[ 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 ]Rated Comments for a Single ItemLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Giveaway Chess. Taking is obligatory; the first player that loses all his pieces wins. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Kevin Pacey wrote on 2017-11-26 UTCGood ★★★★This was the first chess variant I'd ever heard of, way back in elementary school around 1970. After trying it a few times I disliked a game that would rely heavily on giving away stuff to the opponent in order to win. Looking at the variant's webpage nowadays, I can see this variant has depth, in spite of my still not liking it much as far as the thought of playing it myself. The extensive opening theory that apparently one needs to know to survive (in any sense) against strong losing chess players looks daunting, and I'm a bit disappointed that the traditional and obvious chess centre pawn moves 1.e4 and 1.d4 are thought to lose for White in this variant. So, not my cup of tea (at least at present) but I can see how this variant and its basic concept might attract many other people to it. Peter N K wrote on 2013-03-24 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I would like to invite everyone to try my free "Suicide Chess" aplication at http://suicidechessgame.webs.com/ Please if you have comments or recommendations share them. Thank you for your time Anonymous wrote on 2006-04-05 UTCGood ★★★★why is castling not allowed? Dr Dave wrote on 2006-03-24 UTCGood ★★★★Grandmaster David Bronstein's 'solution' is nothing of the sort: it was an off-hand game played against IM Gik, where he was relying on Gik playing 'normal' chess moves -- and he duly obliged. 3.Nc3 is very helpful... Anonymous wrote on 2006-02-21 UTCGood ★★★★A good outline. You haven't mentioned the name 'loser's chess', which is the name used by the largest online chess club in the world (www.chessclub.com). Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2005-12-13 UTCGood ★★★★I don´t know whether some extensive computer analysis has been done for this game, the branching factor is by far much less than in chess. With the aid of actual technology, it seems to be a good project, perhaps factible, to determine if it its true of false the empirical suspect that the game is a forced win for White. Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2005-12-12 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Very nice use of Game Courier sample games! S wrote on 2005-03-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Fics top 1000 suiciders can be found at www.pobox.com/~suicide Fabrice Liardet wrote on 2005-01-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Unfortunately, almost all links given on this page are gone. The actual links and more can be found on the 'Losing Chess Information' page at <a href='http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/ICGA/games/losingchess/start.html'>http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/ICGA/games/losingchess/start.html</a>. martin wrote on 2004-06-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I played this last night with three other guys on a 4 player chess board (with 3 extra rows off each side) I'd never played the variant even just 2 players before, and it was really really fun. Games didn't last nearly as long as the standard 4-player chess game. 10 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.