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 game information page
It belongs to categories: Orthodox chess, 
It was last modified on: 2005-12-01
 By Roberto  Lavieri. Multi-King Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2005-12-03 UTC
Updated

Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2005-12-02 UTC
Thank you, David. Yes, the mentioned Shogi rule for promotions would be interesting, in the sense it can allow a player put a promoted piece (to King) in a safe or an offensive square, depending on the circumstances. I´m convinced that yours is a rule in perfect harmony with the spirit of the game and it is an improvement, so I´ll adopt it. Credit is yours.

David Paulowich wrote on 2005-12-02 UTC
To clarify my previous comment on deferred promotions - I did not mean to suggest promotion to anything other than a new King.

And your rule [3] means that a lone 'stalemated' King must move into check and therefore lose. That simplifies the ending K + P versus K considerably.


David Paulowich wrote on 2005-12-02 UTC
I would recommend something similar to the SHOGI promotion rules. [1A] is your original promotion rule (mandatory for pawns). [1B] 'A promotion may be deferred to a later move, as long as this move begins inside the promotion zone. Where the move ends is of no relevance.'

According to my limited knowledge of SHOGI, a Bishop in the promotion zone will first move like a Bishop and then have the option of promoting to a Dragon Horse. This sort of promotion can make Multi-King Chess more exciting.


Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2005-12-02 UTC
Thanks, Doug. Updated page, with an answer to your question about if a King can move to a square in which it is in Check. I think yes.

Doug Chatham wrote on 2005-12-01 UTCGood ★★★★
Slight typo in your description. 'Chekmate' should be 'checkmate'.

6 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.