Comical Chess Variant: Parent's Chess

I was having a look at positions where the next move is both forced and a checkmate, and I had a thought: could you make the objective of chess be getting checkmated instead of delivering checkmate, with no other rule changes (meaning players still have to stop regular checks even as they're trying to get checkmated), and actually have a functional chess variant? Setting up a study where you can force the other player to checkmate you is one thing, but can you expect a reasonable change of accomplishing this task from the starting position of chess? There needs to be a reliable means of reducing your opponent to forced moves while making sure those forced moves deliver checkmate. Here's what I came up with:

If you have two queens and a bishop of the correct color while your opponent has a single pawn on the b or g files, there will be a reliable path to selfmate. Not too hard to get in a lot of endgames, but it could take a while to set up. If the opponent's remaining pawn is not on the b or g files and can't be attracted to those files, you'll need an extra bishop or rook to smother your king (rook is preferable), but it will be nearly the same approach otherwise. Knights seem to be almost completely ineffective for the purposes of smothering your own king because they'll cover the square you're trying to force the opponent's king onto. They could only be useful for corralling the opponent's king, but that's a job better suited to queens and rooks.

So how does this singular rule change affect player strategies in the early and middle game? Well, if you're playing for the win, you want to reduce your opponent to a single pawn, so you'll be trying to win their pieces as a general priority, scooping up pawns will be a secondary priority, and your own pawns will become more valuable as you hold them in reserve for endgame promotions necessary to selfmate. If you're playing for the draw, you'll want to knock out both your opponents pieces and their pawns, as both will be a threat in the endgame. Knights, as the least effective endgame pieces, will be a lower priority target for you as compared with bishops and possibly even some more dangerous pawns. You'll also be trying to recklessly push your pawns, as if you can promote or lose all of them, you'll be pretty much safe. In fact, getting your pawns to the 7th rank will already be enough to prevent your opponent from using your pawns to checkmate themselves.

Overall, the winning player will be reckless with their knights and protective of their pawns and other pieces while the losing player will be reckless with their pawns and protective of their knights and other pieces. And both players may get aggressive with their kings, as the only downside to that strategy would be getting checked, not getting checkmated (getting checked may still not be ideal, though).

An interesting thought is what might happen when one player blunders and starts losing. Suddenly, that player has to start pushing pawns and saving their knights while the other has to start preserving their pawns and throwing their knights forwards. It's also interesting to think about scenarios where both players might be playing for a win (static pawn structures with knight sacrifices galore?) or both playing for a draw (open pawn structures with knights as valuable as bishops?).

What do y'all think?