A dangerous game

As a chess player, what if you were given an ultimatum. Place your life in the hands of any single piece of your choosing (including pawns), and play a game of correspondence against a complete stranger who happens to be in the very same freaky situation as you are. If the piece falls (captured), you die. Which piece would you choose?

**Keep in mind that if you lose the game but the piece you chose survived then you live. Also, there is no way of contacting your opponent, and there are no resignations.

If you refuse, you die. If your time runs out, then ever so poetically - you die.

So we only die if the piece is captured (or we refuse or run out of time)

That's easy, the king of course.

Ohh, tricky and fun  If I was a really strong chess player (like a GM or something), then I'd choose the King as I'd be more certain to win (and not die). However, for the rest of us: perhaps a pawn. Why? There are eight pawns and so I'd have a better chance to blend in with the crowd (and not be killed). Maybe I'd be an a-pawn; I'm farther from the center action and I don't need to worry about losing my life to a Bishop sacrifice if I castle Kingside.

(kings are never captured)

I think WSama means that if the King is checkmated it is equal to the King killed or captured (hence you would die as King). 

Yeah, probably. Most posts on chess.com you have to assume they meant something better than what was actually said.

(I'm in a great mood, can you tell? lol)

lol

Yeah, I'd take it that they intend King checkmated as you die. I figured you thought this too (even if subconsciously). 

Remember this forum and your post(s) https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/do-you-think-after-checkmate-the-enemy-king-is-kidnapped-or-killed 

'sah 'mat being Persian for "King is dead" as the translation for "checkmate."

That is why being an a-pawn sounds perhaps safer - when the opponent is going after the King and action where the battle lines are (a dangerous choice would be a central pawn in this game xD).

Yes, the a pawn is a very good choice I think

I'm the one who wrote it and even I'm not sure if I'll ever see chess the same again. The a-pawn definitely sounds safer, but there could be a catch. If the opponent notices some strange activities on the a-file, or simply figures it out, then they might try an attack on it if their piece is still in danger. Safer to eliminate the opponent first than risk his/her own piece falling.

Ok, but think of it this way. If you know you could complete the game without either person dying, wouldn't you want to do that?

Maybe you could make the rule that both players play until one of the dies via losing that particular piece.

Good idea, but I think it's a bit more interesting with the rules as they stand. It's hard enough to trust an opponent you're communicating with, yet alone one you can't even reach.

Everything stated so far implies the (R-premise in 1st order logic) premise that we worry about ourselves (not to die) and are indifferent to inflicting the same fate to the opponent. The "goal" and "strategy" would of course alter greatly under other circumstances. For instance, if both really wanted to take out the opponent piece, then you would choose the King for yourself and then overkill by capturing every opponent piece before going after checkmate.

Another possible difference may occur if both players really wanted to "save" each other; in this case they might create a forced stalemate without capturing any pieces (to ensure neither side is harmed).

This is clearly philosophy at this point, but I think that each players' true agenda dictates strategy far more than other variables; specifically what outcome both sides are aiming for and the opponent ability, and willingness, to play a parallelism strategy or not.

It also just struck me that while statistically the a-pawn is the safest, this doesn't really  apply in the endgame. The a-pawn is that outside pawn that garners a lot of attention, especially if it is a passed pawn.

Well you didn't say we're starting from an endgame position so...

Well I could say that for any pawn/piece in a given endgame xD

Of course, becoming a passed pawn would become a target (so I'd avoid threats with the a-pawn if I was "in the hands of [as you put it in the original post]" the a-pawn. Still, even in the endgame, side pawns are still not as valued as pawns b through g (since side pawns have less promotion chances due to stalemate tricks and since side pawns control less potential squares being on the board's edge).

@KeSetoKaiba, I think some contestants might definitely be willing to try that out if they managed to communicate through the game itself, the board, and actually established some trust I guess.

@llamonade, no it starts with a standard starting position, but the game might reach the endgame if the essential piece is still on the board.

why wouldn't you intentionally fall for something like fools mate and pick a piece not involved in the sacrifice? or just start marching your king so you get mated quickly?

Yes, but if the a pawn is statistically the most safe (I don't know if it is, but it's a good candidate) then these stats take into account the endgame, so your observation that it may be less safe in the endgame doesn't matter... it's still a good candidate for the best choice if that's what the stats are.

But if the opponent is perfectly intelligent and malicious (i.e. wants you to die) then the "best" choice is a little more complicated.

I also find it kind of funny how it has only been the three of us in this forum so far xD

Lol March your king up the board? Some would I guess. Throw in the towel and throw the game. The game of a lifetime (pun?), reduced to ten moves.