Let’s invent some very weird pieces

Angel3D

Time thieve is a very interesting piece.

menamedwert
Footman: the same as a pawn but could move as many squares diagonally as it wants when capturing. It cannot capture backwards.
Eoin-MacLove

the hopalong cassidy. if you promote a 2nd pawn, this piece can jump all over the board like a knight using as many hops as you like in one move.

Ebinola

Gimping bishop - moves as an alfil and then may continue any number of squares diagonally outward in the same direction eg. from e4 a gimping bishop can leap to c6 and then continue to b7 and a8.

Gimping rook - moves as a dabbaba and then may continue any number of squares orthogonally outward in the same direction eg. from e4 a gimping rook can leap to e6 and then continue to e7 and e8

Gimping queen - gimped bishop + gimped rook.

Gimping chancellor - knight + gimped rook.

Gimping archbishop - knight + gimped bishop.

HGMuller

This is also known as a ski-Bishop (ski-Rook, ...) There is a piece in Tenjiku Shogi (the Heavenly Tetrarch) that has such moves (nearly a ski-Queen, except that sideway its range is limited to two steps after the jump). But in addition can can rifle-capture on the square it jumps over. Skipping the first square of a slide makes the piece weaker, even though it cannot be blocked there. But the rifle-capture more than makes up for this.

Tamerlane Chess features a lame ski-Bishop (the 'Picket'), i.e. one that cannot move to the first square, but can be blocked there.

 

BTW, I recently noticed that the piece referred to in this forum as 'Hawk' (leaps 2 or 3 in any direction) occurs in Jean-Louis Cazaux's variant TeraChess, under the name Antilope.

evert823
evert823 wrote:

The King is not in check if he is indirectly protected by the restoring abilities of the friendly Time Thieve. 

I did some rethinking, and after finding crazy or contradictionary scenario's I have decided to put some restrictions on this.

First I would like to define conditional check as the state where a King is attacked by enemy pieces, but after each capture the friendly Time Thief could restore his King.

An example:

 
1. Ng4++ TTc4
 
Now :
2. Nxe5 TTxg4 restoring the King.
3. Rxe5 TTxe2 again restoring the King.
(Very same with first 2. Rxe5 and then 3. Nxe5.)
Rule for Time Thief and King:
It is allowed to keep the King in conditional check, but only if, in the position resulting from any restore, the King is either NOT in check, or again in CONDITIONAL check.
After capture of the King, restore is obligatory.
So the above gives a sequence of legal moves. In the diagram below it is different:
 
1. Bh5+ and TTa5 is illegal. Because:
 
2. Bxe8 TTxh5 restoring the King, but the check from the Rook is now not solved.
2. Rxe8 TTxe1 restoring the King, but the check from the Bishop is now not solved.
Another example:
 
 
One might argue that Rxe8 would be legal, as the TT MUST restore the King, which would temporarily protect the white King from the black Rook on a2.
But according to the rules it is not. There is no white Time Thief on the board and so no conditional check for White.
 
 
1. Rxe8 is legal, White has put himself only in conditional check. 1. ... TTxe2 restoring the King is obligatory.
HGMuller

I think this is illogical. Chess games normally end when your King is gone. You cannot make moves after that, all your pieces die with it. So there should be no Time Thief to restore your King. This is the reason you cannot resolve a check by pinning the checking piece.

And in Spartan Chess, where the Spartans can promote to King, you cannot 'restore your King' with such a promotion and happily continue playing the move after your last King was captured.

evert823
HGMuller wrote:

You cannot make moves after that

That's the key word. After. The Time Thief steals a bit of time, he steals the last move of the opponent's piece.

Well, my most important concern is to make the rules consistent, even if they break with some concepts that are otherwise considered as fundamental for most Chess variants.

evert823

But I am very confident that this will not delay your project to incorporate all pieces ever presented on chess.com in Fairy Max by more than a day or so wink.png

HGMuller

I am not convinced. It seems he needs positive time to do this himself: the Time Thief moves to a new location, where he might have never been before. That this makes others travel back in time is no help when the Time Thief is already dead.

