"Take Your Own Pieces" chess variant

Matteos

Is there a variant of chess in which you can take your own pieces?

I'm not talking about a Suicide/Giveaway Chess variant, I'm talking about normal chess rules in which you are trying to win with your own pieces, but with the added bonus that you can also take your own pieces if you think it might help. See example below:

 

 

EDIT: I've just realized my example is rather flawed because of course the Black king can escape checkmate by taking one of his own pawns! But it still gives the general idea ...

trigs

wha..?

...

1. Qxe1

i win!

Matteos
trigs wrote:

wha..?

...

1. Qxe1

i win!


Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at? There is no piece on e1 ...

trigs
Matteos wrote:
trigs wrote:

wha..?

...

1. Qxe1

i win!


Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at? There is no piece on e1 ...


if you can capture you'r own pieces - first move of a game = 1. Qxe1 (i.e. queen captures king and game over).

Matteos
if you can capture you'r own pieces - first move of a game = 1. Qxe1 (i.e. queen captures king and game over).

Ah, I get it.

Though I guess you wouldn't do that if you wanted to win.

Just to be clear - I wasn't suggesting a suicide chess variant. I was suggesting normal chess rules with the added option of taking your own pieces (thus losing material - so you wouldn't want to do it often). You'd probably only do it in cases where it would help you win quickly - as in the (flawed) example - or to escape a tight spot, or to clear a pawn from a file.

trigs

i don't know about being able to capture your own pieces any time you want, but perhaps you're allowed to do it only once or twice throughout a game. could be interesting.

afterall, in war there's nothing stopping a king from sending in his foot soldiers and then sending in a volley of arrows killing both sides. i'm sure it's happened plenty of times in history.

zerobounds

i think too many games would end in draw by insufficent material since the king would have to be completely dominated at every neighboring square or pinned to the side of the board for checkmate, smothered mates wouldnt even exist.

early chess used to require that you actually take the king or annihilate all of the other players pieces other than the king for a win, but that was changed.

Matteos
zerobounds wrote:

i think too many games would end in draw by insufficent material since the king would have to be completely dominated at every neighboring square or pinned to the side of the board for checkmate, smothered mates wouldnt even exist.

 

Perhaps Trigs' idea of it only being allowed once or twice in a game would work. Or, as I said, it could make an interesting handicap for one side. 

But if you force a king to decimate the pieces protecting it, it will be very exposed and low on material. Smothered mates are by no means the only way to mate (they're pretty rare I think) ... so it could make things quite interesting. Perhaps endgames would be reached more quickly or something. There could be a rule that once you're down to 4 pieces or less you can't "kill" your own.

Matteos
[COMMENT DELETED]
Matthew11

Matteos

@Matthew11 (above): Please see several of the previous posts, where this has been discussed in detail.

Matteos
[COMMENT DELETED]
trigs
BorgQueen wrote:

Why do people want to change this wonderful game??


for the exact opposite reason that people fear/don't like change.

trigs
BorgQueen wrote:
trigs wrote:

for the exact opposite reason that people fear/don't like change.


And that is?


you don't know the opposite of "don't like change"?

well i may be going out on a limb here, but i'm going to say the opposite would be "they like change". could just be my own crazy notion however. i'm too lazy to make a google search on the matter.

Matteos
[COMMENT DELETED]
trigs
BorgQueen wrote:
trigs wrote:

you don't know the opposite of "don't like change"?

well i may be going out on a limb here, but i'm going to say the opposite would be "they like change". could just be my own crazy notion however. i'm too lazy to make a google search on the matter.


 I thought you were alluding to something else seeing as generally people fear and don't like change.

No need to be a smartass about it


i apologize.

undertaker1717

Idk?

yakushi12345

Initially it sounds interesting, but it seems this would do nothing more then make it harder to win(no smother mates)

GTchbe

960 chess is where the bank rank is reassembled randomly, right?  Because a day or so ago I was thinking that there should be a variation where the player chooses to assemble his bank rank the way he wants.  How about that for a variation?

yakushi12345

Actually that sounds rather interesting; there would definitely be some "top tier" set ups, but at the same time anything that became popular would have a counter developed.