new piece

Here is a way to make chess a fun game for 1000 years. What if we create a new piece, the first one in over 500 years? What if we allow Knights the ability to go one square forward and one square sideways in addition to going two square forwards and one square sideways. The Knight would now be worth about a Rook.

This is so different from chess that it could be called superchess!

Super chess can be thought of as an evolution of chess. We have seen chess go from a game where pawns could only advance one square on the first move to advancing two squares on the first move. The Queen used to be a weak piece. Now it is the most powerful piece. The Super Knight varies in strength depending upon where it is. On the first it is worth about 4 1/2 i.e. more than Bishop or Knight, but less than a Rook.

On the fifth or sixth it is worth 5 1/2-7 i.e. more than a Rook

Here are a few general principles. Super Knight + pawn in the middlegame is worth more than a Rook. Super Knight + Bishop or Super Knight + Knight is worth less than the Queen in the middle game. However, Super Knight + Knight or Bishop versus Queen is a draw in the endgame. Super Knight + Rook in the middlegame is worth more than the Queen.

In the endgame a Super Knight can mate---but only against careless play. In that sense it is like voluntarily giving up the opposition in a King and Pawn ending.

To promote the new piece, I am sponsoring a contest and am prepared to offer a prize of 3 chess sets and 3 rollup boards for the first place finisher,  2 sets and 2 roll up boards for the second place finisher and a copy of my book Magic to the third place finisher. I will judge the games. The score of the games and the winners will be announced on Chess.com on this thread, Nov. 1, 2014.

All interested parties contact me through my email address:

sloughterchess, You once said you "don't do endgames."  Has that changed?

I doubt I could do the Lucena position consistently well, so to answer your question, "No". The endgames given above are completely intuitive so they may need revision.

You should limit your discussions to things that you understand.

If you want a chess variant, I suggest that you try Seirawan Chess: http://www.seirawanchess.com/.

It offers two new pieces without changing anoy of the existing ones.

I looked at Seirawan chess, pretty interesting, and very hard for computers to analyze given the placement of the additional pieces...but adding both a rook/knight and a bishop/knight to the game does seem to blow away the minor pieces' roles in the game by comparison.

I think the variant might be better with just the hawk, and no elephant...or how about a variant where you can play/place the hawk as described, but can only promote a pawn to create an elephant?

Also the pinning rules are sketchy...if you can mate in one by playing QxQ for example, then dropping the elephant on the queen's square which protects the queen from capture after-the-fact, why can't you move a pinned piece, then drop the hawk or elephant to interpose, also after-the-fact?  It seems more consistent.  Either the game state (like being in check is a state) only matters at the end of the move when it's the next players' turn, or it matters during the move.  Can't have it both ways, really.

btickler, I like your idea of starting the game with one piece in the place of the queen on the d-file spot and promoting a pawn to earn a queen or hawk or elephant.

Hi sloughterchess.  Which step of the process causes difficulty?  Can you execute what they call "building a bridge?"  Have a look at this.