Uh, no. It's not that hard when it's the endgame and there are few pieces on the board.
Brand NEW Chess rule, that should be a rule....
Sort:
wanmokewan wrote:
Uh, no. It's not that hard when it's the endgame and there are few pieces on the board.
Yes, but that's the risk you take when the game spirals down. Makes the game more interesting I think. Instead of racing a pawn all the way up, you race the King. Touch Down!!
Sep 21, 2017
0
#5
Oo, I got an idea for way to win that would compliment the 'touchdown' method: Capture by King (of King): that is, check[mate] the enemy King with your own king. "But that is illegal" say you. Deal is attack of a king unto enemy's king's adjscent square applies only in one direction absent defending pieces. So you cannot move INto check, but that issue is not imposed by enemy King on his own; hence co-ordination of pieces is necessary.
Imagine the late middlegame through conclusion tactical tempi possibilities of this variant, in conjunction with strategic implications from onset.
Addendum: In the unlikely circumstance that you could manage to move your King Into direct adjacence to an opposing queen, without stepping into check from any other piece (including the enemy King or any other Queen), then capture of this Lone Monarch( and newfound wife) also seals the win.
sounds complicated Osum.... with my new rule, all the other rules still apply... but you have to admit, getting a Touch Down! would be fun. Try playing a game like that. It adds a whole new dimension to the game, if the game starts to spiral down.
Bobafett1234 hat geschrieben:
OK, here is a proposal for a new chess rule, that I think would make a great rule.
IF anytime during the game, you manage to get your King all the way to the other side of the board, you should win the game. They will call it a "Touch Down." It takes a great deal of skill to get your King to the other side of the board, in the heart of your opponent's territory, and thus, you should be rewarded with a victory.
Chess has millions and millions of players.
Among them, sadly, are thousands like you, each of them convinced they have the perfect rule change for the game.
Chess works great as a game, vastly exceeding the lifespan of nearly every other game on the net and counting. It doesn't need any rule changes. It doesn't need to be tampered with.
Go invent your own game instead of trying to tamper with an existing one. Or find a game that actually needs help to tamper with.
Sep 21, 2017
0
#8
Bobafett1234 wrote:
sounds complicated Osum.... with my new rule, all the other rules still apply... but you have to admit, getting a Touch Down! would be fun. Try playing a game like that. It adds a whole new dimension to the game, if the game starts to spiral down.
Yeah, and would add weighty considerations for the side with more pieces that could mate the Checkmate the King going for touchdown, especially in early endgame with few pieces on the board allowing freer nonthreatened movement of Kings.
The reason I say that the Solo Mono e Mono could compliment this is in situations where both sides are moving their Kings toward the other side.
Together drawing by "sufficient material" need bit apply. Only if either side succeed in reaching an impasse with lone Kings. Even a single color-designated Bishop could force victory for one side or the other (whereas in standard chess is not sufficient for a win, absent other units).
Sep 21, 2017
0
#9
Graf_Nachthafen wrote:
Bobafett1234 hat geschrieben:
OK, here is a proposal for a new chess rule, that I think would make a great rule.
IF anytime during the game, you manage to get your King all the way to the other side of the board, you should win the game. They will call it a "Touch Down." It takes a great deal of skill to get your King to the other side of the board, in the heart of your opponent's territory, and thus, you should be rewarded with a victory.
Chess has millions and millions of players.
Among them, sadly, are thousands like you, each of them convinced they have the perfect rule change for the game.
Chess works great as a game, vastly exceeding the lifespan of nearly every other game on the net and counting. It doesn't need any rule changes. It doesn't need to be tampered with.
Go invent your own game instead of trying to tamper with an existing one. Or find a game that actually needs help to tamper with.
I suppose Bughouse and 360 and other variants have no validity either, and who evers first came up with their conception were fools.
Don't be so didactic. Obviously this proposed rule won't get adopted into chess, especially into the standard variety as an official modification or addition to the rules any time soon; but you ought to admit the fruitful concepts. Neither OP nor I are saying that the present rules for this game of ancient (which has not been unaltered through the centuries) are wrong per sese. This would just be a fun optional additiin, in casual otb matches if nothing else (or unrated onlone, with both or either; concession upon touchdown or verifying unavoidable de-throning/coup on next halfturn by rival).
