Ratings & Comments
I'm wondering whether anyone has observed that it tends to be difficult for either side to castle fairly early on (if at all) in typical games of (10x8) Capablanca Chess (i.e. final version of this CV).
Quite a while back I invented a new form of castling (originally for use in my 12x8 Wide Chess CV invention). This form of castling became known as Fast Castling - assuming at least some people like this form of castling, maybe an experiment could be tried sometime where (10x8) Capablanca Chess is played with the use of Fast Castling rules (or at least posters could give their thoughts on if the change might be a good idea). The rules for Fast Castling are as follows:
"A king that has never moved, and is not in check, can 'leap' once a game, along the first rank, to any unattacked empty square between it and an unmoved rook, followed by said rook 'leaping' to the king's initial square so as to complete castling in one single move. It does not matter if any squares in between are occupied or under attack."
If anyone has questions or wants examples, please feel free to ask. I've been playing this since the 80's and if it's something that hasn't come up I'd be interested in looking at it, and if it has come up I am more than willing to explain how it works.
That's an interesting idea. I suppose if the capturing piece is mounted then it would remove the target's mount.
My goal in this game was to decompose the standard chess pieces (kind of like a Fusion Chess in reverse) and remix the bits. Arbitrary combinations turned out to be too powerful, but the mount idea seems to be a good level of modularity.
Did you ever try having a capturing piece take the mount of the piece it captures?
Thank you. The hard part was coming up with an incentive to actually change mounts mid-game.
An early playtester had the brilliant idea to start off the mounts under the pawns. That creates the necessary incentive, and it helps the pawns fulfill their traditional role of being in the way :)
I like that the existing one also emphasizes that you can't capture with the second move, but this would suffice I think yes.
Now I think that Guard (Orcish Pawn) must have promotion to Harpy (Orcish Bishop) only (earlier they can promote to Werewolf also). This is about 2% winrate nerf of Orcs.
Returning Rangers (Elvish Bishops) and Unicorns (Elvish Knights) to their natural starting positions ('c' and 'f' files for Bishops, 'b' and 'g' files for Unicorns) maybe is about 2% winrate nerf of Elves too.
In future, I will check update of race winrates (this will spend several days).
Update rules.
Remove next rule:
- Elvish Knights and Elvish Bishops are exchanged with starting places: Knights stay on the files "c", "f" and Bishops stay on the files "b", "g" (need to defend all Elvish Pawns)
This rule was introduced because of Elf-Elf mirror matchup, having 1. Qc3 move attacking g7 Pawn (and opponent must reply 1.... gf6 or ef6, because if Qe6 then 2. Bc4!).
But this rule has influence to Elf-Human matchup, having 1. Rh4 attacking h7 pawn (and if 1.... g6 or Nf6 then 2. Bd4).
So I think this questionable rule must be cancelled.
Now I start to get new statistics of mathups, with Fairy-Max auto battles:
- at 1000 ELO (0.6 sec per 40 moves)
- at 1400 ELO (6 sec per 40 moves)
- at 1800 ELO (1 min per 40 moves)
- at 2000 ELO (10 min per 40 moves)
How I get these ELO? I have ~95% winrate FIDE chess White vs Black when 1st White engine has 10 times more time than 2nd Black engine.
At low ELO I can get statistics very quick and modify rules to balance sides for it. But at higher ELO I can get statistics much slower, and can just check if balance is OK or not.
~10 000 games must be played for 1% accuracy (~100 games has only 10% accuracy - even equal sides may play 60-40).
I think the only things to be modified must be promotion rules. For example, introducing limitation of Orcish Pawns to promote only minor Pieces, lower Orcish winrate from 58% to 52%. Now I think that Elves and Orcs are a little stronger than orthodox Humans (~+2% winrate) and this point must be fixed.
Also, the most interesting thing is getting Pawns and Pieces values (at different ELOs). By statistics and changing start Pieces I can get only starting values. For example, starting values of orthodox Knight and Bishop are equal.
But there is also mid values which can be used at middle-game exchanges (theoretically, these mid values are best values for Fairy-Max engine, i.e. with these values Fairy-Max must have maximal winrate (vs engines with other values). For example, mid values of orthodox Bishop will be greater than orthodox Knight, because having less Pieces and Pawns at the board than at start.
You mean like this? If you think this illustrates the Knights Capture and Move better than the current one, it can certainly be added, or even replace the other one.
I've approved the article.
I still would prefer a knight 2-move diagram that shows that they can move after capture in the same direction. And I think the bulleting structure of the rules section could be made clearer; I may take a stab at that later (and you can use the Revision tool to revert or rearrange things to your liking).
And yes, all of the editing options remain post-approval; the only things that changes is that non-logged-in users can view the page, the banner of alerts is removed, and the page will show up in all index queries.
So, how does this work, I believe I have covered everything that has ever come up since it's inception in the 80's. I can add examples if needed, but will it be open for adding graphics after it gets off probation or not?
Well, I believe I've clarified Capturing en passsant. That's always been a sticking point as I've only ever taught it in person and simply mentioned it in the rules before.
I've just never had the right words for it, but I guess the diagrams help. :)
However, I felt it was a bit vague as well and needed clarifying.
