[ 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⇩ Earliest⇧ Rules of Chess. This is how modern chess was originally referred to in the late 15th century. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Kevin Pacey wrote on 2019-06-09 UTCFor what it's worth, here's the (very detailed) wikipedia entry on Computer chess: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_chess Kevin Pacey wrote on 2016-02-20 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Back rank or smothered checkmates, along with the large number of playable openings from the start position, and a nice average of 40 moves to a game, are some of the more pleasing peculiarities of standard chess that make it harder for other activities or board games of skill to compete. I tend to agree most with Dutch World Chess Champion Max Euwe's relative piece values for the pieces, i.e.: P=1; N=3.5; B=3.5; R=5.5; Q=10, noting that some authorites give K=4 for its fighting value (though naturally it cannot be traded), and also noting Horowitz (and others) rate a bishop as being microscopically better than a knight on average, and in both cases I tend to agree, too, so perhaps correct N to =3.49. Ben Reiniger wrote on 2015-12-09 UTCtest ' and " and / on game page comment also, < and > and & Fergus Duniho wrote on 2015-12-08 UTCTest comment. I replaced the Perl footer with a PHP footer based on the one I already had in the Play subdomain. Anonymous wrote on 2012-04-04 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Thank you so much! Ed wrote on 2012-03-19 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Dear Mr. Gabor: Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think that this is a local feature of chess play that once prevailed in a number of locales in central Europe eastward. I seem to recall Murray in his _History of Chess_ proposing such a feature as evidence of an 'undercurrent' of Mongolization in western chess that would date from the time of the Golden Horde. He also posited the sway of chess clubs, I think, as the most effective instrument for these local customs disappearing, but clearly they endure in Hungary. Gabor Tardos wrote on 2012-03-18 UTCIn my native Hungary many elderly amateur players open the chess game with two legal moves - then black is to respond with two moves followed by standard rules thereafter. I know this is not allowed by the standard set of rules, but I wonder if this variant was ever popular in other countries or is it just a Hungarian thing. Toriah Taylor wrote on 2011-10-18 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Dear Mr. Hans L. Bodlaender, I really loved the instructions it helped me so much I really appreciate you for making these instructions because I really wanted to play against my little sister(whos only ten!) and win instead of losing all of the time so I thank you again Mr. Hans L. Bodlaender for exposing me to the real world of chess!!!! Anonymous wrote on 2011-03-22 UTCGood ★★★★ Fergus Duniho wrote on 2010-12-28 UTCWhen a white Pawn reaches g8, it may promote to a Bishop. Whatever piece a Pawn promotes to, the new piece always replaces the Pawn on the space it moved to, not on another space. So the Bishop would go to g8. Assuming your opponent is trying to keep his Queen, the quickest way is to force an exchange of Queens or to allow your opponent to exchange his Queen for something more valuable, such as two Rooks. The latter might not be advisable, since you will lose the exchange. And even an even exchange is not advisable if you are behind. Even less advisable is to create a position in which a Queen sacrifice on your opponent's part would quickly lead to you being checkmated. This would quickly get you your opponent's Queen but at too high a cost. Remember that the object is to checkmate the King, not to capture the Queen, and capturing the Queen is worthwhile only as a means to this end. Assuming that you don't want to take the Queen at too high a cost, the most effective tactics for getting the Queen are to (1) skewer the King when the Queen is behind the King in the same line of attack, (2) fork the King and Queen, or (3) pin the Queen with a protected piece. When your opponent is forced to choose between protecting the King or the Queen, he will have to choose the King, and you can then take the Queen. Anonymous wrote on 2010-12-28 UTCif moving a pawn to opponants g8 , can this then be promoted to a bishop , if so and the player already has a rook on white diaganals does the promoted new bishop re enter the game on g8 or f8 ? Also whats the quickest way to obtain opponants queen at the start of a game? Phil Munyao wrote on 2010-10-21 UTCGood ★★★★Hi, I assume that the idea behind the online chess is that you are targeting an experienced type of players. However, I wish you had in mind young and