, any piece standing in front of it on the adjacent square vertically changes places with it. This called Superpermutation. If, as a result of the Superpermutation, another piece again stands in front of such a piece, then the Superpermutation continues until there is an empty square or the edge of the board in front of the piece making the Superpermutation. For example, if in this position  you make a knight move Nc2-e3 then the Superpermutation will begin which will result in the following position: exchanging places with other pieces, the knight on e3 moved to e8. Although all other pieces are not aggressive towards each other, they can threaten the opponent's King, as in regular chess, by declaring check or checkmate to the latter. A player must move his King away from check and must not leave it under attack at the end of his turn. If a piece participating in the Superpermutation declares check, then the Superpermutation in this case ends and the opponent must remove his king from check. The Superpermutation of a piece for a player is always carried out strictly upwards vertically. As a result of the Superpermutation, the Pawn can end up on either the first or the last rank. In the first case, the Pawn can make only one step to the second rank, from which, as in regular chess, it can move immediately two squares in its next turn.In the second case, having reached the last rank, again as in regular chess, the Pawn is transformed at the player’s discretion into any piece of its color, except for the King and itself. The game uses full algebraic notation, with the final square indicated in the case of a Superpermutation.  The goal of the game, as in standard chess, is to checkmate your opponent.

This is a question many players have, how do I play this variant? well, in this forum we are going to learn how to play difficult variants or ones that you didn't know about: -Chaturaji: It is a 4 player chess, there are no checks or checkmates, but kings can be captured and pawns become rooks (sailboats). -Minihouse: It is a small board in which each player has one of each piece (except queen). Captured pieces are added to your parts bank and can be placed in an empty square. -XXL Chess: Fight on a 14x14 board with new knight pieces. The pawns become queens on the eighth rank. -King Safety Chess: Get your king to safety by attacking the other kings in your way, 9 checks is checkmate and the pawns are promoted to queen, rook, bishop or knight on the ninth rank. -Thermopylae Chess: Red's goal is to prevent Green from being captured by a zombie and capture Green's royal general (combine king with knight). Green's goal is for the zombie to capture him or for him to last 76 moves, either of which will allow him to win the game. Pawns are promoted to Archbishop, Camel Rider, General, Queen, Wildebeest, or Alibaba Rider in rank 11. camel rider, general, queen, wildebeest or Alibaba rider in row 11. -Gothic Chess: It is a 10x8 board with new pieces, the chancellor can move as a knight or a rook and the archbishop can move as a knight or a bishop. To castle, the king moves three squares to each side and must land on the rook. -Collateral Worlds Chess: Defend your flank on the king side and attack the other flank. The pawns become a knight on the fifth rank. When checkmated, the player's king and pawns turn to stone, while the other pieces change color and take on the color of the player performing the checkmate. -Warui-shogi Chess: It is a modern version of shogi. The pawns are promoted to king on the eighth rank, the player in deadlock loses, and the captured pieces are added to a piece bank and can be placed on an empty square. -Ambush Chess: Place a rook and a king on your second row on your first moves. Your opponent's starting position is the same as yours, pawns promote a rook on the 8th rank. -Behind the Mirror Chess: On each flank you have a king who is not royal and one who is. Keep your royal king safe and use the non-royal ones to checkmate your opponent. -Villagers Chess:  Push the rook pawn forward to attack the opponent and defend against such an assault. The pawns of the eighth rank are promoted to rook, bishop, knight or king. Soldiers advance and capture only one square forward, sergeants capture and advance in all three directions. -Villagers Chess II: Develop your knights and unleash the power of towers to gain a winning advantage. Pawns are promoted to chancellor, archbishop, general, or knight at the eighth rank.

 In standard chess, it’s checkmate if you have no legal moves to prevent your king from being captured. In this variant, however, you lose if you cannot prevent an unavoidable checkmate on the next turn. This also means that any move leading directly to a guaranteed checkmate is prohibited.

In Xiangqi also known as Chinese Chess, the goal of the game is to checkmate the Generals, which normally move like Wazirs in Fairy Chess, however if the Generals face each other without anything in between the side to move may use the Flying General special move to capture the enemy General, in which the General captures the enemy general from across the board. In practice this means two Generals can't face each other without something in between. I think based on this there should be a variant, in which regardless of what type of piece each royal is, if another royal is on the same file rank or diagonal it can capture the other royal. This would mean that if we had a position like this with white to move, even though the royal ferz would ordinarily be only able to move one square diagonally, it could move across the board to capture the enemy king like this. It would also mean that a position like this would be checkmate, as while ordinarily the royal knight wouldn't be able to move along the diagonal, or move 6 squares, it would be allowed to capture another royal along the diagonal, and so would prevent the white king from capturing the black king from its special move.

Squatter chess is a variant in which if you get a piece to your opponents back rank you win.  I think squatter chess should be added as a variant, and on here this could mean that getting a piece to an enemy back rank counts as checkmating that player.  This could be a way to kill an army that has no king without killing all or almost all of their pieces.  It would also make it possible to takeover an army in takeover even when it has no king.

Hi, I hope this forum topic could be a place to search whether a particular variant already exists or not.

