[ 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 Progressive Chess. Several variants where white moves one time, black twice, white three times, etc. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Kevin Pacey wrote on 2016-09-20 UTCGood ★★★★I've seen on an internet chess chat site a Canadian Candidate Master claim that (in at least one of the three main variants of Progressive Chess, if not all), Black has a slight advantage, if playing 1...d6 + 2...Nf6 against most White first moves, In trying to tentatively estimate the value of the pieces in Progressive Chess (in its main variants), I'd guess that the long range pieces may be generally worth, say, one and a half times what I give them as in standard chess. Thus: P=1; N=3.49; B=5.25; R=8.25; Q=15 and the fighting value of K=4 (though naturally it cannot be traded). George Duke wrote on 2014-05-07 UTCThe article points out there were annual tournaments of Progressive in current-news Ukraine at turn of millennium -- as well as Russia, Czech Republic, and Poland. Then Glinksi was Polish, http://www.chessvariants.org/hexagonal.dir/hexagonal.html, though he perfected the leading hexagonal Chess in England. Then next the above mentioned Czech Republic is precisely the country where Bughouse thrives, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bughouse_chess, as "over the board" section documents. In that wikipedia, Hungarian-born Susan Polgar intones old-guardedly, "If your children want to play bughouse just for fun, it is OK. But just remember that it is not Chess and it has no positive value for Chess." Belying that attitude, there is Russian trainer's skill-shaping invented CV: http://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/romanch.html. Think rather than memorize, said Romanchenko: /play/erf/Romanche.html. Tellingly Betza justifies in Chigorin, http://www.chessvariants.org/diffsetup.dir/chigorin.html, that you cannot get scared novices interested, like these "grand-masters," without putting up only standard comfort-zone Bishops, Knights, Rooks, Queens. Karlo wrote on 2013-01-12 UTCBelowAverage ★★The rule for the English variant says "Each mobile piece must move once before it can move twice", but it should say "Each mobile piece must move once before any piece can move twice". (Then the same change should be made for twice before thrice, of course.) Also, it would be clearer if the rules common to all three variants were listed first, and then the differences listed separately (perhaps summarized in a table, even). In particular, all three have the rule that you must escape check on the first move of a series, or else you're checkmated; and that the number of moves you get on your turn is equal to the turn number. Alex wrote on 2009-08-11 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Indeed in progressive chess the repetition rule regards the position of the pieces at the end of a turn, not at the end of a move. padysak wrote on 2009-06-14 UTCWhats about stalemate after three-times repetition the same position? On AtlanticGames.net oponnent play: '11.Kd3 Kc3 Kb3 Kxa2 Kb3 Kb4 Ka5 Kb5 Ka5 Kb5 Ka5' and it was stalemate! I think this rule in progressive chess is wrong! When I play with stronger player, I can make three-times repetition position from move number 4. (If my king is not in check.) (zzo38) A. Black wrote on 2008-10-12 UTCAnother variant of progressive chess, known as 'escalation chess' according to HAKMEM: White gets 1 move, black 2, white 3, etc. If a player is in check, he must get out of check on his first move. He may not move into check. Taking your opponent's king is verboten, but you can pile up triple checks, etc. A player is checkmated if he can't get his king out of check on his first move. Anonymous wrote on 2005-01-14 UTCGood ★★★★ David Howe wrote on 2002-08-03 UTCI have made the appropriate changes. Thanks for the correction. Anonymous wrote on 2002-08-02 UTCThe concept of 'cycle' has been added to the ENPR rules. I don't know the origin of this, but it is completely wrong! Each TURN stands on its own, and is not dependent on what pieces were moved (or how often) or not moved in any previous turn. Think of it as a 'clean slate' approach. There are several people I want to recommend this page to, but I don't want them to get the incorrect impression of the game. David Howe wrote on 2002-07-09 UTCThanks for the corrections Tony. I've made the appropriate modifications to the English Progressive Chess section. Tony Gardner wrote on 2002-07-08 UTCGood ★★★★The rules for English Progressive Chess (ENPR) are not correctly reflected here. Part 2 states, 'When a player gives check, he forfeits any remaining moves in that sequence. His opponent will then add one more move to this truncated count.' The first sentence is right, but the second sentence is wrong; therefore, the third sentence is irrelevant. The turn number dictates the possible number of moves. For example, if White, on the 9th turn, checks on the 6th move, it is then Black's turn with ten moves allowable. The truncation of White's 9th turn is just that, and nothing more. Also, the language in Part 3 is misleading. The opening sentence is a good rough guide, but doesn't withstand literal scrutiny. More precisely it should begin with 'In each turn' rather than 'In each sequence'. In ENPR jargon, a sequence is a series of movements with a turn whereby all mobile units have moved, making it possible for another sequence to commence in that same turn. So, in a single turn, some units may move twice while others move only once or are unmoved (immobilized). It should further be noted that a player may move to block friendly units in order to achieve second sequence moves for prominent pieces. However, third sequences and beyond are very rare. 11 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.