Checkmate is only ever achieved on the defending Kings turn, as it is in Chess. The King always gets a chance to get out of Check. The 50 move rule is as much a thing in Hit and Run Chess as it is in regular Chess.
If your piece moves to put the king in Check, and that move reveals a piece lined up to capture the king, It is still just Check. Sovereign defeat can't be taken, it must be accepted. You can't just swoop in and capture a king.
Check Mate, Stale Mate, mutually agreed upon draw, it's all determined on the Defending Kings turn. However, you can try to pad your Check as much as you like with your pieces. A King that can't escape is always a Checkmate, after all, unless they can't move at all and are not in Check, of course. I believe a stale mate is always in favor of the defender in Standard Chess, at least that's how I was taught.
I did say no King can ever be captured without a Check, but I see that was a vague. I guess I've always just felt the Check/Checkmate rule to be Standard Chess rules, but it makes sense that with two moves it should be clearly stated exactly when Check and Checkmate take place.. I'll add the above clarification to the Rules.
Thanks!
I don't think the rules as given are viable. Stalemate is defined as a condition where you don't have legal moves, but are not in check. Making a move illegal that cause stalemate thus makes a recursive definition, where it is not clear that the recursion will always terminate.
They also do not address the 50-move problem. What if a game ends in K+R vs K+R? There exists over 10 million positions with this material, so it would be really tedious to force a repeat. But since there is no way to force checkmate, you would eventually be forced to repeat. Which is illegal. But you might not be in check. which makes it a stalemate. Which makes the previous move illegal. But other moves there might (directly or indirectly) suffer from the same problem, so now that position would be a stalemate too. Etc.
I suppose that eventually one of the players would be forced to sacrifice its Rook as the only legal option, but it seems pretty much undeterminable which player that would be. That applies to every position that under normal rules would be a dead draw, e.g. K+B+N vs K+B+N.
I like this small tactical game. There is a GC preset written by Antoine, long time ago. Alas, legal moves are not displayed.
When I edit the GC preset I don't see any rules, I don't know where they are stored. Is it possible to change and have the legal moves displayed ?
One other question has occurred to me, and I don't see it addressed (but maybe just missed it). If the first move reveals check, can the second move capture the king?
I was worried the Queens diagram was a bit busy, but the Queens options are much more complicated , so felt it still helpful. In actual play it doesn't seem so complicated, but I'm also not trying to convey a physical image of good and bad choices. :)
The diagram itself is probably a symptom of me being a programmer...
Really? Insufficient material? What if the opponent has insufficient material?
Thank you very much, I hadn't even thought about the spelling.
Just a little remark on language: it is 'en passant', not 'en passé'. ('En passé' is grammaticaly wrong in french).
Very interesting, I looked through the known Double Move Variants and I really didn't know there were so few. There are elements of each one that I particularly don't like. One even sounded like an opposite of mine regarding returning to the original square after a capture.
Hit and Run Chess was developed with the premise of trying to keep the game as close to chess as possible, while keeping it balanced and not introducing new pieces with special moves.
The first move in any game can be pivotal. No matter what side you play. Starting out with 2 moves seemed to break the game. Equally, forcing only the first player to forfeit their second move seemed unfair. So both players open their games as they would in standard chess, they both move one piece once.
A straight line capture and advance also proved to be game breaking. Way O.P. and resulted in much faster and less interesting games. The concept of Hit and run was basically born, although not realized, by the introduction of the divergent path after capture. It seemed unfair that this affected all pieces except the knight. However, the night had one annoying predilection, that of striking out from behind the safety of the Pawn wall and retreating back to safety after capturing. So to even things out and to challenge both the player and his Knight, the Knight was restricted from doing this, Ostensibly applied under the divergent path rule, as for all pieces, their Starting square was along their path of attack and it seemed bth balancing and fair.
Capturing on the second move was also way over powered, as it could conceivably result in a Check Mate without Check, which is why I suppose, other variants impose the end of turn if a check is made on the first move. However, who wants to lose their second move, really. So to further drive home the idea of Hit and Run Chess, and the thing that truly gave it life, was to limit all captures to only the first move of any piece. Thus also allowing the wonderful feeling of being able to capture two pieces in the same turn when moving two pieces once, while making the second move of any piece that captured on it's first move. a maneuvering move.
As balanced and fair as possible, uncomplicated due to retaining all of the regular rules as far as how the pieces themselves move. Should be easy to remember as there are only a few stipulation.
Move one piece twice, two pieces once, Capture only on the first move of any piece, and taking a divergent path if moving one piece after capturing.
Well, I guess you might not be interested as to why the game has evolved to what it is, but I found it interesting how these other variants approached the same issues.
I'm definitely biased ... :)
Any movement (aside from the null move if you count that) has a direction; in the knight's case, as with oblique leapers in general, it happens to be between the usual ortho‐ and diagonals, but it's still a direction just as a dabbaba's or alfil's (2‐square leap ortho‐ resp. diagonally) leap. Hence also the nightrider, which makes multiple knight leaps in the same direction (e.g. from a1 to b3,c5,d7 or c2,e3,g4 on 8×8), and with which many readers will be familiar, hence the confusion over the knight's ‘path’.
Fwiw the queen diagram is cool, if a bit daunting‐looking at first
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Please do, it is a wonderfull game!