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: 2018-07-15
 By Charles  Gilman. Nietzsche Chess. That which does not capture a piece, makes it stronger. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Charles Gilman wrote on 2008-12-04 UTC
I had to think carefully about this, and in particular deal with each sequence in turn. A general point is that this page does not refer to any kind of counterpart, so I see no relevance in a piece having or not having one in some other context. The slow sequence is taken directly from Alternate Promotion Chess (see introduction) which requires alternation between FIDE and non-FIDE pieces. Given the closeness in power between the Knight and Bishop any non-FIDE piece is likely to have imperfections of the kind that you mention. Out of couriosity, how big does a board have to get for the Bishop to overtake the Prince in power? The Knighted sequence is an extension of the slow sequence and therefore inherits the Prince from it. With the Courier-inclusive you are on better ground as alternation breaks down altogether. Also, I do not use the Prince in Courier Kamil, even though it is in the original Courier. The only snag is that it would no longer true that 'As well as CK and FIDE arrays it can be used with the Courier array itself', unless a special rule were applied to the Prince in that.

John Smith wrote on 2008-12-03 UTC
Princes should not take part in promotion sequences, because they have no counterpart. Princes are stronger than Bishops, by the way.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-09-19 UTC
Truly a fascinating idea! I do agree with Abdul-Rahman that it needs to be toned down a bit, but I think with a little work this idea is a clear winner. And it leads me to speculate about 'Invulnerable Chess', where a piece cannot be captured if it is guarded more times than it is attacked. First thoughts are that the game would be very drawish. What sorts of pieces, board size and other things [like relayed move/capture powers] would it take to make that game playable? Very, very nice, Charles.

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on 2007-09-18 UTC
To explain my idea further : 1. Pawns are not promoted at all by the Nietzsche rule. However, when they reach the 8th rank, they are promoted as usual, and only then enter the promotion sequence. 2. After (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6), the e5 pawn is attacked once, and not defended, so it is promoted to a Knight (assuming suggestion 1 is not in effect. Consider this : (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6) the pawn doesn't promote, because it is now attacked once and defended once. If the game was to continue (3.d4 Nf6) the pawn at e5 promotes, because it's attacked twice and defended once. -- The only objection I have about this mutator is its clarity. It appears to be difficult to see more than one move ahead. If both suggestions above are taken into account, it will make things a little easier.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2007-09-13 UTC

Well I looked for the error in white's fourth move, and couldn't see it. Nothing threatens, and therefore nothing promotes, any piece on the ranks 1-2 or the c3 Knight. That leaves the B6 and g3 Bishops threatened once each, and the e4 Pawn threatened twice, so each of those three is promoted. If I have missed anything please say what it is.

I have considered the options that you suggest. Option 1 has the problem of keeping track of which Pawns have and have not promoted. Option 2 puzzles me slightly: the e4 Pawn promotes nothing until it is itself promoted. Option 3 would raise the question of which player decides which piece gets promoted.

One modification that occurs to me is that a piece does not promote a protected piece earlier in the sequence than itself, as capturing such a piece and being captured back would be a net loss of piece. So in the Fast Sequence a Knight would not promote a protected Pawn, and a Queen would promote only unprotected pieces. With that rule the sample game would run without promotions in the first five moves.

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on 2007-09-08 UTC
If you don't mind me saying, this is one hell of a mutator !! However, it is probably difficult to keep track of everything going on at once, I would suggest three modifications, which may be combined or taken independently. My personal choice would be to use the first two, and discard the third. 1. Keeping pawns out of the sequence until they promote. 2. ONLY piece which more attacked than they are protected promote. That is, after 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 , the pawn on e5 doesn't promote because it is attacked once and defended once. The King could count here. 3. Limiting promotion to one piece at a time, no matter how many pieces left unguarded. -- ((I believe there is a mistake in the example game... in white's fourth move promotion details, if you would check it out.)) -- I nominate this game to be in the next Game Courier tournament (using modifications 1 and 2 above.)

6 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.