Progressive Chess

Hey, you're right.  I reproduced this game from memory, so I'll double check I have the moves correct.

Looks like the moves are correct, which is kind of hilarious.  Not really sure how we both missed a mate (using mate solvers, no less).  This game was played in 2008 on GoldToken, so it's been a while.  White can try Na3 instead of Nc3 on his 7, though (I verified this does not get mated), and now black needs an 8.

Hello, is it possible to play progressive chess online ?

2 months ago, i discover your video and your online guide

I am new but this is a extremely interesting game

Congratulations

You are one of the best word player. Aren't you ?

I use the free software from Mr. Guid

My wish is to play whith humans. Difficult to play on the internet

Ten years ago i created a game. You can look my website :

http://www.awechec.com/english.php

ah OK i see Goldtoken

Anyone plays Progressive on Goldtoken?

Hi, some people play Progressive Chess online ?

Hi, in 2023, some people play Progressive Chess online ?

@Cazzeo, your analysis
From Nov 4 , 2016:
"1.e4 2.e5 f6 (also probably the only two that draws)"
From Nov 5, 2016: 
 "1.e4 2.e5 f6 3.Qf3 Qxf6 Qxd8+ 4.Kxd8 d5 dxe4 h5 is very complicated"

Probably I found a decisive move for White:
5.d4 Be2 Bh6 Bxg7 Bxh8
From here, can you find a move #6 for Black, where your mate solver does not answer directly with a mate in White's move #7 ? 
I could not (for example, 6.Ke7 exd4 d3 dxc2 h4 cxb1Q leads to 7.Kd2 Bc4 Kc3 Kb4 Kc5 Bxg8 Bf6#), so I think that Black after the above mentioned move #4 is in a lost position. Also, I couldn't find any improvement for Black, for example a change of his move #4, say to 4.Kxd8 Ba3 Bxb2 Bxa1 leads to direct mate 5.f4 f5 f6 f7 f8Q#

Although now I believe that after 1.e4, even the move 2.e5 f6 is not sufficient for Black to draw, i.e. that White has in the start position decisive advantage, it needs further analysis to prove this

That line gets mated by 6.exd3ep Bg4 dxc2 Bxe2 Bd3 c1Q#.

Note that in progressive chess, by move 4-5 White's King will inevitably be in check by one of blacks knights, wherever they are on the board. So I don't see how the game can even function. By move 6 both sides should be in check simultaneously

Upps, while I tried your engine out for analysis, I took too many times moves back, and assume to have made somewhere an input error, so that Bucephalus lost track of the en passant and the following mate. Can not reconstruct my input error, now where you have shown me the mate, I can find it with your engine. 
Thank you for pointing this out, and sry for the spam

It doesn't matter if there are games that end before that point, beyond 5 moves the game is unplayable, as both sides would be in check simultaneously from the increased number of moves both sides have. The farthest away any square is from any other square on the chess board is 6 moves for a knight, regardless of what other pieces are there. Note this variant would also allow kings to checkmate other kings.

Progressive chess uses normal chess rules for check (your series ends if you deliver check, and your first move must be spent getting out of check, but otherwise, the same). There's an Italian variant that forbids ending your series early (check can only be delivered on the last move of your series), but this isn't the default. There's no concept of the king being in check because a piece could get to it in X moves (X > 1).

If a piece can move 6 times, then the king would be already in check. The checking piece wouldn't have to move at all, the other side would be in check when it's not even their move, is what I'm saying.

Which is exactly why progressive chess uses normal (i.e. not progressive) chess rules for check / checkmate, else the game would be unplayable as you describe.

That's circular reasoning though. You can't alter the rules of checking itself to get a player out of check, and then claim he wasn't really in check. If you could take the king next move in normal chess, the king would be said to be in check. If a player could capture the king in 2 moves, and the player can make 2 moves in a row, that king is also in check. The 2 moves have to be treated as one continous move otherwise its contradictory. The player only being in check for the last part of the move is like saying a queen on d1 about to take the king on d5 isn't checking it until it moves to d3 halfway through the move.

No worries. I still believe 1.d4 2.d5 c6 to be a draw. Can't find anything better than Na3 instead of Nc3 on white's 7 (avoiding the mate), but black just plays the same 8 (promote g-pawn onto h1 rook, Qf3), and I can't find any way to improve on the main game.

7.Nd2 Ke2 Nf3 Ng5 Nf7 Nxh8 Rxh1 was one idea I had, but haven't been able to refute

8.dxe4 e3 exd2 d1R Rxh1 Rxh2 Na6 Rxf2+, which seems strong for black.

Also in the main game, have tried ideas with e5 Bxc6xd5xf3 on white's 9, but those don't seem to work as well as the main game.

Still looks like the game is a draw in 2023, but, again, would only take one line to overturn that assessment.