livluvrok wrote:
If the rules of chess were different, say the pieces moved different ways or you could have 2 turns at a time ...
Or if you had to resign if you were down by 5 or more points in material for 2 consecutive moves?
What if the rules of chess were different??
Sort:
Sep 1, 2013
0
#3
livluvrok wrote:
If the rules of chess were different, say the pieces moved different ways or you could have 2 turns at a time; would we still love the game?
Shogi, Chinese chess, etc., seem to be quite popular as well. So that demonstrates the first part, anyway.
xianqui is cool. There's a piece that has to jump one other piece to attack.
People play "pocket knight" chess, where you get to put a knight down instead of moving a piece, once during the game (this manifests with 4 partners and 2 boards as "Crazyhouse", with all sorts of pieces switching around).
Chess and games like it are fun for a long time because the complexity rises exponentially - faster than most of us can truly comprehend on the board. So the game stays fun.
livluvrok wrote:
If the rules of chess were different, say the pieces moved different ways or you could have 2 turns at a time; would we still love the game?
Or if the queen was given the new found moving ability of the knight to go along with its power on the board, but would not be able to capture a knight giving the dreaded royal fork. Which would mean in order for the queen to be immune from capture, there would have to be a knight in close proximity to be in a position to capture the knight forking the king and queen. It would make for interesting tactical and strategical plans of attack, thats for sure.
If the rules of chess were different, say the pieces moved different ways or you could have 2 turns at a time; would we still love the game?