Chess vs Law

Seen nothing anywhere on how to win with 2 Knights, so I had to figure out the technique.

Build a Knight wall in the centre, on ranks or files, your king must be behind this wall, as the knights need to create space against the black king to control one flank, your king controls the other flank.

Notes are included with the moves below

Black King gets stalemated on the last rank in the corner

Warlord

 

Dazed and Confused

In all the examples of checkmate with 2 Knights on the internet the black king is already trapped in a corner.

There are no examples with an open board. Every time I play with a computer using the exact same position as above the chess engine seems dazed and confused.

Checkmate is actually possible but it is not forced so the chess engine will always leave one Knight in a corner and allow it to be captured.

Here is me playing black against the chess engine playing white.

 

En pessant makes sense because if a soldier is doing his job and is guarding a spot, and opposing soldier would not be able to get by simply because he intends to travel 2 miles vs 1 mile in his movement.  At some point on the journey he would encounter the guard and be captured.

 

What doesn't make sense is castling.  It allows the king to move more spaces than he should, and we must imagine he is passing through other piece like a ghost, or the king is going up and around the rook or vice versa, which shouldn't even be possible in some cases even if we allow the move (because other pieces are taking up the involved adjacent squares) .  Further it moves two pieces at once, which is a cheat.

I only played chess with my brothers until I was in high school and we didn't know the en passant or stalemate rules (we considered it checkmate like in your variant) and I doubt we ever under promoted so I've always considered those as "extra" rules.

 

I was interested to learn that the queen could only move 1 square diagonally in some early variants. Did she begin with movement similar to a king or could she always move like a rook?

 

 

Why would we need a new version of chess?

Isn't chess good enough as it is?

That's basically (or exactly) what I was thinking. It has taken centuries to make it what it is, and any or almost all changes have already been considered. I compare such things to my obsession, which is golf. It's taken 500 plus years to make golf what it is. It's literally classic. Of course there will be modifications that are fleeting and fun at the moment but it doesnt make sense to change something that has withstood the test of time.

 

It has withstood the test of time, but what it hasn't withstood is the test of computers.  Now, the complexity needs to be upped to bust the computers.

I agree! - when you are playing on-line, there is no way to know if your opponent is using opening theory databases or a chess-engine. So to guarantee that it's human vs. human, I think it's fun to change the rules a little. It only takes a few small changes to break down an opening book, or render a chess engine useless.

Plus some new variants add very interesting and spectacular new dynamics. I like "Chess on an Infinite Plane" (below). Game_designer might also have something interesting - we're just waiting to see the other rules.

Pawn Jumps

Some type of rule is needed to stop a pawn jumping past another pawn.

If you are white and have a pawn on d5 then you need to consider 5 things if you are looking at a black pawn on c7.

1. Pawn does not move

2. Pawn steps forward one step to c6 and white does not capture

3. Pawn steps forward one step to c6 and white does actually capture

4. Pawn jumps forward two steps to c5 and white does not capture

5. Pawn jumps forward two steps to c5 and white does actually capture

Note that the last 2 options only relate to the en passant rule, they do not apply with my rule.

Also note that with the last 2 you only get one chance to make a decision, you could say that your decision is forced in a way.

If you select option # 5 then the position is exactly the same as selecting option # 3

But the position is not exactly the same if you compare option # 4 with option # 2.

I prefer my simpler rule for the following reasons:

It helps the player when making strategic decisions (about pawn structures) during the game.

It is consistent with what chess engines do, modern chess engines like to maintain the tension between pawns on the board, they don't like resolving pawn tension.

Castling

This rule has undergone many changes during the centuries, it's main purpose is king safety.

What I find interesting is that Cambodian Chess (Ouk Chatrang or Khmer Chess) has it's own castling rule even thou it is a very slow and strategic game and that it is basically a derivative of Thai Makruk (Thai Chess)

In Cambodian Chess the King can move like a Knight on it's first move, the pawns are on the third rank (no double step) so the King can move like a Knight sideways to the second rank to get away from the centre.

Here is the wiki page for castling:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castling

Here is the wiki page for Thai Makruk, Cambodian Chess is at the bottom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makruk

Note that in the west they do not use the proper name for Thai Chess.

In the west they call it "Makruk." I lived in Thailand for 3 years and the Thai people call it "Thai Makruk" with an emphasis on the word Thai.

If you go to Thailand and speak to any Thai person about "Makruk" they will not have any clue what you are talking about, even if you show them a chess board.

But if you say "Thai Makruk" with a clear emphasis on the word Thai, well then they smile.

Warlord 

Stalemate

Another rule that has had many changes during the centuries. In the oldest chess known, Chaturanga, stalemate was a win (for the stalemated player), stalemate as a draw is quite a recent rule.

Here is the wiki page for stalemate, refer to the history section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate

Promotion

Lots of changes during history, most ancient versions of chess only allowed promotion to the weakest piece (the ancient queen)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_(chess)

Modern Queen

In medieval Europe chess came from Persia with the ancient queen moving one step on the diagonal on a plain board (all pieces were short range except for the rook).