new future players and, as such; Please add to the explanatory rules a thorough naming of the characters involved in the chess board. Thank you, P.T Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-09-22 UTCHezekiah, your opponent is correct. No specific move is ever forced in chess unless it is the only possible way to get the king out of check. Hezekiah Barnes wrote on 2010-09-22 UTCI am having a difference of rules understanding with an opponent. I am under the impression that if a pawn has the option to capture an opponent it can not move forward to an empty space if you wish to move it at all. My opponent believes you can move that pawn forward, ignoring the opportunity to capture. John Ayer wrote on 2010-08-31 UTCIf a player erroneously announces checkmate, he loses whatever time it takes to convince him of his error (if the game is actually being timed) and is subject to teasing thereafter. Anonymous wrote on 2010-08-28 UTCIf a player erroniously announces he has the opponent in checkmate, is there a penalty? Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-07-20 UTCHello David Derrick. You asked this question: ''[R]ecently I came across a questionable move for which I cannot find an answer: WHAT IS THE SITUATION WHEN A PAWN, ON ITS FIRST MOVE, TAKES THE OPTION OF THE TWO SPACES ADVANCE AND IN SO DOING MOVES ACROSS A SPACE THAT COULD HAVE WITNESSED ITS CAPTURE BY AN OPPOSING BISHOP? It is virtually an en passant situation, yet I don't believe the Bishop enjoys the same advantage that a pawn has. (It would be the in the case of a Rook, but most unlikely to progress that far.)'' En passant involves only pawns on both sides. While any piece could attack the space the pawn double-steps over, only another, enemy, pawn that attacks the first square of the double step may move into that first square and capture the pawn, which just advanced 2 squares, as if it had only moved one square. No piece in a standard game of chess may make en passant captures. Only pawns may capture or be captured en passant. David Derrick wrote on 2010-07-20 UTCIn the nearly five decades of playing just-for-fun chess, my biggest rewards have been teaching newcomers. This reward has been a doubled-edged sword in that all students eventually began to beat me -- regularly. (Which rather proves my mediocre game skills.) However, recently I came across a questionable move for which I cannot find an answer: WHAT IS THE SITUATION WHEN A PAWN, ON ITS FIRST MOVE, TAKES THE OPTION OF THE TWO SPACES ADVANCE AND IN SO DOING MOVES ACROSS A SPACE THAT COULD HAVE WITNESSED ITS CAPTURE BY AN OPPOSING BISHOP? It is virtually an en passant situation, yet I don't believe the Bishop enjoys the same advantage that a pawn has. (It would be the in the case of a Rook, but most unlikely to progress that far.) I would be greatly appreciative for your comments on this. DAVID DERRICK [email protected] Anonymous wrote on 2010-07-10 UTCWith respect to an illegal move, my position is-if neither player observes the illegal move when it is make and the player who didn't make the illegal move touches his piece in the process of moving after the illegal move has been made, the game continues. Having said that, I believe that it is neither players' obligation to see an illegal move, and if they don't the game continues. This rule should apply especially when a player is in check and neither player see's it at the time, but observes it a move (or several moves later). With respect to resconstructing a poaition, this can only be done if both players agree the reconstructed position is the right one. jake h. wrote on 2010-06-05 UTCpleasantly to-the-point, and very helpful...GREAT JOB!!! M Winther wrote on 2010-05-21 UTCNo, of course not. /Mats kevin wrote on 2010-05-20 UTCDoes I king have to be put in check before you can put him in checkmate? John Ayer wrote on 2010-04-08 UTCWhat you and your friend choose to do is, of course, up to the two of you. I have looked up the rules of chess, which say that if an illegal move has been made, the game must go back to the position before the illegal move and resume from there. If the exact position cannot be recreated, the last known legal position must be re-established, and the game played from there. It appears to me that in an extreme case this could mean going back to the starting position. M Winther wrote on 2010-02-28 UTCNo, a game cannot be annulled. Generally, the play simply continues. It is the competetive aspect that must be emphasized. One doesn't slavishly hold to rules. /Mats John Ayer wrote on 2010-02-28 UTCI think the formal rule is that the game must be returned to the point where the illegal move was played and a legal one played instead, and if that is not possible, the game must be annulled. 25 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.