I need them please help me

Hi guys! Give your king a new life and experience chess like never before. Discover the chameleon dimension of chess and how this change transforms the strategy in each game."Chameleon King Chess", the extreme variant that will surprise the world of chess https://www.chess.com/blog/MasterMindV/chameleon-king-chess-the-extreme-variant-that-will-surprise-world-chess  Researchhttps://www.chess.com/blog/MasterChessFacu/exploring-the-horizons-of-chess-a-journey-through-innovative-variations 

XXlion77777 reported me for teaming when I wasn't, I just won the game. He's jealous that he lost so he reported. I got banned for 6 days can someone help pls?

TL;DR Rating vs. Scoring Rather than rating changes happening directly as a result of final placement, games are scored by giving each player a number of wins or losses. The amount of rating points you gain or lose when receiving wins or losses will vary, depending mostly upon the average rating of players in the game. 4-Player FFA In almost every scoring scenario, placement (1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th) determines who wins or loses. A higher point total will not mean a bigger rating increase. In games where the average rating is low, or close to 1500, 1st place will be awarded 3 wins, 2nd place gets 1 win, 3rd place gets 1 loss, and 4th place gets 3 losses. In games where the average rating is high, 1st place will be awarded 4 wins, and each of the remaining players will be penalised 1.33 losses. Teams A team's average rating is calculated in favour of the higher-rated player, at a weight of 2/3 to 1/3 from the lower-rated. Both players on the winning team receive 1 win, as calculated against the average rating of the other team. Both players on the losing team, 1 loss. Glicko-2 Variant ratings on chess.com use the Glicko-2 rating calculation system. This system of scoring was specifically developed for multi-player games, and represents a mathematically fair way of assessing point gains and losses dependent on player's skill, consistency, and the elements of luck which arise from any multi-player game. The heart of Glicko-2 is the value of Rating Deviation, or RD. Ratings are dependant on a probability function, as opposed to a single, defined value. When you see your rating on chess.com/variants, that value is the system's best approximation of your skill, to be interpreted as the expected value, but surrounded by a bell-curve distribution, with a standard deviation given by your RD: Players with a lower rating deviation have a more predictable rating, meaning the system has a larger degree of confidence that their ratings are close to the given values. These players' ratings consistently stay within a narrow window above and below the reported rating. As such, the system doesn't change their ratings as dramatically. If two equally-rated players each lose to a field of equally-averaged opponents, the player with the higher rating deviation will lose more points than the other. Likewise for points gained after a win. On the variants server, initial ratings are set to 1500, and rating deviations set to 120. As such, the first games you play within any given rating category will cause your rating to change dramatically, but as your rating settles into consistency, your RD will fall, and rating changes won't be as drastic. On the other hand, if you often play against players with ratings much higher or lower than your own, your RD will rise, regardless if you typically win, or typically lose. An RD value of around 60-70 is a sign that a player's skill matches closely with his rating. Anyone looking for an in-depth explanation on the specifics of Glicko-2 can find more information or open source implementations on the creator's website 4-Player Scoring (FFA) The Glicko-2 system is responsible for changing ratings after wins and losses, but the other component of scoring is how many wins/losses are assessed in each game. In the past, there have been many in-depth discussions about how exactly to reward/penalise players in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place after a 4-player game. From those discussions and prior tests, the system for chess.com/variants has been implemented as follows: At lower levels of play (beginners), the 1st place finisher will be awarded 3 wins, 2nd place will earn 1 win, 3rd place will be penalised 1 loss, and 4th place, 3 losses. This will be the case for all FFA 4-player gamemodes where the average rating of all 4 players is close to 1500. At higher levels of play, players are expected to be more competitive, and not simply take the easy route out when as the game comes to its conclusion. Therefore, it has been decided that for games with higher average ratings, 2nd place should not be awarded points, but rather penalised for not winning outright. This encourages a cooperative spirit among players who aren't leading in points to fight every man for himself, and negotiate to the top of the standings at every opportunity. In these higher-rated games, 1st place will also gain a larger reward of 4 wins, while 2nd, 3rd and 4th place will each be penalised equally with 1.33 losses, thus adding to the notion of fight as equals to prevent the common enemy from winning. The mentality in these games should be firstly, to equalise the playing field, but secondly to gain marginal advantages until you cannot be stopped, even with the eventual 3-vs.-1 cooperation of your opponents. You will gain nothing by fighting against the 3rd or 4th place finishers only to land in 2nd behind the winner. The determination of the boundary between higher-rated and lower-rated will be set by the admins, and may be a different value for different modes of play. Wherever that boundary is set, the transition from +3/+1/-1/-3 to +4/-1.33/-1.33/-1.33 will be a gradual one modelled by a series of logistic functions, dependent on the game's average rating, and where the admins have set the Solo Point. Currently, the solo point is set at the following values for these popular gamemodes: 2500: Standard 4PC, Arena of Legends, The Four Horsemen 2200: War for Throne, Diamond Wall, Glass Labyrinth 2000: Collateral Worlds, Arena of Grasshoppers, Battle of Castles 1800: King Safety *These determinations may be adjusted as the distribution of ratings within these classes rise or fall. Exceptions The following exceptions can cause scoring changes to occur in ways contrary to what was explained above: Pure FFA scoring In these gamemodes, scoring will always be handled as if the average rating was 1500, i.e. +3/+1/-1/-3. Notable implementations of this scoring system apply to Chaturaji, Labyrinth 82, and 4P Giveaway. Pure Solo scoring Similar to pure FFA, this scoring system always acts as if the average rating is at the solo point. 