Comments by exdeath

If both rook needed to be at least 3 squares one the left (and the other on the right) side of king how many positions would we have?

"All `double move' variants, I had known until then allowed the player to move different pieces."
I am almost sure there are 2 moves variants that only allow you to move the same piece.

But YES they aren't 100% like your variant.
If I remember one variant I saw allowed the player to make just one move (instead of the 2 ones) if he wanted.

With all paws being on their original positions, all players having 31 points to spend (and having to spend exactly 31 points), players being able to choose at max 3 rooks (to not mess with castling rules) and being able to choose at max 7 pieces (the back rank): Each player would be able to choose 7 different ways of starting the game.

The math and the positions on wolfram alpha: http://tinyurl.com/bzodn2c

Of course this assumes that choosing the same pieces, will produce the same starting position. With players that brought the pieces being able to choose where each piece will start this number will be higher.

I had some similar ideas when seeing some battle chess computer game.

But with my variant (duel chess), the only difference from fide chess is that if you capture with the same piece 2 times, on the second time the piece is also removed from the game

Why not make a game with 2 separated boards.
One player is white on one board and the other is white on the other board. With that no player will have first-move advantage.

Of course one rule to see who will win need to be decided. If the first one that mate the enemy (on any of the boards) win, being fast at mating would be more important than just mating, this is a not wanted thing.

Maybe do like that. If one guy win on both boards, he win the game. He both players win on one board, they play again.

Its usually said that pawn double step rule is to make chess faster.
On normal chess, there are 6 squares between pawn and promotion, and with those 6 squares between them, the double step rule is needed. 
With 5 squares betwen them it would not be needed or the pawns would be allowed to make the double step move after moving only one step on first move, to make the game faster.

Said that I think the double step rule should be changed to something like that:
"If there are 6 or more squares between the square that you are and the promotion squares, you are able to make the 2 steps move"

Well, this rule will fix most problems. But you will have problems if you play one variant where there are promotion squares at different distances (6 or more squares between the closest promotion square, 6 or more squares between the furtherst promotion square?).You will also have problems with variants where the pawn can jump or do something else that will make him move more than one square naturally (so, 6 or more squares between him and the promotion square? 6 or more moves between him and the promotion square? 6 or more turns [if you can move more than one time in a turn] between him and the promotion square?


Anyway I think this "variant" needs more rules: 
1-Castling is a move of the king or a move of the royal piece? (On my opinion its a royal piece move)
2-How check/mate works on a game with 2+ royal pieces? You need to mate only one piece to win? Mate both on same turn? Check/mates rules only take effect after there is only one royal piece on the team? Mate means enemy have no way to make all his royal pieces not be consecutively captured on next moves?
3-How promotion works? The piece that pawn (or another piece) promotes to is a new piece or a changed pawn? This would help to check if a royal pawn keep royalty and if the pawn moves go to the new piece (and so if the piece will be able to castle or not)
4-What happens when pawn start at a promoted square? Player promote before game start or on his first turn?

Help me with something:
With this variant you capture a piece X that is attacking your piece Y, by using piece X capture moves with this Y piece?

OR

If you can attack a piece X with your piece Y, using your normal fide capture move AND ALSO attack piece X using piece X capture move. You can capture the piece X using piece X capture move (and only this move).

"2)Make promotion cycled! Kings do turn back to pawns. However, kings still
can't move into check (but thereafter became none-royal again)."
In theory the king should be allowed to move at check with this rule (but can't stay into check).
The idea of check is to make impossible to some player make some mistake move that will end the game.
If the king will turn into a non royal piece, then by making the moving and puting this non royal piece into check, he will not end the game and lose by a mistake.

Maybe could be done this way. Dont know if it would work
Player can select any piece to put on the board, but as some example the amount of kings that can exist on the board can be only (2 times the amount of rooks on the board) minus 1

Wow. Cool. Didnt understood the relation it has with ppu but its cool.
Try to do with others consoles GPUs

kuyan its possible to think about knight as a piece that moves to "the closest square to him, not on rook lines and bishop lines"

Arm said: "This is only a technicality really, but there's another way to think about the camel movement to put it in perspective. To use an analogy:

A camel is to a bishop as a knight is to a rook. That is, a knight moves in an orthogonal L-shape while a camel moves in a diagonal L-shape. While it works exactly the same way to say the camel does a (3,1) leap, it makes the camel fit better into the chess schema to think of it as a diagonal analogue of a knight.

Whatev, though."

If I am right, another way to think about camel is to think he moves to the closest square from the one he is, excluding the one he is in and the ones that rook, bishop and knight can move to.



Anyway, following those idea, If you wanted to make a variant with leapers only (and assuming you consider bishop a leaper). You could do this
Rook = Fide Bishop moves
Bishop = rider version of Fide Knight
Knight = Camel
King = A mix of fide knight and ferz
Queen = Fide bishop and rider version of fide knight
Pawn = Ferz moves thad advance as move only and knight moves that advance as capture moves.


If you dont consider Bishop a rider you can do
Rook = rider version of fide Knight
Bishop = rider version of camel
Knight = moves as a (3,2) and a (1,4) leaper 
Queen = Rider version of camel + rider version of fide knight
king = camel + fide knight
Pawn = Fide knight moves that advance but only as move, and moves of camel that advance but only as capture.

A cool variant would be one that only allow you to turn piece X into a royal one, if this piece X attack piece Y, that is curently royal and piece X is not attacked by a friendly piece.
You could maybe turn self rules capture on.

One question. If double step (double step version of knight moves, being able to capture with it) was added to white piece (the piece is able to be captured en passant by pawn) would this change the game enought to increase white player odds?

People say normal torus dont work, because of the setup position.

But on usual chess, the enemy piece is as far as possible from you. This not happen on normal chess setup with torus rules.
An solution would be to have white on usual places, and black on 6 and 5 instead of 7 and 8. With this you would follow more the spirit of chess

But then you would have an new problem, you have pawns that are some sort of wall, but on this variant you have this sort of wall on just one side.

Which one of those 2 chess teams is the better one?

Team 1= Like usual but dont have the queen, but pawns can still promote to
a queen

Team 2= Have another king, that is on the place of the queen, pawns can
stll promote to queen. New king can also castle (obviously respecting his
new position), castling is a rook and king move. Team 2 lose if any of his
kings are mated, he cant leave or put any of his kings in check

There is low alamos chess that is this variant with knight instead of bishop and without castling.

But anyway, removing knights from the game make the queen have all the game moves.

"But you could just add knight moves to queen making her a amazon"

But then the king will not be a simplified version of amazon.

"Ok, but if that is the problem you just add knight moves to king too"

Then the knight move the king to will not be a simmplfied version of the kngiht move queen do.