[ 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 Pole Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating](zzo38) A. Black wrote on 2007-12-22 UTCI have some suggestions what the capturing poles rule can be: You must give check on the turn you are capturing the pole. The pole has to be attacked by 3 pieces at once, one of them capturing the pole. The pole has to be adjacent to a king of any color. Your own pole hasn't been placed yet. Poles can only be captured by pawns. Poles can only be captured by pawns or by promoted pawns. You must give checkmate on the turn you are capturing the pole. You must give check on the turn you are capturing the pole, and any pole must be adjacent to any king, at the same time. Your own pole can capture the opponent's pole, but it must be a king's move away. Poles can only be captured when you are in check. Poles can only be captured when you are in check, and only by the king. You must give discovered check by moving your own pole once in the game before the opponent's pole is allowed to be captured. You can only capture a pole if no other moves are valid. You can choose one, and see which works best, or make your own suggestions as well. (I happen to like the last one.) (zzo38) A. Black wrote on 2012-03-08 UTCOnce I played Pole Chess; neither me nor my opponent used the Pole but both of our moves still took the existence of the pole (off-board) into consideration for our strategies. Malcolm Webb wrote on 2017-06-11 UTCI have posted a Zillions implementation of Piers Anthony's "Pole Chess". I noticed that the Pole does have a few offensive uses, even though Piers Anthony envisioned it as a defensive piece. One of its offensive uses is to block the escape of an enemy King, and thus contribute indirectly to the King being checkmated. I would therefore suspect that the "Pole-capturing" rule should make the game MORE "drawish". My Zillions-rules file has one default version and nine different variants. The default version does not allow the Pole to ever be captured. Each of the nine variants has its own "Pole-capturing" rule: VARIANT ONE: The King may take the enemy Pole if it is in check and it has no other move. VARIANT TWO: You may take the enemy Pole if you are in check. VARIANT THREE: Your King may take the enemy Pole. VARIANT FOUR: You may take the enemy Pole with any piece if it is next to your King. VARIANT FIVE: A Pole may suicide-capture the enemy Pole with a King-move. VARIANT SIX: A Pole may take the enemy Pole with a King-move, but can be captured normally from then on. VARIANT SEVEN: If a Pole gives discovered check, it may be captured normally from then on. VARIANT EIGHT: A Pole can capture and be captured if your King is in check and has no other move. VARIANT NINE: Your Pole may suicide-capture the enemy Pole if by so doing you will "bare" your king. Only my rule in Variant Two is identical to the rules proposed by A. Black: it is identical to his rules X and XI (these two rules are identical if you think about them). Lily Dawn wrote on 2020-03-21 UTCI do expect this to be more drawish than fide chess. I think you would need to pair this with some other significant changes to the game in order to fully take advantage of it. Like maybe more power on the board, or another win condition, or a drop mechanic or something. I'm most interested in what this would do to the opening though. That would be fun to see. 4 comments displayedEarlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ LaterPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.