Anti-antichess, the variant in between

In this chess variant you can win by losing all your pieces (like in antichess) or by capturing the enemy king (like in chess), either. So give all your pieces away but making sure the king goes last, because otherwise losing the king also loses the game. The other way is forcing the capture of the king. A king vs king scenario is a draw, like in chess. "Why not just move the king away and save it?". Because like in antichess capturing is compulsory, and if you have to take a piece that is not the checking piece, that´s it, game.

Interesting +1

ok, maybe change the name to Defend Battle.

Sure, whatever is an irresistible name 

yeah : P

I want to ask about rules. If King was captured lastly, who win this game?

The one that was cleared of all pieces.

absolute antichess

interesting

Mind you that the wikipedia mentions another variant "in between", where you can win by checkmating like in chess, or by losing all the pieces but the king, that is, bare king already wins. Other than that, key difference is that in this you must save the king if threatened with capture, and in the one I described you must capture a piece whenever playable.

In both there´s the compromise, as you drop material you´ll be closer to losing all the pieces, but also your king will be more and more vulnerable and you´ll have less and less chances of capturing the opponent´s king.

Hmm -1 seems like kinda an outweighed game... you could try to win one way and then get beaten by the other. Too complicated.

That means the stategy is different from antichess, can´t just give pieces away unless you have a tactical sequence to rid of every piece. And since captures are compulsory can´t just attack like it was chess either. It has its own mojo.

That´s life, no pain no gain and no risk no glory.

Huh