[ 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 Chess36. Game with invisible piece set up.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Greg Strong wrote on 2017-10-04 UTCNo doubts - was only seeking clarification. Thank you, I think we've now covered every circumstance I can think of. Joel wrote on 2017-10-03 UTCMr. Greg, after White plays 3. Bxg8, Black will immediately recapture the Bishop with the rook (Black also had the option to play 2...Bxc4). In that case, Black will only have to reveal the placement of the Queen's rook. He need not place a knight or a bishop on b8 indicating the captured piece. He can decide later in the game about the minor piece to be given up by making a move from the other pair. I hope I've answered your doubts. Thank you. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2017-10-03 UTCI already invented that game, along with a bunch of other symmetric variants. It is called Symposium Chess, and they are all described in Experiments in Symmetry. Greg Strong wrote on 2017-10-03 UTCInteresting. Not long ago, I was consideding ways to make the Chess array symmetric, and I came up with the idea of having the king and queen remained undifferentiated until a move makes it so. I believe my idea was exactly the same as David's game except that the uncertianty applies only to the king and queen. (I was thinking about it in quantum mechanics terms as that was what I was reading about at the time - the king and queen are in a superposition of being both a king and a queen, and their wavefunctions are entangled so as soon as one becomes a king, the other becomes a queen.) Fergus Duniho wrote on 2017-10-03 UTCDavid Howe once made a similar game called Potential Chess. Greg Strong wrote on 2017-10-03 UTCThanks for the additional information.Â So the placement of the pieces is not determined at the start of the game and players can defer that decision.Â Please update the game description to state that clearly as it is an essential point. Here's another question...Â Say a game starts like this: 1. e4 f6 2. Bc4 e5 3. Bxg8? The bishop captures a piece who's identity hasn't been determined yet.Â Does the player have to decide at this point what piece he lost, and thus, what type the other piece of the pair is?Â Or can it continue undermined until the other piece of the pair moves?Â (Granted, this isn't a situation that is likely to come up in real games, but the rules should cover all possibilities.) Â Joel wrote on 2017-10-02 UTCThe idea is that each player will have a strategy for piece placement before the game begins and this strategy can be flexible and changed based on the opponent's moves. For example, after 1. b3 c6 2. e4 e5 Both players have not yet revealed their piece placements. In this case if white plays 3. Bxe5?? (And placing the other Bishop on h1 immediately), Black can play Bxe5 surprising that his bishops are placed on b8 and g8.( It must be noted here that the players have not yet revealed the placements of rooks and knights. They can do so once a move is played using these pieces) Thus the pieces are deemed to be placed but neither players know where until they make moves. And it can come as a surprise. Greg Strong wrote on 2017-09-30 UTCI like where you are going with this, but the rules are at best unclear, and seemingly contradictorary on a fundamental point. The rules say: Initially they are deemed to be present on the board but their placements are not revealed until a move is made from these pieces. This seems to indicate that the initial placement of the pieces is determined by the players at the start of the game, but is a secret until they are revealed. But they also say: Players can surprise by placing their powers depending upon the opening situation. This seems to indicate that the players can defer the decision of where to place a piece until one of the pieces of the pair is moved. Please clarify which is the case and update the rules accordingly. For what it's worth, I like the second option, that the players can defer the decision, better. The first option is much harder to implement in an actual game - either you need some fancy custom programming, or a third person to be a referee. Thanks, Greg 8 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.