Nonviolent Chess

In this diagram you could never checkmate because the king can just move back and forth.

I think a fail safe defence is 4 moves away.

1.h4 2.Rh3 3.Rd3 4.Nf3 and then simply repeat the moves nc3 then nb1 continually.

This stops the enemy knights getting a smothered mate on you by blocking the spaces d3 and f3 while your king is surronded by his own pieces.

Even the method of block the squares c3 and a3 to stop the white knight from repeatably doing the same moves doesn't seem to work as the knight has a lot of empty squares around.

I think the game is drawn by best moves, but perhaps somebody can find a way to stop any such defence quicky enough?

I think this idea has been busted.

You will be surprised to learn, staggerlee, that I have already played two games of this version and have been checkmated in 11 moves both times, very differently.

Click on my name, go to my user page and view my matches with NotKasparov and you'll see 2 nonviolent games in action. It's a very good game. Lots of fun to play. When I have time, as I said, I will get that software made, for use on the web.

The problem I have with this ShamsPirani is that while it is a very noble idea, and I understand where it's coming from, there seems to be a flaw in your assessment of the game. Violence and aggression are not inherent in the game of chess. True it is a game of war, but the violence of taking a piece is in the mind of the player and not in the act of the capture. We are not saying a piece is dead or destroyed, but captured. For all we know the piece could be removed from a desert and brought to a day spa and pampered after it's "capture". Chess is a game of skill, and the traditional pieces do not reflect people. One has to go into the game with a violent mentality in order to make the game violent, and that wont change with your game. In your game the one side is still trying to dominate and oppress the other side by "checkmating" which is attacking the figure head and overwhelming him. The difference is that in doing so the followers of this figure head are ordered to stay still while it's happening and it will all be over soon. A violent mind is more dominating in these positions because they have no fear of repercussion from the opponent. My knight can sweep in and humble his king and his queen will do nothing but watch. Even if you made the game, and got a Palestinian and an Israeli together to play, you are still putting them at odds and putting them against each other. If you wish to redirect hostility, create a game or idea where two people can come together and work as a team, say a chess game where Israel and Palestine's best chess minds compete against a computer. Then they are working together and not against one another. Your current system is a wrestling match where hits and kicks aren't allowed but where the competitors are struggling to put the other guys shoulders to the mat.

That's because you played poorly.  I think it's been shown in some of the posts above that it's possible to create an unbreachable defense.  You've turned chess into Tic-Tac-Toe where it's easily possible to force a draw every time.  Boring.

This is an amazing joke topic.

Some of you imagine that chess is a game played by robots. I bet not a single person who claims this thing doesn't work has even sat and had a proper enjoyable game of it. Anyway, what's there to discuss? Closed minds?

If you play it you'll realise it's NOT so easy to make these absurd unbreachable defences you claim, not easy at all, no easier than to force stalemate in normal chess! I can't believe how low the IQs are here - for a chess site that's shocking. Then again this is chess.com - a mainstream name. No doubt there ARE more intelligent chess sites! I'm amazed at how no-can-do most of you are. Why don't you TRY PLAYING IT? That's what i've been doing and I'm enjoying it and going to just carry on. Once you actually play it you'll stop harping on with your idiot objections because you'll see first hand how utterly wrong they are!

And assess my other games - I have an even balance of wins and losses. My opponent in nonviolent chess is much better than me, but before long I'll be beating him. If he and I play 50 games I bet there will be a mate in all of them - and I think he will gladly play that many - so hold your breath while I disprove your absurdly moronic criticism wholly and permanently! It shocks me that so many people who play chess are actually stupid. No wonder I don't lose all my games.

Not liking your goofy idea makes people stupid?  Sounds like someone's feelings are hurt.  Chill out.  Oh, and look at this, within a few moves white's king is unassailable.  No open lines to him, and all knight-jump squares to him are filled.  White can just move his rooks back and forth.  Forced draw everytime.

maybe u can make a handicap like a king cant move to the same square twice to make stalemates happen less often?

or pawns can move diaganally as if they were capturing( rooks need open files ), but this can be used to make a fortress around the king so I dont know if thats such a good Idea

None of the things you mention would do anything to make the position I showed above (reached after just 3 moves by white!) any less secure.  This idea just doesn't work.  You'd have to make some very serious, very extreme changes to chess to make what he's trying to create into a playable game.

Shams... Oh Shams... I had such high hopes for you. Name calling and being belligerent isn't becoming of you. If you ever planned on doing something great, you'll have to withstand an enormous amount of criticism. If you can't handle it, then you shouldn't offer up topics and ideas for people to discuss. It is impossible to please everyone, and for every one you do please, you'll have one whom you can't please. It's the one you can't please who'll be the loudest, not the one you can. Good luck with all your endeavors.

It has been mentioned that "The only way to endgames would probably have to do with zugzwang." (Phelon)

Many of the diagrams posted eg:

Just a thought.

your wrong, the players would avoid those kind of positions because they would both be playing for wins. in other words, the openings and stratagys would be very different.

This whole idea is built on the false premise that chess is violent to begin with. Chess is as violent as reading a well written historical fiction. Maiming small animals is violent. Chess and other war games (RISK, Stratego) are not. If the pieces being anthropomorphised is what bothers you, name them after animals, or inanimate objects. You get nonviolent chess, and you can still play a normal game.

Your diagram at 1st glance seems to be a forced draw, but I wouldn't be so sure. I think eventually White will be forced to come out of his shell, or else Black can force this position or something similar from your diagram:

White has been put into complete zugzwang, and has been forced to move his f3 knight, after which his guard of invincibility will be broken followed By Nf3#. For now at least I think the idea lives on!

Are you all idiots?  The idea is impossible.  That fact makes no difference to the true intention of the person who posted it: he is instigating a political disscussion trying to talk gullible simpletons into supporting Palestine by boycotting Israel.  The whole idea is simply a pretext.  Aren't political posts against the rules of Chess.com?

Even if the idea is sincere (which I do not believe) maybe you should call in Amish Checkers.

It wouldn't be too hard to avoid a zugzwang like this.  The enemy only has two knights, and therefore can only block two of your liberty squares.  Here's another game I made.  White has several "back and forth" move possibilities.  This game is a definite draw.

And I don't know why Sham is so upset, a draw is about as peaceful as things can get.  So, congrats.  You made chess "nonviolent," by insuring that EVERY game is a draw!!!  Most chess fans find the frequency of draws unfortunate, and enjoy decisive games.  So congrats again for making a chess variant that the vast majority of chess fans won't like!

Reluctantly I think you're right. The only way I think the poster can prevent this inevitability is by introducing a rule such as "If the game results in a stalemate, the player who would have been on the move automatically loses". Therefore putting the opponent in stalemate would be equivilent to a checkmate. Seems like a logical rule to put in place. Under the current rules you've proven it's destined to failior.