The Chess Variant Pages

[ 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
Bishops Conversion Rule. Rule for variant where bishops start on equal colored squares, with sample games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Carlos Cetina wrote on 2019-08-25 UTC

OK. Thanks!

Greg Strong wrote on 2019-08-25 UTC

Great, thank you.  That is what I had expected.  I will update the page to incorporate this.

Carlos Cetina wrote on 2019-08-25 UTC

Hi Greg:

The wording is from Hans based on the info I sent him by email and I admit that it can be somewhat confusing because I really had not considered the possibility that you refer until Mike Nelson pointed out it in a comment wrote on Oct 21/2002.

My answer is that said remaining bishop would have FREE CHOICE to be converted or moved normally according to the color of the square in which it is placed.

Greg Strong wrote on 2019-08-24 UTC

Question -

This says "for one of the bishops of the player, the first move made with this bishop must be [a conversion]".  But what if a player has a bishop captured before either has moved?  The wording makes it sound like the other bishop would still be required to convert, but my guess is that is not what was intended.  I would think that if a bishop is captured before either has moved, the other one would be able to convert but would not be required to convert.  Carlos, can you please clarify?


Jose Carrillo wrote on 2008-02-22 UTC
Maura's Modern Chess already has a solution for the 'Bishop Conversion' to the light squares.

Modern Chess has the 'Bishop Castling' rule, where one, and only one, of the Bishops is allowed to swap places with the Knight, Queen or Minister adjacent to it.

Neither of the pieces involved in the 'Bishop Castling' must have moved before, and the move is optional.

Unlike Carlos Cetina's Bishop Conversion Rule, which mandates one of the Bishops to convert to the light squares; Maura's Bishop Castling is just an option.

If a player is confortable playing with 2 Bishops on the dark squares, he may choose to do so. But he may end up playing against a formation that has Bishops on both light and dark squares.

George Duke wrote on 2007-10-30 UTC
In 1990's the effort was apparent to describe in terms of alternatives to Classical Chess as part of mission. Here Bodlaender's first paragraph and also year 2002 Comments by others set context of Carlos Cetina's particular solution. Carlos Cetina from Mexico proposed Bishop Conversion Rule, one of a side's Bishops moving only once per game orthogonally one step, as far back as 1983, now used elsewhere than 9x9. In a separate offer Cetina has nothing to do with, follow the link at the second section. It appears one can still order Professor Michael Corinthios' 1977-patented ''symmetric chess'', also configured 9x9 ''the game of the millennium'' from the warehouse in Avon, Ohio, USA, for 30+USD. Carlos Cetina can be heralded as the best of 1000 contributors in providing sample games here, in Sissa Chess, and in Coherent Chess. Also credit both developers, Cetina and Dr. Corinthios, for having no use of poor awkward overworked Knight-compounds RN and BN, that Orthodox-driven players perennially revive to keep their comfort zones. Well, two Queens are not very novel nor is the Conversion Rule itself, as will be seen, so this CV is not nearly matching Cetina's other couple CVs which have the interesting multi-path Sissas. Someone just Commented about Modern Chess, also 9x9, having one of those (BN) copied over and over from year 1617 Carrera's(Centaur BN).

David Paulowich wrote on 2007-05-23 UTCGood ★★★★

The Dragon Horse may be worth as much as a pair of Knights (even more on larger boards). In Fergus Duniho's Caïssa Britannia the Bishop can also make a noncapturing Wazir move. Has anyone determined the value of this piece? The Bishops Conversion Rule would become unnecessary.

This 'Augmented Bishop' may be approximately the same strength as the 'Long Knight', which I define to be a Nightrider that is limited to making one or two Knight-leaps. Worth considering on large board variants.

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on 2007-05-23 UTC
if one of the two bishops is captured, it is still the case that neither have moved. I would give the bishop free choice.

(I would give the bishop a knight move instead of a wazir move. But this is just me.)

Mike Nelson wrote on 2002-10-22 UTC
How does the rule apply if one of a player's Bishops is captured before either Bishop's first move? Is the other Bishop required to convert, prohibited from converting, or allowed free choice?

Mike Nelson wrote on 2002-10-22 UTC

Try giving each Bishop three piece attributes moved?, must-convert? and
cant-convert?, all set initially to false.  

When attempting to move a Bishop, check the attributes of that Bishop.
If all three attributes are false, neither Bishop has moved. Choose a
normal move or a conversion and look for the other Bishop on its starting
square (it will be there unless it has been captured) and if you choose a
normal move set the other Bishop's must-convert? to true, if you choose a
conversion, set the other Bishop's cant-convert? to true. Set the first
Bishop's moved? to true.

When checking the Bishop to be moved, if moved? is true, the Bishop has
moved before and only normal moves are allowed.  If moved? is false, and
the other Bishop has moved, exactly one of must-convert? and cant-convert?
will be true. Choose the appropriate move and set the Bishop's moved? to

Nuno Cruz wrote on 2002-10-20 UTCGood ★★★★
can anyone tell me how to implement this on zillions? :-)

11 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.