Would you mind if I contributed what I think would be a really fun rule?
Functional Exchanged chess
Sort:
Sorry @BattleChess. This variant is actually to overcome a lot of draws in regular chess,or to be used in case of tiebreaks.I think two pieces switches is enough to add complexity in regular chess.Even it could be enhanced into three pieces switches in the future.
But you could mention your rules to enrich this variant in the future.
Dec 16, 2016
0
#44
Very well. Rook piece moves like a Knight and Knight piece moves like a Rook it is.
I would love to play Black. Your move. =)
It is better if you edit your last comment to write next moves notation for space saving.I will update this post also.
FE chess, mode : 1 (Rook - Knight switch).
Dec 16, 2016
0
#46
Haha 50Mark, you really don't have to switch the symbols of the Knight and the Rook around; I know that the Rook in this variant moves like the Knight and the Knight moves like a Rook from the functional exchange. I realize by your switching the symbols to fit the actual movement you were trying to make that point to others who were replying here, but you can switch them back with me; I got it. =)
I'll post my move later on in the day. I am quite busy at the moment. Sorry.
Those switching symbols is demanding by the rules in initial set up position.It is not to explain the purpose of the game.Thus in real OTB game,that above setup board is an actual setup board demanded by the rules.Likewise other modes (mode 2 and mode 3) that demanding pieces switches.
The initial position in post #45 is the actual initial setup board physically.The knight pieces will move as rook's moves.The rook pieces will move as knight's moves.
Dec 19, 2016
0
#50
So in other words, we're playing regular FIDE chess? The only difference is that the merely Knight and Rook symbols were switched?
50Mark, while I'm excited for your invention, I truly feel that there should be more to this variant; and that, for some reason, you're highly resistant to adding new rules to something that could turn out to be very fun. All we otherwise have here is a chess game, not a chess variant game.
I'm not appreciative of the rude comments that a lot of members contributed to your thread, but, as regretful as I am to say, they do have a point.
Yes,we are playing regular FIDE chess.Yes,in the actual setup board the pieces position was switched.
At the beginning this variant was created to add a little bit complexity in regular chess,in intention to reduce draw game or for tiebreaks purposes.Thus the added rules have to be made as simple as possible.
Well,as a variation from a regular chess,this variation maybe not fun as regular chess is a serious game too.We try to reduce position memorization in this variant.
Dec 20, 2016
0
#52
....
Now, you're saying it's the pieces' position that was switched? I thought, before, you implied it was the symbols that was switched.
Despite the fact that, if the pieces' position is switched, why are also their symbols? Aren't the powers exchanged so that the symbols would be aligned like in regular FIDE chess but the Knight symbols take the Rook power and vice versa?
I'm too confused now; you seem to me to be all over the place. And, until I get it cleared up, I'm not sure if I can make my first move.
The initial physical position is as shown by board diagram in post #45.But their moves task was switched.The knight pieces moves as rook's moves,and vice versa.
For an example of a legal move,that black could move Rc6 or Rh6 or Rf6.
For an example of illegal move,that black move Kb6 or Kg6.
BattleChessGN18 wrote:
I will also say this, if I may add a little 'dirt' into a pretty picture: people criticize me for creating too complicated variants; they either say "chess is hard enough! Why make it impossible to play?" or "people play chess because it is a simple game that brings complexity."
But, now that we have a simple variant, people say it's "the dumbest game ever created."
Either humans have a tendency to find problems where none otherwise exists, or we're simply by nature never satisfied.
How is adding more rules making the game more simple?
I understand that it is easier to play than most chess variants, but "vanilla chess" is when you add 0 rules to the original chess "variant", and thus the simplest "variant" of them all (which is why people play it).
Surely a big problem with this variant (unless it is being used in a blitz game or OTB) is that one can simply set up a board with the normal piece symbols and play the moves on that board?
Out of interest, what would people's opinions be on this variant (I believe it is original when intentionally done, i.e. not some young children getting the King and Queen the wrong way round):
The idea is this: The problem with Chess960 is that many of the pieces, most notably the Bishops, lose options as to where to develop. In the normal starting position, for example, White's light-squared Bishop can develop on e2, d3, c4, b5, g2 or even h3. But if the Bishop is placed, for example, on h1 in the starting position, it can only really develop on the long diagonal. The reason for reversing the position of one side's King and Queen is that it encourages opposite-side castling (rules would be the same as in normal chess, i.e. King moves two squares towards Rook and Rook is placed on other side of King) as it is quicker for White to castle queenside and for Black to castle Kingside. This would lead to more attacking play and, in theory, fewer draws.
Dec 20, 2016
0
#57
iamunknown2 wrote:
How is adding more rules making the game more simple?
Adding just one or two more rules doesn't necessarily complicate it.
Firethorn15 wrote:
Out of interest, what would people's opinions be on this variant (I believe it is original when intentionally done, i.e. not some young children getting the King and Queen the wrong way round):
The idea is this: The problem with Chess960 is that many of the pieces, most notably the Bishops, lose options as to where to develop. In the normal starting position, for example, White's light-squared Bishop can develop on e2, d3, c4, b5, g2 or even h3. But if the Bishop is placed, for example, on h1 in the starting position, it can only really develop on the long diagonal. The reason for reversing the position of one side's King and Queen is that it encourages opposite-side castling (rules would be the same as in normal chess, i.e. King moves two squares towards Rook and Rook is placed on other side of King) as it is quicker for White to castle queenside and for Black to castle Kingside. This would lead to more attacking play and, in theory, fewer draws.
I think it best to start your own thread on this other variant, not post it in someone's thread.
Since you're not discussing 50Mark's variant.
I thought that, as the variants are related (both try to solve draw "issues" without adding extra pieces or completely shuffling the board around), it would be appropriate to post as another attempt to change chess a little bit but not too much. I posted it in this thread to attempt to avoid other users who would inevitably hijack any forum with variant in the title (see earlier rude comments).
Anyway, it's up to 50Mark to decide what is appropriate in his forum.
@Firethorn15. FE chess is created to reduce memorization (pattern recognition) by distracting player's recognition of certain pattern in regular chess.It is being achieved by switches the pieces function.It also create enough complexity since the players have been familiar with regular chess pieces function,while this variant have changed it's function.
The attempt to memorize pattern is even to be avoided by applying three modes (mode 1,mode 2,mode 3) at random.Thus in an OTB game,the mode choice is determined by chance using dice or straws.This way to avoid a certain mode to be favorable over the other mode.
I hope it was enough complex to reduce the draws and for tiebreaks purposes.The key element on this variant is to use lot to determine the mode that have to be played.
Mode 1 : Rook - Knight switch.
Mode 2 : Rook - Bishop switch.
Mode 3: Knight - Bishop switch.
Apart from three pieces switch mode,we could enhance the complexity of two pieces switch mode by applying different mode for each player.So,the game will be in an asymmetric type.Still the player's mode should be determined by lot.
It will be a very difficult game and whether classical time control will be sufficient for it.
There is no other rules.If we want to castle,just use the knight to substitute the rook.