Kibbitz Listing
wrote on Well played Gary--Always like to see a mate with Templars involved!
wrote on it wouldn't let me pass
wrote on I don't know. but now I can't drop my pawn. it says 'you cannot move your opponent's pieces'
wrote on would just like to point out that White's third move Bishop to c3 is illegal.
wrote on would just like to point out that White's third move Bishop to c3 is illegal.
wrote on I should note that because White moved on the second board on his first move the board order stated in the rules has been reversed.
wrote on I should note that because White moved on the second board on his first move the board order stated in the rules has been reversed.
wrote on White's 7th move is illegal on two counts. 1. He moves a black piece. 2. He checks the King with his second move but continues with other moves, including another check!
wrote on Good question. Let's go with this: in the case of a discovered check, there is no Pawn drop because the checking piece has not moved. In a double check, the checking piece that has moved gets the Pawn drop as usual, thereby blocking the second checking piece. That make sense?
wrote on hmm, it's not letting me do the cannon move Queen takes Rook. Isn't this a legal move?
[edit: I read over the rules and apparently you can only make forward cannon moves]
wrote on oops, i realize there is a mistake at move 20... when black's d5 Pawn mysteriously disappears.
wrote on thanks for the game, i think it was about even until you captured my Knight. Anyway, I think I like this combined variant better than either extinction or brotherhood chess on their own. If you'd like a rematch just let me know.
wrote on i should also point out that a pawn reaching the last rank promotes on the first part of the move, before moving back one space.
wrote on in answer to your question about the rules, yes, a piece can move across the board as if it was circular, so my bishop, for example, at h4 could reach a5 (via e1).
wrote on what seems odd to me is that a piece can push/pull another piece without moving itself...
wrote on [deleted]
wrote on Thanks. Back when I made the sacrifice I wasn't entirely sure it would pay off... Good game.
wrote on Another possible tactic I did not think of before is trying to capture two different defended pieces (one on each board) with two twins on the same turn, thereby winning a piece (or pair of pieces) in the exchange.
wrote on Yep, I just didn't foresee that drop move, well-played
wrote on I was thinking about the move order. And this alternative: Player 1 moves white, the Player 2 moves BLACK on the SAME board, then white on the second board, then Player 1 moves black on the second board and white on the first. Wouldn't this be more logical than the move order I've implemented here?
wrote on for reference:
Queen 9 pts
Rook 5
Knight 3
Bishop 3
Pawn 1
King 0
wrote on Namik, you should not have changed your Rook into a Knight, but I will ignore this because I am taking it.
wrote on I did not mean to leave my Bishop en prise. Oh well.
wrote on I did not mean to leave my Bishop en prise. Oh well.
wrote on Namik-
The rules tab above will link you to the zrf page which states the
following:
'This game was designed for greater speed and to eliminate White's
opening advantage. After White's first move, Pawns may advance any
distance down a vacant file. En passant captures may be made on any square
passed.'
wrote on Namik-
The rules tab above will link you to the zrf page which states the
following:
'This game was designed for greater speed and to eliminate White's
opening advantage. After White's first move, Pawns may advance any
distance down a vacant file. En passant captures may be made on any square
passed.'
wrote on I just realized something weird about this game. On the 10th turn the second player can leave a black piece en prise to be taken when he moves next as white, on the 20th turn the first player can do the same thing, and so on. This seems to leave the black army at an extreme disadvantage, though I'm not sure where it leaves the players...probably very confused.
wrote on forgot to note RxR+ for move 34...
wrote on oops, I meant check not ++ for move 29
wrote on Thanks for playing, Namik. If you'd like a rematch just let me know.
wrote on I hope you enjoy closed positions Fergus! I noticed the other Templar game being played is also closed. In my testing with Zillions, by the way, open positions were much more common, but I guess that's mostly due to Zillions' agressive playing style.
One of my ideas for Templar chess is allowing the Templar to promote to a piece that moves as a Bishop plus Dabbaba-rider. This should provide incentive both to keep Templars in the game and use them more offensively. Though I have yet to test the idea.
wrote on I realized earlier when you made a Knight-move with your King that there is no extra piece to represent the Royal Knight. We'll just have to remember.
wrote on I tested the game and found that it was too hard to develop pieces because of the ease in trapping them, hence the weakened Pawns.
wrote on I don't know if you have been reading my comments, Namik, but you are not playing this game correctly. I suggest you look at the rules page for this game, and let me know if you understand how to play before we continue. Otherwise, I will delete the game log. Thanks.
wrote on Correction: When I referred to Scottish Chess in my comments I meant Very Scottish Chess.
wrote on The Templar is not quite what you described. It has the dabbabah moves and a two-square Bishop move--that is, one or two squares diagonally without jumping.