Agreed, but what about the pawn direction? It would be right before the promotion rank. What if players accidentally give their king?
Variant idea: Pieces can switch colors
Sort:
-1 To many implications... at the beginning of the game the only logical piece to give to your opponent is your knights... then then soon after you give the a and h pawn (which can't move because the knights are the opposite players pieces). After you have given these options you have needed to move specific pieces to specific squares to ensure that you can continue to give pieces (first player to not do this will lose). This results in black (going second) having the advantage. Not only that it is a HUGE advantage, as white has to react quite a lot to blacks moves and still get their pieces to a square that makes sense for their king. The only opposing idea that could be is to swap the knights back and forth (an option white would completely have), however this changing would make black have constant pressure on white.
GTSWPM150 wrote:
-1 To many implications... at the beginning of the game the only logical piece to give to your opponent is your knights... then then soon after you give the a and h pawn (which can't move because the knights are the opposite players pieces). After you have given these options you have needed to move specific pieces to specific squares to ensure that you can continue to give pieces (first player to not do this will lose). This results in black (going second) having the advantage. Not only that it is a HUGE advantage, as white has to react quite a lot to blacks moves and still get their pieces to a square that makes sense for their king. The only opposing idea that could be is to swap the knights back and forth (an option white would completely have), however this changing would make black have constant pressure on white.
Great points. I didn't realize that Black would have such a large advantage
But, White will give Black a piece AFTER making a move. So, playing e3 and giving it to black isn't such a bad idea
Fun. But, i think, it will never been realised
-1 Because, you can get confused easily
1/2
Definitely not one to last.
May 5, 2021
0
#8
rune_raider wrote:
GTSWPM150 wrote:
1.> at the beginning of the game the only logical piece to give to your opponent is your knights...
What is your reasoning behind why this would be the only logical piece to give as white? Why cannot white just move a pawn and give that pawn to him? Why cannot white just give a bishop? Are those decisions not logical and worthwhile tries for this variant?
2.>then then soon after you give the a and h pawn (which can't move because the knights are the opposite players pieces).
Why would you have to give the a and h pawns?
3.>After you have given these options you have needed to move specific pieces to specific squares to ensure that you can continue to give pieces (first player to not do this will lose).
Isn't that the point of this variant idea? Look at King of the Hill...In KOTH, the players need to move specific pieces to specific squares to ensure that they cut off the enemy king from entering the middle and/or ensure that their own king can forcibly enter the middle.
1. If you give a bishop, it will capture with tempo on a major piece; if you move a pawn and then surrender it, your initiative goes down the drain.
2. If you give any other pawn, it will capture and promote.
3. The nature of the variant is that you will have pieces in the opponent's camp, which absolutely leads to sharp positions.
If you don't want to surrender your pieces at the start, you could move a knight and swap the pawn on the same side, but I am not sure how to continue.
I've seen the discussion here, and I can see that this variant may not be perfect, but I really like the idea. Perhaps a few opening moves could be like this (the notation after the dash represents which piece is swapped):
1. e4-e4 e5-e5
2. d4-d4 e3-e3
3. exd4-d4 d5-d5
I can tell this variant would most likely be characterized by a lot of pawn moves, but that's not necessarily bad. For me, +1 because I would absolutely love to see how it pans out in real games. There would be a lot of sharp tactics going on, and that could definitely help develop chess players' thinking skills.
it sounds similar to capture anything
cause if u change the colour of a peice, your intention maybe to take it
Anirudh_23 wrote:
cause if u change the colour of a peice, your intention maybe to take it
True, but after white gives a piece to black, it is black's turn to move, not white's
oh
After every turn, each player decides to "give" one of their pieces to their opponent. For instance, after playing 1. e4, White might want to give the h-pawn to Black. In other words, the h-pawn would stay in the same square, but become a black piece.