In Europe there was already a game that had been played for centuries, I call it the Viking Game, this board was partly checkered.

Courier Chess was created in the 12th century, it was influenced by both Persian Chess and the Viking Game.

Courier Chess was the first game with a checkered board and the modern bishops (called Couriers), the game also used the ancient bishops.

Later the game reverted back to a 8x8 board that was now checkered and used the modern bishops.

The problem was that the board needed to be checkered, for almost 1,000 years chess used a plain board, of all the pieces in the game the Bishops were always the most problematic, the various (numerous) types of bishops in the ancient forms of chess never did quite fit properly into the game.

This is still true with say Thai Makruk, the Knights are stronger than the Bishops.

Then centuries later, after the problems with the board and the bishops had been solved somebody combined rook + bishop and the modern queen was born  

The diagram below is an ancient Viking game board, note that it is partly checkered.

Warlord

Chess: Forums

Two teams: White could change the world, and Black aims to refute it.

This is an attacking game, both offensive and defensive, fought with words and ideas, and played by many.

White starts off with an opening which shows exactly what he wants to do. Black retaliates, showing how it cannot be done, and that it is a waste of time.

White starts using his starting advantage against Black, but Black has too many pieces into play, and they keep coming. The game looks bad to the spectators, but the players don't care.

White shoves a few tactics into play. Black increases their influence. Some pieces seem to do nothing, some are proven a disadvantage to their team, and a few seem to be on both teams at the same time.

The game went from blazing to calm and soon quiet, with both teams making moves that do less and less.

After a long 8 pages, the game has lost vast amounts of energy, as most of the pieces have left the game. Both teams strive for tactics and advantages, but the game is stagnant.

The game has seemingly ended, with no more moves affecting the outcome so far. Nothing is done anymore; the armies continue on, but no one wants to view the game. The game has reached a figurative stalemate for both teams. Only, in this game, stalemates are losses.

The outcome of this game:
Winners: No one involved
Losers: Everyone involved

I'm not going to patent this game. It looks as if its already been made.

@stickmancomic

You have been blocked.

Goodbye

Warlord

Good enough for you and many others, I have absolutely no problem with that.

But not good enough for me and perhaps some of those 600 million people that have tried it but quickly stopped playing it.

Warlord

Chess has been evolving for at least 1,500 years and possibly for as long as 2,000 years.

Why should that stop now?

Warlord

Agreed.  We must evolve the game.

A good point.

A new twist in the evolution of chess.

Warlord

@vickalan

Hi man

vickalan is open minded, he plays all types of chess, he just likes playing.

He actually played a test game on this forum topic with a computer to test rule # 7.

Thanks man

Warlord 

Meh.
I've already lost by going too far.
You blocked me from yourself.
Doesn't seem very useful.
What?
Just because you blocked me doesn't mean I don't exist.
And it doesn't mean I'm not here, either.
Block me if you want, I won't post again anyway.
I don't need to know if your work is real or not.
We are here because you think that you should share it.
Yet you stop anyone who says that it's a bad idea.
If you were trying to hold on, you would have been trying.
And "promoting" the game in this fashion is not going to help.
You can see that.
If you really didn't want the criticism, you wouldn't continue being here.
You would have stopped looking for them.
You are only here for entertainment, aren't you?
That's what I am here for, anyway.
It's fun, this game you made.
Wish you focused on the other one though.
Go on.
Post whatever you like.
Everyone who sees it can have a little more fun.
Tell the world you blocked me again, how I'm not worth your time, not supposed to be here.
This isn't for you, anyway.
It's for them.
After all, that's what you wanted right?
Understand that.

Have fun.

@stickmancomic2

I blocked you because you were trolling with your first post.

Then you created this second account right now so you could post again.

Don't you know that having multiple accounts is against chess.com policy

They close down all the accounts and remove all the posts from the website.

I have reported you now to chess.com support.

You have been blocked.

Goodbye

Warlord

[Edit]

He closed both of his accounts.

Perhaps he does not know that chess.com can track you using your IP address.

The user name is not important, they can still find people that have multiple accounts or people that open accounts, abuse on the forums, and then close the account.

In this case chess.com just blocks the IP address.

Summary

Rule # 1 to Rule # 4

These are all new rules in the history of chess.

These are the important rules that will not be disclosed.

The lawyers will not be told what these rules are, they will first use Rule # 7 to determine the best legal solution to the problem.

Rule # 5

This is a group of rules for win, loss, draw, time and other.

None of these rules in this group has been disclosed on this forum.

Rule # 6

Stalemate is a win.

This is not a new rule, it is an ancient rule in chess.

Rule # 7

This is a new rule in the history of chess.

This rule replaces the en passant rule that is used in western chess.

A pawn can not jump over a square that is controlled by an opposing pawn.

Rule # 8

A pawn can only promote to a Queen.

This is not a new rule, it is an ancient rule in chess.

Warlord