[ 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 Doublemove chess. Move twice per turn, with by King capture, not checkmate. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Rodrigo Zanotelli wrote on 2012-03-09 UTCYes, Jeremy I got it now. Thanks. The problem was, that when you said 'The obvious generalization of the rules of check is that the king is in check if it could be captured before the owner's next move' I was thinking that, if in the first enemy turn, your king is not in check, but the enemy will be able to put your king in check; this would not count as putting your king into check, because the enemy is putting your into a check situation and not you. Also rule 1.2 from f.i.d.e. chess handbook, talks about not being able to capture the king: '[...]â€™capturingâ€™ the opponentâ€™s king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game.' http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=124&view=article George Duke wrote on 2012-03-07 UTCCorrection that Limited Doublemove, also commented the same time, would be fifteenth chronologically, but this Doublemove an early one around 5th of important plural-movers the cv subgenre. Jeremy Lennert wrote on 2012-03-07 UTCThe fact that you can't capture the king in FIDE chess is a *consequence* of the check rules, not a separate rule. Any move that would give your opponent the opportunity to capture your king is illegal; the issue of whether you're allowed to make the capture if you had the opportunity therefore never comes up, but the easiest way to explain the concept of check in the first place is by reference to the hypothetical capture of the king. So, to recap, the laws of chess do not allow you to make a move that leaves your king 'in check'. If 'in check' means 'able to be captured by your opponent before YOUR next move', then when your opponent is about to get 2 consecutive moves, it would be illegal for you to make a move that results in a board position where your king could be captured within 2 opponent moves. Thus, players would need to foresee the capture 2 moves in advance just to check whether a particular move was legal. It would still not be possible to actually capture the king, because every possible series of legal moves would result in the king being checkmated (and thus trigger the end of the game) before such a capture actually occurred. (Exactly as in FIDE Chess.) Rodrigo Zanotelli wrote on 2012-03-07 UTCI used my user id in the name instead of the user id text field, when I made the comment. Jeremy, the rules of f.i.d.e. chess states that you can't capture the enemy king. In the case of the idea that I was talking about, where 'mating' the king on the first turn not result in a win (because not moving on the next turn would not count as not having legal moves), 'mating' the enemy using the first of your two turns, would not result in a stalemate situation, if the player is still able to make a movement on the second turn that not capture the enemy king. Jeremy said: 'The obvious generalization of the rules of check is that the king is in check if it could be captured before the owner's next move' So this generalization means that the 'the opponent has no legal move.' part of this rules: 'The objective of each player is to place the opponentâ€™s king â€˜under attackâ€™ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.', means that: Not being able to move because the next turn is the enemy one, counts as having no legal moves. With that this means that the variant I was creating would be: Turn order: White, Black, Black, White If you mate the enemy king on the first of your two consecutive turns, he would not have legal moves (because the next turn is your turn), so you win the game. Also using this generalization of the rules you wouldn't need to check if king could be captured within 2 moves, only the first one. The player would be able to put his king in a situation where the enemy player can't put him in check using the first of his 2 consecutive turns, but would be able to do that in the second one. In f.i.d.e while choosing what movement you will do, you only for check the within next enemy turn. The key thing here is something I maybe forgot to say/explain about my variant idea: The 2 consecutive turns, are not '2 turns into one', but different ones. The thing is that the turns are alternating, first the turn order is white, black and then the turn order changes to Black, white, then it changes again back to white, Black, and then it changes again... Thanks George Duke, I usually search here, but most of the time only to check if there is already chess variants with some variant name I was thinking about, also the variant is not finished yet. Also the ideas I get with this variant will be used on other variants I am creating, even if there is a variant that is 100% equal my one, the ideas of this variant will still be usefull. George Duke wrote on 2012-03-06 UTCEXDEATH says, I didn't know this variant existed and was creating a very similar one. It's not a good idea anymore to design without assuming things pretty similar have already been done. What you do, is go to the main index and find upwards of fifty CVs under ''Multi-move variants,'' of which this Doublemove chess is one, about the fifteenth(15th) chronologically. CVPage has twice or more the CVs of both 'ECV' issues. There is similar research available logically to see what is already invented each sub-genre in comments, glossaries and guides on and off site, but mostly now Howe's and Gilman's. Hi Ralph, hopefully here for a while, there are many questions that professional cvers would have to ask. --heh, as Professor Barnhardt says to Klaatu in 1951 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'. Jeremy Lennert wrote on 2012-03-06 UTCSo you're suggesting that checking the enemy king with the first of your two moves would result in a stalemate? Interesting, though it seems like that could be unsatisfying, and might cause a lot of draws. The obvious generalization of the rules of check is that the king is in check if it could be captured before the owner's next move (which in a doublemove variant would often mean within 2 opposing moves), but this has a couple of issues: 1) It is not always easy to tell when a piece could be captured within 2 moves, making it hard to determine when someone is in 'check' 2) The force required to checkmate a king that can move twice consecutively is quite substantial (see Betza's commentary on Monster Chess here: http://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/chessvar/muenster.html ) And thus, various alternate rules proliferate to attempt to solve these problems. I invented a doublemove variant in high school (which I imagine has been duplicated by many other inventors both before and since) that required the two moves on a turn to be made with different pieces, and also stipulated that the second piece to move could not pass through the square that the first piece started on (thus, no instant revealed attacks). This has the advantage that a king is in check in any given board position if and only if he would be in check under the FIDE rules, and the doublemove helps only a little bit in escaping check (since the king cannot move twice). I don't know if that would be considered a 'true' doublemove variant, though, since no indivual piece can move twice during a turn. My variant also has obvious generalizations to three or more moves per turn that probably play equally well. I only ever played it once, though. exdeath wrote on 2012-03-05 UTCGood ★★★★Wow, I didnt knew this variant existed and was creating a very similar one. Turn order on my variant is White, Black, Black, White. It would have check rules. But I dont know what check rules use: I want to keep the F.i.d.e chess rules spirit. The rules says that 'The objective of each player is to place the opponentâ€™s king â€˜under attackâ€™ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have â€˜checkmatedâ€™ the opponentâ€™s king and to have won the game.' If you put the enemy in check in first of your two turns, the fact that he will not be able to get out of check on next turn (since you will be the one that will move), could count as putting the opponentâ€™s king â€˜under attackâ€™ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move? Also remember that f.i.d.e. chess rules says that'â€™capturingâ€™ the opponentâ€™s king are not allowed', if mating on the first turn doenst count as a win, this would create some stalemate situation where you put the enemy king into check on the first turn but can't capture on the second one and also have no legal moves. Fabrice Liardet wrote on 2005-01-14 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Classic and very entertaining game. Castelli wrote a good monography on it, published by the late AISE, but I don't know where it can be found now. 8 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.