h a l f b a k e r y
Trying to contain nuts.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

 ... Fog of war chess Front-row only chess Game of Thrones Chess Gay Chess Greased Pig Chess Ice chess Magnetophonic Chess-Set Merc Chess Metachess ...

culture:game: chess
 ... blind ... combination ... material ... theme

# Greased Pig Chess

The less pieces in play, the more moves per turn a player can make.
 (+6) [vote for, against]

The game starts with each player granted one move per turn. As play progresses and pieces are captured, more mobility may be given to an individual player, to the point where if you're down to say a couple of Pawns and a Bishop, you can make up to four moves per turn.

With the exception of the King, an individual piece cannot make more than one move per turn, and all movement is deemed concurrent. [1]

The King, though granted much more mobility in multiple-move turns than the other pieces, has some restrictions. A capture made by the King is always the last move of a turn, and it is counted as two moves against the tally, on top of any movement that has been made [2]. Similarly, moving out of or through check costs one additional move.

Movement allocation for each player is based on the summed value of pieces[3] they have on the board, according to a simple table[4]:

Castling is tallied as a rook move.

Personal political leanings may result in the King being renamed "Prime Minister" or "Emperor" or "President", etc.

-------------------

[1] eg: if a Bishop is blocking a Rook, you can't move the Bishop out of the way then move the Rook. Neither can you move a Rook then move a Bishop to one of the squares the Rook passed through. However, substitute the King in for either of the pieces in those scenarios and they become valid sequences.

[2] The King retains the right to move from an immediate check, or capture an adjacent piece, regardless of movement allocation. This restriction mostly just hinders the player from moving other pieces during the turn.

[3] Standard Piece Valuations:
Queen:9, Rook:5, Knight:3œ, Bishop:3, Pawn:1
Each player starts the game with a value summation of 40 points.

[4] Movement Allocation Table
1 move is allocated to a player having 21 to 40 points worth in play.
2 moves """ 13-20 """.
3 moves """ 7 -12 """.
4 moves """ under 7 points remaining on the board.

 — FlyingToaster, Dec 28 2011

Intriguing. [+]
 — AusCan531, Dec 28 2011

I must think on this.
After I read it a few more times, and have a stiff shot.
Too, many, variables... <ugn>
 — 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Dec 29 2011

//Personal political leanings may result in the King being renamed "Prime Minister" or "Emperor" or "President", etc.// Perhaps the pieces' names should remain unchanged but the rather bland appellation of "player" be replaced with one of your grander designations. And be given a cool hat to wear for the duration of the game which is stackable with the loser's cool hat after victory.
 — AusCan531, Dec 29 2011

 I'm voting for this on general principles and in faith that it's a good idea but i haven't understood it yet. I will re-read and at some point i will get your meaning.

Right, done that: vote stays.
 — nineteenthly, Dec 29 2011

 Interesting - a bit like the 1980 video game "Space Invaders", where the fewer enemies remain, the faster they move.

I'm confused about the King - can't one attack and capture the opponent's king in 2 consecutive moves (via a discovered check?) Or does the the opponent get an immediate chance to interrupt and move the king out of the way?
 — phundug, Dec 29 2011

 [phun] You had me going for a minute but that's already covered: all the moves in a turn (with the exception of the King's) are deemed "simultaneous": you can't move a blocking piece then move the no-longer-blocked piece.

[2fries] there. Alcohol still recommended, as usual, but not compulsory.
 — FlyingToaster, Dec 29 2011

Consider: usually one cuts off one or more avenues of escape before putting the king in check. The opponent perceives this and moves to keep escape avenues open. I think it would be easy to produce checkmate with 3 unopposed moves. Were I to play this I would quickly sacrifice my queen and one rook taking the relatively undervalued bishops.
 — bungston, Dec 29 2011

 [bung] sorry, I have no clue what you're on about... in order to rate having 3 moves per turn you'd have to be down to a rook both bishops and one pawn, or both bishops and a few pawns, etc. Since people don't normally leave their power-pieces hanging out in the wind, you'd probably be able to take 3 of your opponent's unprotected pawns in one turn... woohoo :) Apart from that the actual point of the variation is to make winning more difficult. I'm considering if the endgame should be made a bit less vicious though: perhaps have pawn-promotion include the return of the pawn to the homerows.

