[ 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 Fibonacci (Sequence) Chess. Move your opponent's pieces on certain turns. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Steve Costa wrote on 2004-10-17 UTCJust a follow-up, something I thought of: perhaps you should not be able to check your own pieces with your opponent's move. That seems to give a huge advantage to Black: as Black will play White's move first, White on Black's move will frequently have few options as he has to move the Black piece out of check. This is maybe less of a problem in the variant where a player 'steals' his opponent's move instead of the players switching for a turn, as if a player gives check to his own pieces, he will be the one who has to spend a turn getting out of it. I like my idea but I am realizing how difficult it is to write about!! :) Oh, and I'm registered now as well. Steve Costa wrote on 2004-10-17 UTCMatt, you are correct - if you are playing the White pieces, you are always trying to win for White, even if you are making a move with the black pieces. That is why you cannot make illegal moves. I do agree PFC sounds best for the other, original, Fibonacci variant. It IS a progressive variant. As far as an improved name for my own, that's tougher, as while it is one basic idea it has elements of many different games (it's almost like a game of Double Agent, except every piece could be a double agent!). Maybe it should be called Sequential Misdirection Chess - as you will most likely 'mis-direct' your opponent's pieces at the pre-determined move intervals. The main variant could then be Fibonacci Misdirection Chess. Thoughts? Matthew Paul wrote on 2004-10-17 UTCFair enough. Although it isn't good practice to rename variants, the other one really should have progressive in it's name. Progressive Fibocanni Chess is the most logical name for that game. I still think you should keep the Fibocanni link in your name, so you can make variants on other number patterns with the same rules. 'Fibocanni Switcheroo' or whatever. On the game itself, I'm still a bit unclear how the moving the opponent's pieces works. I understand when it happens now, but it needs to be clarified how check works etc. Are you always 'playing' for one side, or are you trying to win with your current side? It seems to be the former but it's not clear. Steve Costa wrote on 2004-10-17 UTCMaybe it should have been called 'Switcheroo,' then? Or perhaps the other one should be known as Progressive Fibonacci Chess? It's a progressive variant. I did point out the existence of another variant named Fibonacci in my email to the editors; I'm not really picky so I'm sure they can straighten it out. Matthew Paul wrote on 2004-10-16 UTCI noticed. The two variants I mentioned were identical, I believe. I said nothing on how your variant relates to them in content. My comment was on the name. The name 'Fibocanni Chess' is already taken. Therefore this variant should be called 'Costa's Fibonacci Chess' or 'Fibonacci Sequence Chess' or similar to avoid confusion. Steve Costa wrote on 2004-10-16 UTCMatthew, This is NOT a progressive chess variant. No matter who is doing the moving, one White piece moves, then one Black piece moves. While it is true that a player may make 2-3 moves in succession, one of them will be for the opponent's pieces, not his own. I am aware of the other FibChess, but that is a progressive variant, as far as I could tell. Steve Costa wrote on 2004-10-16 UTCHere is a clarification edit for the move sequence: 1. B W / 2. B W / 3. B W / 4. W B / 5. B W / 6. W B / 7. W B / 8. B W / 9. W B / 10. W B which could be re-written as: 1. bW wB / 2. bW Wb / 3. bW wB / 4. wW bB / 5. bW wB / 6. wW bB / 7. wW bB / 8. bW wB / 9. wW bB / 10. wW bB The lower case letter is the player who 'owns' a set of pieces, and the upper case letter is the set of pieces that player is moving. So this would essentially be: 'for Move 1: the Black player moves a White piece in lieu of the White player taking his own turn, and then the White player moves a Black piece in lieu of the Black player taking his own turn' -- and this would happen for moves 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13... etc. The other variant, where instead of switching one player plays both his moves as well as his opponent's for certain turns, would then be as follows: 1. bW wB / 2. bW bB / 3. wW wB / 4. wW bB / 5. bW bB / 6. wW bB / 7. wW bB / 8. wW wB / 9. wW bB / 10. wW bB I hope this makes things clearer. Matthew Paul wrote on 2004-10-16 UTCThere is already another variant called Fibonacci Chess on this site. I came across it by random link: http://www.chessvariants.com/multimove.dir/fibonacci.html The same variant (I think) was though of by Ralph Betza, but not named. http://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/chessvar/prnew.html Peter Aronson wrote on 2004-10-16 UTCThere seems to be something missing here -- I see nothing explaining the connection between the Fibonacci sequence and the move sequence. One does <strong>not</strong> seem to follow from the other. 9 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.