Sep 21, 2017
0
#12
Isn't there already a chess variation where the goal is to get the king to the other backrank?
Sep 21, 2017
0
#13
chessletsplayer wrote:
Isn't there a chess variation where the goal is to get the king to the other backrank?
Is it King-of-the-Hill?
Sep 21, 2017
0
#14
The way the op is wording it, he thinks the rule should be official. If you wanna mess around in casual games, fine.
0sumPuzzlerDtoWL hat geschrieben:
Graf_Nachthafen wrote:
Bobafett1234 hat geschrieben:
OK, here is a proposal for a new chess rule, that I think would make a great rule.
IF anytime during the game, you manage to get your King all the way to the other side of the board, you should win the game. They will call it a "Touch Down." It takes a great deal of skill to get your King to the other side of the board, in the heart of your opponent's territory, and thus, you should be rewarded with a victory.
Chess has millions and millions of players.
Among them, sadly, are thousands like you, each of them convinced they have the perfect rule change for the game.
Chess works great as a game, vastly exceeding the lifespan of nearly every other game on the net and counting. It doesn't need any rule changes. It doesn't need to be tampered with.
Go invent your own game instead of trying to tamper with an existing one. Or find a game that actually needs help to tamper with.
I suppose Bughouse and 360 and other variants have no validity either, and who evers first came up with their conception were fools.
Don't be so didactic. Obviously this proposed rule won't get adopted into chess, especially into the standard variety as an official modification or addition to the rules any time soon; but you ought to admit the fruitful concepts. Neither OP nor I are saying that the present rules for this game of ancient (which has not been unaltered through the centuries) are wrong per sese. This would just be a fun optional additiin, in casual otb matches if nothing else (or unrated onlone, with both or either; concession upon touchdown or verifying unavoidable de-throning/coup on next halfturn by rival).
1) I'll be as didactic as I please, you get no say in what words I type or not.
2) He clearly said a new rule for chess, he never said chess variant, so what is all the talk about chess variants about ?
I don't mind variants at all, but unlike you the OP does neither speak of variants, nor of this rule being optional. Maybe you should try to read the OP again...
Sep 21, 2017
0
#16
wanmokewan wrote:
The way the op is wording it, he thinks the rule should be official. If you wanna mess around in casual games, fine.
That is sort of his implication as worded I'll admit.
Well what do you think of his idea and/or mine, at any rate?
Sep 21, 2017
0
#17
Graf_Nachthafen wrote:
0sumPuzzlerDtoWL hat geschrieben:
Graf_Nachthafen wrote:
Bobafett1234 hat geschrieben:
OK, here is a proposal for a new chess rule, that I think would make a great rule.
IF anytime during the game, you manage to get your King all the way to the other side of the board, you should win the game. They will call it a "Touch Down." It takes a great deal of skill to get your King to the other side of the board, in the heart of your opponent's territory, and thus, you should be rewarded with a victory.
Chess has millions and millions of players.
Among them, sadly, are thousands like you, each of them convinced they have the perfect rule change for the game.
Chess works great as a game, vastly exceeding the lifespan of nearly every other game on the net and counting. It doesn't need any rule changes. It doesn't need to be tampered with.
Go invent your own game instead of trying to tamper with an existing one. Or find a game that actually needs help to tamper with.
I suppose Bughouse and 360 and other variants have no validity either, and who evers first came up with their conception were fools.
Don't be so didactic. Obviously this proposed rule won't get adopted into chess, especially into the standard variety as an official modification or addition to the rules any time soon; but you ought to admit the fruitful concepts. Neither OP nor I are saying that the present rules for this game of ancient (which has not been unaltered through the centuries) are wrong per sese. This would just be a fun optional additiin, in casual otb matches if nothing else (or unrated onlone, with both or either; concession upon touchdown or verifying unavoidable de-throning/coup on next halfturn by rival).
1) I'll be as didactic as I please, you get no say in what words I type or not.
2) He clearly said a new rule for chess, he never said chess variant, so what is all the talk about chess variants about ?
I don't mind variants at all, but unlike you the OP does neither speak of variants, nor of this rule being optional. Maybe you should try to read the OP again...
