This blog is just a joke (Even Bobby Fischer would condemn some of the suggested rules as unsound: e. g. If pawns are replaced by a piece where you lose by getting it to the first or eighth rank, is the game a draw when that piece appears to checkmate a king which is there?). However, it is true that the player bases of both games have significant overlap, including experts and masters of one who play the other, a fact which has been known since at least the time of Philidor and Stamma. Today, both games have come to a crisis of a high margin of draws between masters. They both seem to be drawish due to favoring strategies of opposition and blockade over those of breakthrough and promotion. Chess does this as a consequence of the Pawn’s quiet moves and captures not aligning while Diagonal Checkers does this as a consequence of its single plane of movement dividing the right angle, which was ironically done to allow players a choice of direction for forced progress. For those who would trivialize these findings: I don’t want them to lack a triviality they definitely have. And if you would have me be kidding: If by some twist of fate more historical chess masters had nevertheless openly respected checkers like Emanuel Lasker did, some form of Capablanca and Edward Lasker‘s chess reform and balloted checkers would still exist but by no means be dominant methods of trying to solve the master draw crisis of both games. Or else if someone had just now come up with these ideas you might well have rejected the very games you're defending now - and this time maybe rightly so. So don't kid yourself.
Either way to unite Chess and Checkers is equally valid. However, I recommend using the Old German (“Gothic”) mfF[cl]fK[cl]sW checker move and mK[cl]K king move on top of Chess because they make the game logically complete and they don’t create overly unbalanced new pieces. Everything else about “Emanuel and Edward Lasker“ Gothic Checker Chess follows from having the new pieces:
The board is 8x10 because the new pieces are stronger versions of orthodox pieces: Speed Master (fFmfW[cl]fK[cl]sWimnAimnD), National Master (NmK[cl]K), Candidate Master (K[cl]K), FIDE Master(BmW[cl]K), International Master (RmF[cl]K), Grandmaster (Q[cl]K). The SM can use its checker moves to capture en passant and the FM, IM and GM can double displace on the next two squares in front of themselves and this is the only way masters may do multiple captures where the pieces are in different squares. Alternatively, they may use approach capture as in Fanorona, or even both modalities. En passant is also treated like an ordinary capture.
The Pawns and SMs start in the same squares so both can have an initial double step. In order to be fair, any orthodox piece may share a square with the Master which has the same orthodox moves. Line pieces may also pass through the first square in their lines occupied by the player’s other piece. But if two pieces are in the same square, they must be captured separately.
To balance the defensiveness of castling, any orthodox piece and the Master which has the same orthodox moves may move on the same turn.
Promotion is still earned at the 8th rank, but Pawns and SMs do not have to promote until the 10th and it does not cancel their right to reset the 50/75 move count by simply moving. Until all SMs have promoted or been taken, only they may promote to NM, FM, IM or GM.
A game is won by physically taking the King, but a quarter point may be claimed for baring the orthodox pieces and is given by force for perpetual check.
Chess-and-Checkers-Have-Finally-Merged
This blog is just a joke (Even Bobby Fischer would condemn some of the suggested rules as unsound: e. g. If pawns are replaced by a piece where you lose by getting it to the first or eighth rank, is the game a draw when that piece appears to checkmate a king which is there?). However, it is true that the player bases of both games have significant overlap, including experts and masters of one who play the other, a fact which has been known since at least the time of Philidor and Stamma. Today, both games have come to a crisis of a high margin of draws between masters. They both seem to be drawish due to favoring strategies of opposition and blockade over those of breakthrough and promotion. Chess does this as a consequence of the Pawn’s quiet moves and captures not aligning while Diagonal Checkers does this as a consequence of its single plane of movement dividing the right angle, which was ironically done to allow players a choice of direction for forced progress. For those who would trivialize these findings: I don’t want them to lack a triviality they definitely have. And if you would have me be kidding: If by some twist of fate more historical chess masters had nevertheless openly respected checkers like Emanuel Lasker did, some form of Capablanca and Edward Lasker‘s chess reform and balloted checkers would still exist but by no means be dominant methods of trying to solve the master draw crisis of both games. Or else if someone had just now come up with these ideas you might well have rejected the very games you're defending now - and this time maybe rightly so. So don't kid yourself.
Either way to unite Chess and Checkers is equally valid. However, I recommend using the Old German (“Gothic”) mfF[cl]fK[cl]sW checker move and mK[cl]K king move on top of Chess because they make the game logically complete and they don’t create overly unbalanced new pieces.
Everything else about “Emanuel and Edward Lasker“ Gothic Checker Chess follows from having the new pieces:
The board is 8x10 because the new pieces are stronger versions of orthodox pieces: Speed Master (fFmfW[cl]fK[cl]sWimnAimnD), National Master (NmK[cl]K), Candidate Master (K[cl]K), FIDE Master (BmW[cl]K), International Master (RmF[cl]K), Grandmaster (Q[cl]K). The SM can use its checker moves to capture en passant and the FM, IM and GM can double displace on the next two squares in front of themselves and this is the only way masters may do multiple captures where the pieces are in different squares. Alternatively, they may use approach capture as in Fanorona, or even both modalities. En passant is also treated like an ordinary capture.
The Pawns and SMs start in the same squares so both can have an initial double step. In order to be fair, any orthodox piece may share a square with the Master which has the same orthodox moves. Line pieces may also pass through the first square in their lines occupied by the player’s other piece. But if two pieces are in the same square, they must be captured separately.
To balance the defensiveness of castling, any orthodox piece and the Master which has the same orthodox moves may move on the same turn.
Promotion is still earned at the 8th rank, but Pawns and SMs do not have to promote until the 10th and it does not cancel their right to reset the 50/75 move count by simply moving. Until all SMs have promoted or been taken, only they may promote to NM, FM, IM or GM.
A game is won by physically taking the King, but a quarter point may be claimed for baring the orthodox pieces and is given by force for perpetual check.