[ 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 Drawless Chess. Simple rules are added to make draws impossible. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anonymous wrote on 2004-09-05 UTCYou forgot about one possibility: draw by agreement (zzo38) A. Black wrote on 2005-06-14 UTCGood ★★★★Draw by agreement? That is not important, becuase if one player didn't like draw by agreement, he simply wouldn't agree! Joshua Morris wrote on 2005-07-22 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I love it. Draws are far too common in OrthoChess. A hard-fought battle to the draw can be satisfying, but most - stalemates, draws where one side has two knights while the other is left with a bare king - are unsatisfying. David Paulowich wrote on 2005-12-09 UTCPoor ★'I'm not going to pin down exactly when agreeing to a draw is advisable, but if I hear of anyone playing a game of Scirocco that lasts thousands of moves, I will be very disappointed' - Adrian King (1999) Drawless Chess is not a game variant. It is simply a comment. Any debate should be moved to Adrian King's 'Scirocco' page. Anonymous wrote on 2006-08-15 UTCCan a king move into opponents throne but also into a check? Charles Daniel wrote on 2007-08-24 UTCPoor ★Agreed that this is not a variant. Thought the throne square marked with X has some strategic points though. There is no draw problem in chess. (Agreed draws among Grandmasters and openings being played out is a problem for EXTREMELY high level chess) Chess is not a spectator sport. Play the game yourself - unless you are a 2500+ rated player you will not get more than 5-10% draws. Of course 2 knights and king vs king is a draw - it should have been a hard fought draw though. Complaining about draws indicates inadequate understanding of chess and/or excessive obsession with grandmaster games (while not playing any at all). Stalemate is ironically a very logical outcome which is why it was introduced. The king must be captured by the opposite side - if there is no move available, it *can* kill itself. Charles Daniel wrote on 2007-08-24 UTCOne more thing though: If the inventor had concentrated only on point 1 - the throne square - we might have something. I think this variant would work discarding points 2 + 3 (make 3 move repetition a draw, stalemate a draw just as in standard chess) . It is illegal to move to throne square if you put yourself in check. It could be interesting because sometimes even a bare king vs king and rook may win! Too bad, this idea was sunk by the *need* to correct an imaginary 'flaw' in chess. Rich Hutnik wrote on 2008-04-28 UTCGood ★★★★With my Corner Chess game, I to propose a variant where the objective is to get a king across the board. That is similar to this. I am in favor of this as a mutator win conditions. I don't believe this is the end all and be all, as it changes the nature of chess, but is a useful addition to the chess variant community that works with most chess variants. Anonymous wrote on 2010-04-21 UTCIs there any game with two types of stalemate: first type - any move will put king in check, and it's lose for stalmated player; second type - pieces can't move at all, because they are blocked, and it's draw? I think, such stalemate rules are logical! Anonymous wrote on 2010-05-03 UTCI think, the best way to make drawless chess was used in one old histprical variant: changi, Korean chess. 10 comments displayedEarlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ LaterPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.