The Chess Variant Pages
Custom Search




[ 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
This item is a reference work
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2001-01-04
Kriegspiel - Cincinnati Style. A description of Kriegspiel as played in Cincinnati in the 1970's, with a discussion of why those particular rules were used.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on 2010-01-18 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
About 'nonsense': One should opt to use a set of rules to decide nonsense moves, as no one would like to do full retrograde analysis to an awkward pawn structure just to decide between 'No' and 'Nonsense'...

DrDave wrote on 2006-10-27 UTC

The algebraic should read:

25. Rxe6 Bg2 26. Re5 Bh3

KUTGW

cheers

D


Michael Nelson wrote on 2003-04-15 UTC
Cincinnati-style Kriegspiel should be playable by different armies--the rules specify that only pawn/piece is announced for a capture, not which piece. The CWDA promotion rule needs to be modified to allow pawn promotion only to pieces in one's own army--otherwise you would have to know what army the other player is using to know your promotion choices. (This weakens the Colorbound Clobberers a bit in the endgame--the CC's often promote a pawn to the other side's Queen piece.) Check announcements need consideration--what does the referee say if the player is checked by a Camel? This is a Knightish type check, but not on the same squares as would be indicated by 'check by Knight'. A check from a Half-Duck three sqaures away may still be 'on the file', but the player's legal moves are different than if the same check were by a Rook or Queen (interposing is useless, but retreating on the file may work.) Perhaps the best check announcement rule for KWDA is simply to announce 'check' with no directional indication.

gnohmon wrote on 2002-06-15 UTC
It occurs to me that one might attempt to play Kriegspiel with Different Armies. Of course, you don't know in advance what army the other player has! If the armies must be chosen from a short list of predefined armies, the player who makes the first capture of a non-Pawn gets a big advantage of knowledge (in addition to any material advantage). Perhaps this makes it a bad game.

Mike Nelson wrote on 2002-06-14 UTCGood ★★★★
On the whole, a significant improvement on standard Kriegspiel. A possible rule to distinguish 'No' from 'Nonsense': A move is 'nonsense' if the player can determine it is illegal from the player's own position and the referee's last announcement. No more remote inferences are considered. Examples of detemining illegality from the announcement: 1. 'Black captures at d1' White attemting Ra1-g1 is nonsense. 2. 'Black checks on the long diagonal' White attempting to capture or interpose on the file is nonsense. On the other hand: 'Black captures at b1' on the previous turn, folowed by 'Black capures at d1' on the current turn, then Ra1-g1 is nonsense but Ra1-c1 is no. (In fact, it could be legal as Black's moves could have been Qxb1, Qxd1 or similar.)

5 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.