Compare it to the following case: A Time Thief faces an enemy Rook, and the Rook captures it. Can the Time Thief restore itsef now? If so, where would he end up? In its old location, or replacing the Rook. Or would you have two Time Thiefs? If the answer is "no, the Time Thief cannot undo its own capture", then it should also not be able to restore capture of his King, as that is also his own capture. That is what 'royalty' means: capture the royal is capture of all.

 

 

evert823

The Time Thief can never undo his own capture, but I must admit that have forgotten to be clear about this scenario. If a Time Thieve is captured, his influence is totally gone.

null

FBloggs
jack33par wrote:

as far as i remember, Capablanca proposed a sensible extra piece. Perhaps you could look it up ??    it may be ok for online chess

I don't recall reading that but I know Capablanca suggested trading the home squares of some pieces (I believe bishops and knights) in order to remove the "book" from openings.  His recommendation made sense for two reasons.  First, he was a brilliant player but wasn't really into studying openings.  Second, in his day top masters played the QGD almost exclusively.  Today's top masters play many different openings, including some that were considered old school in Capa's day.

evert823

Also here it included Kings as well.

HGMuller
evert823 schreef:

The Time Thief can never undo his own capture, but I must admit that have forgotten to be clear about this scenario. If a Time Thieve is captured, his influence is totally gone.

 

But that is exactly the basis of my objection. Because capture of a King should be considered capture of the entire army. This is a basic assumption in Chess, that also underlies the fact that even pinned pieces can deliver check. You cannot draw after your King gets captured by such pieces through counter-striking at the enemy King with the piece that pinned it, because the piece that pinned it disappeared with its King.

So after the King gets captured, the Time Thief should be considered captured as well, and its influence totally gone.

Angel3D

Bulge piece:

Basically a piece that can move like a king, but it can not capture NOR can be captured.
So basically it is inoffensive but also indestructible.
It can be useful as a king shield or like an obstacle, a bulge.

- Why don't you do anything?
- Because we are the bulge

JustAnotherChessNoob

cry.pngnervous.png

evert823
HGMuller wrote:
evert823 schreef:

The Time Thief can never undo his own capture, but I must admit that have forgotten to be clear about this scenario. If a Time Thieve is captured, his influence is totally gone.

 

But that is exactly the basis of my objection. Because capture of a King should be considered capture of the entire army. This is a basic assumption in Chess, that also underlies the fact that even pinned pieces can deliver check. You cannot draw after your King gets captured by such pieces through counter-striking at the enemy King with the piece that pinned it, because the piece that pinned it disappeared with its King.

So after the King gets captured, the Time Thief should be considered captured as well, and its influence totally gone.

Sorry, the FIDE rules don't mention that capturing a King would mean to capture the entire army. You could consider this an unwritten rule, or an implicit common rule underlying all chess variants so far. Until the first variant is invented that steps out of these limit. The rules that I am providing for the Time Thief are consistent.

I've provided a link to another Time Travel variant on the chess variant pages, where it is possible to temporarily play without your King on the board. I am not the first.

And capturing a Time Thief sure means that the time Thief is gone. For a restoring move he must Queen-like 'see' the old square of his victim. From the table next to the board he clearly can't.

evert823

Some hardcore FIDE chess players strongly feel to the same extent that Chess 960 is already illogical, because a basic assumption in Chess is that a Rook can never be on e1 before the game has started. Can he?

HGMuller

I don't understand your final conclusion of your forelast posting. (Or is it an extra rule?) A Lumberjack might not capture normally, but it can capture 'abnormally', by knocking pieces off board, or into occupied squares. So what happens if the King is captured this way? You play on without the opponent having a King? That would be hard to win...

I would think that a situation where you can Knock a King of board should count as that King being in check.

This should be checkmate, right? (White to move.) It would be checkmate even with the black King on c6.

 

HGMuller

If the King is knocked off the board, it should count as having been captured, not as checkmated. Checkmated is when you cannot avoid being captured on the next move. If it could be knocked of the board in the next move, when it passes its turn, then it would be in check. If it cannot avoid being knocked of the board no matter how it moves (including turn pass), then it would be checkmate.

Here the King cannot move to d8, because it would be in check there:

 (It is already in check on c8 as well.)