[ 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 Poker Chess. Squares contain cards, and players win by forming poker hands with the cards on the squares occupied by their pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joshua Goldstein wrote on 2017-11-12 UTCA new, very different kind of PokerChess, involving two decks of cards and poker chips: http://www.pokerchess.com Michael Nelson wrote on 2003-02-10 UTCHow about Balanced Doublemove Poker Chess? Phil Brady wrote on 2003-02-09 UTCHave you considered a variant of this, Blackjack Chess? Reduce the number of 'card pieces' to three, and try to form the higher hand without going over 21. The restriction of keeping to 21 or less could make for some interesting play. Maybe a limited number of 'busts' per game could be allowed per player. Of course, there's the 'Kriegspiel' Indian Feather variant of Poker Chess. The players see all the pieces, but don't know what cards are on the board. A single piece acts as the card-pointer. The referee tells the players who wins each hand. Goofy ideas, to be sure. :) Doug Chatham wrote on 2003-02-09 UTCQ: Why do you say ' a random draw'? Is that better poker terminology than 'a random deal'? <p>A: I goofed. I meant to say 'a random deal'. Sorry. gnohmon wrote on 2003-02-09 UTCMichael Nelson suggests 'loser chooses who moves first the next turn?' As the author of the 'Fair First Move Rule', how could I object? I object. Sort of, anyway. Although this is very likely to be a good rule for low-wipeout-limit games, it merely complicates the rules (I would guess) for high limits. If the limit is 7, Black's knowledge-advantage is not as important. But maybe I guessed wrong about the standard limit. Certainly a low limit is better for analyzing a short opening; but I thought most ppl would find limit 3 or less too tactical. Once again, I point out that you really need to try this game to understand it. gnohmon wrote on 2003-02-09 UTCPeter Hatch asks 'white or black have the advantage'? That's a good question, and it would explain why Black, in the opening position I analyzed, always seemed to spring back when I thought he was crushed. (Even tho W did win a bit...) If knowing the opponent's cards gives an advantage (and it must), of course the advantage increases with smaller wipeout limits. gnohmon wrote on 2003-02-09 UTCDoug Chatham says 'If you want to balance out the colors in a random draw,' I thought of that overnight, but you wrote it here first. I believe it is the correct solution. Whether flushes are a great worry, I still question. Until you've tried it, and spent some time trying to find moves, and spent some time trying to anticipate moves, I don't think one can appreciate how the poker aspect limits one's choice of moves. Why do you say ' a random draw'? Is that better poker terminology than 'a random deal'? I've played lots of poker, but not at a professional level by any means (more like FIDE 1300 players, where I shine). I may very well have gotten a few poker terms wrong. Doug Chatham wrote on 2003-02-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★If you want to balance out the colors in a random draw, I suggest when you deal out the red half-deck, every other red card should be placed on Black's side of the board. That should reduce the chances of starting out with flushes on both sides. Michael Nelson wrote on 2003-02-08 UTCHow about loser chooses who moves first the next turn? This opens possiblities of losing intentionally, so lets add a rule that the player who moved last chooses his cards first. Peter Hatch wrote on 2003-02-08 UTCSo does white or black have the advantage in this game? Being able to see how good your opponent's hand will be each time before you move seems like a significant advantage. Anonymous wrote on 2003-02-08 UTCspelling error: under Examples of Hand Formation, the word queen is used twice, when it should be queen and king. gnohmon wrote on 2003-02-08 UTCIf it's easy for one player to get a flush or straight, it's also easy for the opponent to do so, and it evens out. In my predesigned deals, players start with 2 pairs, and making a flush requires you to lose 2 hands. In a random deal, both players might start with a flush, which would cause near-paralysis of the major piees, or both players might start with weak hands, allowing a flush rush. In either case, what's the problem? The card you get from the Pawns is somewhat like a wild card, which of course makes flushes and straights easier to get. Segregating the suits was done to ensure fairness, but of course that does make flushes more likely. The alternative would be a fully random deal, unequal cards, but either player can reject the deal before the game starts. I see we already have two variants of Poker Chess. I am surprised that neither is based on Night Baseball. Michael Nelson wrote on 2003-02-08 UTCI had an idea for a fiendishly complex variant of Poker Chess, borrowing an idea from Extinction Chess. 1. In ranking Poker hands, straights and flushes don't count and aces are always high. 2. If one player has fewer cards than the other, the missing cards rank below the opponents low cards. Thus A-7-5-3 is higher than A-7-5 but lower than A-8. A hand with no cards is lowest of all. 3. There are five species of pieces: Royals (King and Queen), Rooks, Bishops, Knights, and Pawns. For each species represented in a player's army, he must choose one card from a square containing a piece of that species if possible (he doesn't choose a card for a species if and only if all his pieces of that species are on squares that don't have cards associated with them). 4. The objective may be to have the high hand, or to have the low hand. At the start of the game, the objective is to have the high hand. 5. After each hand the loser may if he chooses change the objective for the next hand. If he does so, the winner scores an extra point. In the case of a tie, the objective remains unchanged. Rule 5 gives the player a tool to break a long string of wins, but it is costly to use. Michael Nelson wrote on 2003-02-07 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Excellent game concept. I would suggest a rule change. Like many non-Poker games that use Poker hands, the relative values of different hand types get distorted. It is always harder to get three of a kind than a pair, but a straight or flush may or may not be harder to get than three of a kind. So why not use Poker hands with the provision that straights and flushes don't count? A amusing variant might be to play for high hand on turns 1-5, say, and play for low hand on 6-10, etc. For the endgame, if a player doesn't have 5 cards, a missing card ranks low. So in playing for low hand, K-7-5 beats K-7-5-2 (which is logical, since the latter hand wins playing for high). Of course the five turn alternation frequency can be changed as well. John Lawson wrote on 2003-02-07 UTCGood ★★★★I'd think flushes would not only be common, but unavoidable. They would be easier to get than three-of-a-kind. And four-of-a-kind would be harder to achieve than a straight flush. LCC wrote on 2003-02-07 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Interesting concept. Does it work? 16 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.