Check out Atomic Chess, our featured variant for November, 2024.


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

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
Ambiguous Chess. A modest variant, similar to Refusal Chess. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Filip Rachunek wrote on Mon, May 15, 2006 07:55 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Play this variant on BrainKing.

Fabrice Liardet wrote on Thu, Jun 16, 2005 08:00 AM UTC:
Yes, it is perfectly playable with the rule that you can't put your opponent into check. I prefer it with the original rule because of the mating combinations it provides, but that is just a matter of taste. As for stalemate=win, fine with me of course. The two-piece rule sounds more artificial, it could be an idea if it becomes clear that endgames are too difficult to win. <p>Some time ago, somebody pointed out to me that a pawn should be promoted by the owner's opponent, which makes sense. I would like to add this to the standard rules.

zzo38 wrote on Thu, Jun 16, 2005 03:52 AM UTC:
I play that the opponent is not allowed to force you to put yourself into check. Also, if you have no legal moves, or only 2 units left (1 king and 1 other), you also lose. This makes it faster

Fabrice Liardet wrote on Sat, Feb 5, 2005 08:22 PM UTC:
According to the rules, Moisés is absolutely right. I am now thinking that one might better solve that question and the more delicate one of castling through check in a radical way by prohibiting castling completely.

Mark Thompson wrote on Sun, Jan 23, 2005 07:46 PM UTC:
Alternatively, you could castle by pointing to two squares, and declaring you intend to make a move that will occupy both of them. Since the only way that could be done would be by castling, it could not be refused.

Moisés Solé wrote on Sun, Jan 23, 2005 09:32 AM UTC:
So, in this game, it's impossible to castle if the opponent doesn't want you to castle, right?

6 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.