[ 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 Forward Chess. Variant where backward movement is limited. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anonymous wrote on 2005-02-25 UTCHave you tried Sideways Chess yet? If not, can you tell me if it is a workable idea? P.S. You must be wondering about the rules, and so I will tell you. Every piece has limited sideways movement, this will definitely affect Queens and Rooks, this may also affect Bishops, Knights, and Pawns, but they would gain from it instead. Please try it! I will be looking forward to your thoughts on it!- JCR Charles Gilman wrote on 2004-02-20 UTCFurther to Peter Aronson's question and the anonymous suggestion, Feedback Chess could be a variant where a backward move could not capture a piece on the destination but could reintroduce a captured piece on the departure square - feeding them back into the game. Whether the pieces reintroduced should be those captured by the enemy or (as in Shogi) ones own captives but changing sides is open to discussion, and would influence the choice of physical set used (FIDE-array variants can be played with Shogi or even Xiang Qi sets). Anonymous wrote on 2004-02-04 UTCForward Chess is a highly positional game. Material is important only as far as it lets you control the board. Three Queens on the enemy back rank will usually lose to a lone king on its own third rank--the King 'runs for the border' and the Queens can't catch it. The strong side can win if its King can reach the eight rank first. Gaining the opposition is probably not sufficient, the strong side will tend to lose by triple repetition. Capturing a piece with the next lower ranking piece is a particularly strong move: the newly created piece defends the capturing piece. Another powerful capturing move is the 'split fork' where the capturing piece attacks one piece and the created piece attacks another. Michael Nelson wrote on 2004-01-27 UTCYesterday I tried several varieties of Backward Chess adapted from these rules and none seemed playable. When Peter published Feebback Chess, I tried a backward version of it. (Would that be Feebfore Chess?) I have been unable to find a way to make the pawns workable--it always seems too hard to break up pawn formations. Doug Chatham wrote on 2004-01-26 UTCWould Backward Chess be playable? Anonymous wrote on 2004-01-25 UTCFeedback Chess: The players are hooked to electrodes and receive electric shocks when their pieces are captured...<evil grin> Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2004-01-25 UTCCorrected! Michael Nelson wrote on 2004-01-25 UTCPeter, Sorry about that typo--I know the correct name of your fine game, but my fingers don't work so well sometimes. As for no draws by agreement, the rest of the rules by design make it impossible for a game played to a conclusion to be drawn. My feeling is that the players cannot agree on an impossible result, any more than two players of FIDE Chess are able to agree to split the point 3/4 - 1/4. My reason for a drawless game is personal one: playtesting and analysis indicate draws would be extremely rare using checkmate and King to the eighth rank as win conditions. I simply dislike the idea of a draw rate of say 1/2%. The fifty move rule is arbitrary, but will never be invoked by skilled players: the player with the won position can win quicker than that. Peter Aronson wrote on 2004-01-25 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Looks to be an excellent combination of elements. But why no draws by agreement? <p> BTW, it's <u>Feebback Chess</u>, not <u>Feedback Chess</u>. Now I'm wondering what Feedback Chess would be like. 9 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.