 Either way there'd certainly be more draws, but less stalemates.

The figures are mostly arbitrary: actual numbers would involve either playing quite a few games or some series of esoteric calculations.
 — FlyingToaster, Dec 29 2011

Good idea, very good idea, but any chance of weighting some pawns differently from others? In fact, given some of the antagonism in some player's games, maybe give some of the pawns a value equal to a bishop (for example), just to help them, you understand. In fact depending on the game and the game state, pieces are already valued, probably against the moves they can make. Counter-valueing does something similar. Its a zero sum game. Err, this decomposes into chess, regardless. Nash equilibriums are provable, and so are the corollaries
 — 4whom, Dec 29 2011

Given that most people can't play normal chess well enough to matter, I'm unsure how this would be an improvement.
 — infidel, Dec 29 2011

[infidel] I am not sure that //most people// qualifies as a significant sample. No, no, not from my lips to G_d's ears, I am sure he has heard that one before. And if history bears any witness, for all we know, he might have come up with it.
 — 4whom, Dec 29 2011

 people people people: the numbers given in the post are for display purposes only... and to give yours truly a chance to show off his 1337ness by using the œ key.

 They weren't completely pulled out of my arse though; I think that those figures are a pretty good estimate.

In order to get a completely smooth game, with no built-in chaotic points, there would have to be sliding values and partial movement allowances (ie: you could move a bishop and a pawn but not a bishop and a knight), something best left up to a computer to calculate.
 — FlyingToaster, Dec 30 2011

 No, I'm claiming that if you wanted to have a completely smooth game based on an inverse relationship between power-on-the-board and number of moves per turn (as this Idea is), a computer would probably be necessary, not to play, but to calculate how many moves, and of what type, a player can be given at any amount of time.

 For instance, when a player first changes between having one move and having two moves, for the first few turns they might be able to move pawns-only as a second move instead of having the whole range to choose from.

 The object of this Idea though is not to have a smooth game: the stepped power changes are deliberate and allow a bit of back and forth transfer of oneupmanship.

[edited out unwarranted autoboner comment]
 — FlyingToaster, Dec 30 2011

 darn, my anti-autoboner comment was one of my best.

The objection was to the phrase "calculated by a computer" I imagine. I think that with a system any more complex than what I've posted (or near facsimile thereof), moves allotment calculation would be too taxing for a player to accomplish on-the-fly during a game. As is, one only need take a quick sum of the pieces on the board every once-in-awhile... and the opponent's too of course.
 — FlyingToaster, Dec 30 2011

^Ah, well I'm glad I didn't do that then :) What I think might happen is that both players will aim to have the best combination of pieces coming into the 3-move range hoping to get a quick checkmate before the opponent moves into the 4-move range.
 — FlyingToaster, Dec 30 2011

Just because there's a bandwagon rolling and I'm always game to jump on, I've been down in my shop for several days working on my own chess variant. Does anybody know how to convert a blood-sample finger-punch into a miniature anti-tank gun?
 — Alterother, Dec 30 2011

< points at [8/7] >
 — FlyingToaster, Dec 30 2011

Yeah, I'd go to them if I didn't know already that they'd turn around and shoot me with it as soon as we were finished building it.
 — Alterother, Dec 30 2011

He's unlikely to shoot you with it... far more chance he'd shoot you through it or for it.
 — infidel, Dec 31 2011

Yeah, that's what I love about [8th]. There's no evil or malice, just that wonderfully entertaining ingrained dastardliness.
 — Alterother, Dec 31 2011

Kinda like an iceberg... cold, relentless, massive, unfeeling.
 — infidel, Dec 31 2011

But an iceberg wearing a big red clown nose.
 — Alterother, Dec 31 2011

Yep, a big red nose packed with a slurry of aluminium powder and RDX.
 — infidel, Dec 31 2011

That's exactly it. On the nose, so to speak.
 — Alterother, Dec 31 2011

That would make castling easier.
 — tatterdemalion, Dec 31 2011

Hmm, a castle can only occur once, so I think we'll let it ride as one move, counting against the Rook.
 — FlyingToaster, Jan 01 2012

 [annotate]

back: main index