The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search




[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier Reverse Order Later
This item is a game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2001-09-29
 Author: Hans L. Bodlaender. Inventor: Pierre  Monréal. Circe Chess. Captured pieces return to their original square. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
George Duke wrote on 2008-07-08 UTCGood ★★★★
Jeliss lists Circean piece, and Trenholme's list of games compiled Circe Chess in 1995. Bodlaender calls Circe Chess ''rather slow.'' Why? Because, the only ways to lose a piece are if, once ''captured,'' it has no legal return square or if that would result in check. The rule for RNB eliminates having to keep track of the exact originating square. Instead, the capturee is to be put back to the different-colour array square of its piece-type. Trenholme says same-colour, but either way it shrinks to one empty square only for the piece to stay on board. Like Alice Chess, where the original form is largely left alone, we have also uncharacterically been spared the umpteen variants possible of Circe, with nod to the progressive mutators to speed things up.

P. Raican wrote on 2009-11-29 UTC
The solution of h=4, Circe ends with stalemate (not mate).

Flowerman wrote on 2010-04-06 UTC
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circe_chess
-there are many interesting variants of this variant.

Flowerman wrote on 2010-04-06 UTC
By the way, it will be funny to play circle chess together with crazyhouse or chessgi - number of pieces will grow!

Karlo wrote on 2013-01-16 UTC
Note that the King is not subject to the rebirth rule -- i.e., normal check and checkmate rules apply. (As opposed to it being legal to leave the King attacked, when its capture would merely return it to its home square instead of removing it from play and ending the game.)

Johnny Luken wrote on 2015-04-03 UTC
As it is with progressive chess, this games mechanic seems a perfect foil for a conversion based game.

Most conventional conversion based variants use a drop in rule for piece reintroduction, which I would consider too cheap, as it nominally gives all pieces full access to the board as a first turn. It also arguably ruins the flow of a game.

Reverse circe would solve this problem nicely.

Thomas wrote on 2016-08-04 UTC

Is it allowed to remove a check by having the reborn piece block the attack?

Say white King on h2 attacked by black bishop b8, White captures a black pawn b3xc4, pawn is reborn on c7.


Fergus Duniho wrote on 2016-08-04 UTC

My reading of the rules is that you can. The only new rule pertaining to check says, "One may not capture a piece when the piece gives check from the position where it is put back." The piece to be put back is always the opponent's piece, and given the pieces used in this game, it is impossible for a piece drop of one of your opponent's pieces to put your opponent in check. But dropping an opponent's piece could put your own King in check. As stated, the rule has two possible interpretations, and one describes an impossible situation. When I first read the rule, I interpreted it to mean that when you drop a piece, and it places a King in check, it is temporarily immune from capture. This describes an impossible situation, because it would never put the opponent into check, and given the rule in chess that a move may not leave one's own King in check, it would already be illegal for a player to make a move that ends up placing his own King in check from the dropped piece. The other interpretation is what I just pointed out is already a rule of Chess, and it is less confusingly stated in the subjunctive, "One may not capture a piece when dropping it back on the board would give check from the position where it is put back." Pritchard states the same rule as "A capture cannot be made if the replacement puts the player's K in check." Put this way, this is just a statement of a rule that naturally follows from saying that the game is played like Chess except for the other rules already given. There is no need to state this rule explicitly, since it is already implied, but it has been given, perhaps for emphasis or in case it is not obvious to everyone. Anyway, it is just an application of the rule that you cannot place yourself in check, and it has no bearing on whether a piece drop may block a revealed check.


Fergus Duniho wrote on 2016-08-04 UTC

Here is something not explicitly addressed in the rules. Suppose I move a pinned piece to capture another piece whose transfer to another space on the board blocks the check that the capturing piece was originally blocking. The move temporarily exposes my King to check, but it doesn't leave the King in check at the end of the move. In games like Magnetic Chess and Doublemove Chess, exposing a King to capture is legal, but these games also do away with check and checkmate. In games like Alice Chess or Extra Move Chess, it is never legal to move a King into check even when the completed move would not leave the King in check. This game does include check and checkmate, and I'll assume that every move must be a legal Chess move even before the transfer of the captured piece.


9 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.