1st place gets 4 wins, and 2nd-4th all lose equally with 1.33 losses. Games such as Unison use this scoring system. Points scoring Just like the other modes, there are still 4 wins and 4 losses to be distributed. However, with this method, the wins and losses are distributed proportionally to the amount of points each player earnt in the game, and how far above or below the average it stands. An example of how the wins and losses would be distributed in a game with points scoring is shown below: 3-Player scoring Is the same as 4-player for most modes, except there are 3 wins and 3 losses to be distributed. The FFA scoring differs slightly in that 2nd place will receive both wins and losses determined by the logistic function morphing from 0.75 wins+0.75 losses to 0 wins+1.5 losses. The breakdown of this morph is shown below, where the red and blue lines are both assessed upon 2nd place: 2-Player scoring 1 win, 1 loss. Shouldn't be that difficult to figure out who gets what. Ties If 2 or more players finish a game with the same amount of points, the rewards/penalties between their placements will be divided evenly and applied for each. For example, if two players are tied for 2nd and 3rd in a game where the scoring was +3.38/+0.14/-1.15/-2.37, then each of them will receive 0.07 wins, and 0.58 losses. Aborts If a player disconnects or resigns near the beginning of a game, it can result in a horrifically unbalanced game for the remaining players. In these instances, the game is aborted – or cancelled – so that the players who didn't choose to abandon the game can get off to a more equitable start. Aborting games intentionally to play for a strategic advantage is against the spirit and rules of the game and is the height of unsportsmanlike play. To actively discourage this practice, point penalties (and on occasion, playbans) are assessed to players who abort games. Aborting when your rating is low, or infrequently enough that it can be attributed to unintentionality will only give minor penalties, but for players who abort frequently, or have high-enough ratings to know better, those penalties can be quite steep. Teams Scoring In teams games, there's nothing fancy with the number of wins and losses. The players on the winning team get the win, and those who lose get a loss. The only complication is how the Glicko-2 system works to change ratings with the information of 1 win, or 1 loss. In an FFA game of 4- or 3-player, the wins and losses are computed against a hypothetical player with a rating equal to that of the game average. This allows players with ratings lower than the average to be rewarded more favourably when beating out a stronger player pool, and penalised a lesser amount when receiving losses against players stronger than they are, as would logically make sense. For teams, instead of giving wins or losses versus the average game rating, players' wins and losses count as if competing against a player with the average rating of just their opposing team's players. This happens with the caveat of that average being weighted in favour of the stronger (higher-rated) player. Because players on a team can communicate with arrows, chat, or through external means, the strength of a team can be heavily or almost solely reliant on the player with a better understanding of the game. As such, that player's average will count twice as much as the player with the lower rating. I.e., 2/3 versus 1/3. For example, if a team comprised a player rated 2154 and another rated 2436, the members of the opposing team would each receive either 1 win or 1 loss versus a player with a rating of 2342. Other Notes and Resources A natural consequence of how games work within the scoring framework is that once a 4-player game has been reduced to 2 players, the outcome, scoring-wise is often already decided. For that reason, players can resign to win (claiming the win), be forced to claim a win (autoclaim), or be forcibly resigned (autoresign). If that sounds complicated or scary, please find a more detailed explanation here. For transparency and a fairer game experience for all, all 4-player games will broadcast a message at the top of that game's chat box breaking down the scoring for that particular game. For all rated non-teams modes except for the points-based scoring, that message will look something like the examples shown below (points games will have a concise standardised explanation of how scoring will work in that game): Theory is a completely different discussion than scoring, although a thorough understanding of the scoring system definitely will give you an advantage in your gameplay, and change the way you approach theory. One of the first steps in that journey is understanding that even in solo-esque play, cooperating with another player or players will give you an advantage over those that are playing with an army of 1. There is a distinct difference between cooperation (allowed and encouraged) and teaming (prohibited), which has been the subject of many write-ups prior to now. If this is a new idea for you, please seek those explanations on your own, but start here and here. The article above attempts to explain how rating changes occur, but the categories of different ratings, and separation of rating types have been explained elsewhere, so were omitted here. Those descriptions can be found here. Some players may wonder about how the admin team has chosen to assign scoring types to different positions and gamemodes. Although providing that reasoning would be difficult for each and every game, there is an overarching way in which the custom games team evaluates positions, and finds a scoring scheme that fits their ideas. An introduction to this evaluation process is described here. With any questions about what was described here, or for a general Q&A regarding specific implementations on the variants server, please leave your comments below!

https://www.chess.com/variants/thermopylae/game/34132671/301/1 1 more move and I’m mated!