Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ 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 LaterLatest
Marseillais Chess. Move twice per turn. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on Fri, Nov 15, 2002 05:39 PM UTC:
<blockquote> The second art that I acquired in Pentonville [prison] was so-called 'Marseilles chess.' It was invented by an elderly Frenchman, with a red scarf around his neck, who taught it to me during exercise hours. In this game, each player in turn makes two moves instead of one—the only restriction being that the first of the two moves should not be a check to the King. To the chess-addict is this a nerve-racking experience which shatters his outlook and upsets all his values. Hitler and the Gestapo have faded into the past, but the memory of Marseilles chess in Pentonville still makes me shudder. </blockquote> Arthur Koestler<br> Introduction to <i>The Scum of the Earth</i> (1954) <br><br> Contributed by <br> Thane Plambeck<br> <a href='http://www.qxmail.com'>http://www.qxmail.com</a>

Andreas Kaufmann wrote on Thu, Jan 30, 2003 10:57 PM UTC:
When I was in school, we played Marseillais Chess with the following variation: if you are given a check, you should move the King from the check and you move only once this turn. This gives attacking side a big advantage: you can move one of your pieces, then give a check - the opponent must move the King and can't do the second move. The games were very tactical, once you gain an initiative, you usually try to keep it at any cost, sacrificing pieces to get the enemy King into open space, where you can keep checking it.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Tue, Feb 25, 2003 03:47 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
This looks like an interesting game, but I don't wonder why no Zillions file is listed for it. This one would seem to be a difficult game to implement. The rule against checking on the first move may be difficult to implement, unless it's just impossible. I haven't analyzed the matter far enough to know whether it's possible. For each possible move, Zillions would have to check whether the enemy King would be in check. There is no query function for this, and even if there was one, it might be very costly. One might note the enemy King's location, then keep checking whether it is defended. But I'm not sure that this will work.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Tue, Feb 25, 2003 04:08 AM UTC:
Zillions of Games comes with a game called 'Double-Move Chess
(Checkmate),' whose description says, 'Checking the opponent is only
allowed on the second move.' To test whether it enforced this rule, I
played both sides. After moving all four center Pawns forward, I captured
the Black King with two moves from the light-squared White Bishop. The
game went like this: e2-e4, d2-d4; d7-d5, e7-d5; B f1-b5, B b5-e8.
Although the rule was stated in the description, the ZRF did not enforce
it.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Wed, Feb 26, 2003 01:31 AM UTC:
Mike, How about creating a neutral player who only has a dummy piece. The neutral player's move would go between the two same-color moves. That should cause Zillions to evaluate check after the first move. The neutral player should not be detectable in actual play, the moves list, etc.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Feb 26, 2003 03:26 AM UTC:
I'm thinking the two moves should be of different move-types. The second
move can first check whether the enemy King is in check.

For example, preceed each move of the second move-type with (no-check?).

Link all spaces on board with next direction.

(define no-check? mark a1 (while (or (not-piece? King) (not-enemy?)) next)
(verify not-defended) back)

This searches for the enemy King's position, verifies whether its
position is defended, which means the current player is threatening that
space, then returns to the position of the piece moving.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Feb 26, 2003 03:33 AM UTC:
I just reread your message. My idea was for something you already know how to do. But the principle behind it might be re-employed for making the King move out of check on the first move. Use two move-types. On the second move-type, check whether your King is in check. Search for the King's position, then check whether its position is attacked. I think you can just replace 'not-enemy?' with 'not-friend?' and 'defended?' with 'not-attacked?'. This will allow a second move only when the King is not in check. Thus, it will have to get out of check on the first move to get out of check at all.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Feb 26, 2003 03:45 AM UTC:
I expect these two ideas could be combined together for greater efficiency. Search for a King. When one is found, verify that it's either an undefended enemy King or an unattacked friend King. If that verification succeeds, continue searching for the other King. Check whether it's either an undefended enemy King or an unattacked friend King. If that verification succeeds, the move can proceed. So, it works like this. A second move is allowed only if neither King is in check. So, this ends a turn when the first move is a check, and it forces a player to get out of check on the first move.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Wed, Feb 26, 2003 04:06 PM UTC:
I've had an additional thought on how to make a Marseillais Chess ZRF more
optimized. Between each player's first and second move, have a dummy
player check whether either King is in check, placing a piece on a
specified location if either King is in check, and clearing the same space
if no King is in check. Then on the second move, each piece just verifies
that this space is empty before moving. This will eliminate a whole lot of
overhead caused by multiple checks of whether any King is in check.

It might also be useful to use two spaces instead of one. Checking both
spaces could be done with an or. Doing this would reduce a bit of
overhead. There could be two dummy players, a white dummy and a black
dummy. Each could first check for a marker indicating that it's side is
in check. If so, it would check whether it's still in check. If it was
empty, it would not have to check whether it's in check. In either case,
it would check whether it's side has placed the other side in check.

Another advantage of this would be the presence of visible check
indicators for each side. Zillions does not normally tell you when you're
in check. This would be a nice side effect of implementing the game in
this way.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Wed, Feb 26, 2003 06:21 PM UTC:
The marker could simply be the same King piece image with some kind of change, such as a red outline, or some such, illustrating that the King is under attack. Adds an element of drama to the game....

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Feb 27, 2003 12:38 AM UTC:
Okay, I'll see what I can do. I believe it's doable, though some things might work out differently in the details.

11 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.