Only knights should be able to jump. Its just how it should be!
Why only knights can jump
Sort:
It would be wicked if all pieces could jump:
checkmate in one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
Well, if bishops could jump then 1. Bb5# would end the game in the first move, wouldn't that be sorta boring?
A game in such a variant would come to an end quite soon:
1. Qd1-h5+ g7-g6
2. Qh5-e5 checkmate
1. Qd1-h5 is not (yet) a mate, if we assume that a piece can jump over only one piece (in chess variant community, the term "jumper" is usually used that way). Same with 1. Bf1-b5.
qh5#
LoneWolfEburg wrote:
A game in such a variant would come to an end quite soon:
1. Qd1-h5+ g7-g6
2. Qh5-e5 checkmate
1. Qd1-h5 is not (yet) a mate, if we assume that a piece can jump over only one piece (in chess variant community, the term "jumper" is usually used that way). Same with 1. Bf1-b5.
2 qh5-e5 bc1-e3
"qh5-e5 bc1-e3"
Correct. Still, the pieces that would result in such a variant would be just too powerful.
But I have forseen these teething problems.
As well as giving all pieces the jumping ability one would have to reduce their range, obviously.
Bishop can move three; Rook four and Queen three squares.
That goes without saying.
cuendillar wrote:
1.Qh5+? Rxh5 favours black.
yes good point, but bb5 still wins in one
"good point, but bb5 still wins in one"
It doesn't if we allow a piece to jump only over one interloper.
"Bishop can move three; Rook four and Queen three squares"
Then it's a quite a viable variant. I wonder what the value of the new pieces will be.
Mind you, I like the diversity of the ways of movement in classical chess (long-range runner, a jumper (Knight) and a stepper (King)).
Beast719 wrote:
Knights represent men with big horse-heads and as such they are obviously able to jump over things namely the other pieces apart from the King.
I think it is unfair for the other pieces that they too do not have this jumping ability. I would propose that the Bishops, Rooks and Queens are also able to jump over pieces that are in their way. I think that this would make the game much more interesting.
It would I believe create a more fluid and attacking-orientated game.
I am going to call my new game Jumping Chess (patent pending).
I've never heard of the rule that Knights can't jump over kings. Surely it doesn't make any sense as if the King is "in the way" it could just take the other L shape to its destination..
atomichicken wrote:
Beast719 wrote:
Knights represent men with big horse-heads and as such they are obviously able to jump over things namely the other pieces apart from the King.
I think it is unfair for the other pieces that they too do not have this jumping ability. I would propose that the Bishops, Rooks and Queens are also able to jump over pieces that are in their way. I think that this would make the game much more interesting.
It would I believe create a more fluid and attacking-orientated game.
I am going to call my new game Jumping Chess (patent pending).
I've never heard of the rule that Knights can't jump over kings. Surely it doesn't make any sense as if the King is "in the way" it could just take the other L shape to its destination..
Knights can jump over the king
sableWhist wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
Beast719 wrote:
Knights represent men with big horse-heads and as such they are obviously able to jump over things namely the other pieces apart from the King.
I think it is unfair for the other pieces that they too do not have this jumping ability. I would propose that the Bishops, Rooks and Queens are also able to jump over pieces that are in their way. I think that this would make the game much more interesting.
It would I believe create a more fluid and attacking-orientated game.
I am going to call my new game Jumping Chess (patent pending).
I've never heard of the rule that Knights can't jump over kings. Surely it doesn't make any sense as if the King is "in the way" it could just take the other L shape to its destination..
Knights can jump over the king
They can but they just don't out of Royal respect. They take the opposite L shape and get to the same square without the disrespectful King-jumping.
Apr 12, 2009
0
#16
Beast719 wrote:
sableWhist wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
Beast719 wrote:
Knights represent men with big horse-heads and as such they are obviously able to jump over things namely the other pieces apart from the King.
I think it is unfair for the other pieces that they too do not have this jumping ability. I would propose that the Bishops, Rooks and Queens are also able to jump over pieces that are in their way. I think that this would make the game much more interesting.
It would I believe create a more fluid and attacking-orientated game.
I am going to call my new game Jumping Chess (patent pending).
I've never heard of the rule that Knights can't jump over kings. Surely it doesn't make any sense as if the King is "in the way" it could just take the other L shape to its destination..
Knights can jump over the king
They can but they just don't out of Royal respect. They take the opposite L shape and get to the same square without the disrespectful King-jumping.
horses can jump so that its not confusing which path you took. Up two over one. Over one up two. What if i move on diagonals...
Of course they can jump over their own King - they are on the same side.
The knights have that special ability. Without it, they would be next to useless.
Knights represent men with big horse-heads and as such they are obviously able to jump over things namely the other pieces apart from the King.
I think it is unfair for the other pieces that they too do not have this jumping ability. I would propose that the Bishops, Rooks and Queens are also able to jump over pieces that are in their way. I think that this would make the game much more interesting.
It would I believe create a more fluid and attacking-orientated game.
I am going to call my new game Jumping Chess (patent pending).