The Chess Variant Pages




[ 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 UTC
You 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 UTC
Can 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 UTC
One 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 UTC
Is 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 UTC
I think, the best way to make drawless chess was used in one old histprical variant: changi, Korean chess.

10 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.