1. You have a right to be didactic and I have a right begrudge you for doing so. :~P.
2. You are right, but you could still humor the idea. You can politely point-out the absurdity in adding an official rule to the game as opposed to a variant. Frankly it's not altogether absurd to me, even though I am too of the camp that chess rules as they stand are a-okay as they are on the whole (sans tournament- or league- specific codes).
0sumPuzzlerDtoWL hat geschrieben:
Graf_Nachthafen wrote:
0sumPuzzlerDtoWL hat geschrieben:
Graf_Nachthafen wrote:
Bobafett1234 hat geschrieben:
OK, here is a proposal for a new chess rule, that I think would make a great rule.
IF anytime during the game, you manage to get your King all the way to the other side of the board, you should win the game. They will call it a "Touch Down." It takes a great deal of skill to get your King to the other side of the board, in the heart of your opponent's territory, and thus, you should be rewarded with a victory.
Chess has millions and millions of players.
Among them, sadly, are thousands like you, each of them convinced they have the perfect rule change for the game.
Chess works great as a game, vastly exceeding the lifespan of nearly every other game on the net and counting. It doesn't need any rule changes. It doesn't need to be tampered with.
Go invent your own game instead of trying to tamper with an existing one. Or find a game that actually needs help to tamper with.
I suppose Bughouse and 360 and other variants have no validity either, and who evers first came up with their conception were fools.
Don't be so didactic. Obviously this proposed rule won't get adopted into chess, especially into the standard variety as an official modification or addition to the rules any time soon; but you ought to admit the fruitful concepts. Neither OP nor I are saying that the present rules for this game of ancient (which has not been unaltered through the centuries) are wrong per sese. This would just be a fun optional additiin, in casual otb matches if nothing else (or unrated onlone, with both or either; concession upon touchdown or verifying unavoidable de-throning/coup on next halfturn by rival).
1) I'll be as didactic as I please, you get no say in what words I type or not.
2) He clearly said a new rule for chess, he never said chess variant, so what is all the talk about chess variants about ?
I don't mind variants at all, but unlike you the OP does neither speak of variants, nor of this rule being optional. Maybe you should try to read the OP again...
1. You have a right to be didactic and I have a right begrudge you for doing so. :~P.
2. You are right, but you could still humor the idea. You can politely point-out the absurdity in adding an official rule to the game as opposed to a variant. Frankly it's not altogether absurd to me, even though I am too of the camp that chess rules as they stand are a-okay as they are on the whole (sans tournament- or league- specific codes).
1, I never said you don't have the right, straw man much ?
2. As I said before, I don't mind chess variants at all. Create as many of them as you like, they don't bother me.
Graf_Nachthafen wrote:
"Chess has millions and millions of players.
Among them, sadly, are thousands like you, each of them convinced they have the perfect rule change for the game.
Chess works great as a game, vastly exceeding the lifespan of nearly every other game on the net and counting. It doesn't need any rule changes. It doesn't need to be tampered with.
Go invent your own game instead of trying to tamper with an existing one. Or find a game that actually needs help to tamper with.
Wow! So who died and made you Chess Hall Monitor? Your response is hilarious. You actually take this personally? It's just a fun dumb idea, that was all. No need to get your panties in a bunch. Don't worry, I'm not going to petition the World Organization of Chess and hire a lawyer and attempt to change your precious game. Geez. Get a life.
Sep 21, 2017
0
#20
@Graf_Nachthafen (re':
1, I never said you don't have the right, straw man much ?
2. As I said before, I don't mind chess variants at all. Create as many of them as you like, they don't bother me.
)
1. No not a "straw man". What is it with persons on here throwing this 'straw man' term of fallacy about? I don't think you know what that means. And you did imply that I don't have a right to tell you what to do.
2. So why not make a comment about your opinion of them, rather than just lambasting the OP's specific wordchoice?
OK, here is a proposal for a new chess rule, that I think would make a great rule.
IF anytime during the game, you manage to get your King all the way to the other side of the board, you should win the game. They will call it a "Touch Down." It takes a great deal of skill to get your King to the other side of the board, in the heart of your opponent's territory, and thus, you should be rewarded with a victory.