Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
We got your practicality ... right here.

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

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

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

user:
pass:
register,


                                             

Stolen Power Chess

  (+11, -2)(+11, -2)
(+11, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

When one piece takes another, it assumes the identity of that piece. Woe betide the Queen who attacks a pawn
simonj, Jun 25 2010

[link]






       ...then you get to punch the other player. [+]
doctorremulac3, Jun 25 2010
  

       What if the king takes another piece?
DrWorm, Jun 25 2010
  

       What 21 said.
Voice, Jun 25 2010
  

       What DogEd would have said.   

       that would be foolish
simonj, Jun 25 2010
  

       //What if the king takes another piece?//   

       ...then you get to punch the other player.
doctorremulac3, Jun 25 2010
  

       Foolish is the new sage ... you didn't get the memo?   

       (+) by the way. I want to try playing this, as badly as I play regular chess.   

       //What if the king takes another piece? — DrWorm, Jun 24 2010// Then the Prince becomes a Pauper. It seems that Twain and Disney have already covered that possibility sufficiently.
jurist, Jun 25 2010
  

       The slight flaw in this idea is that of "assuming the identity". I suspect that this is just poor wording otherwise, if not, then won't a piece swap sides when it takes a piece, leaving the opponents position intact and leaving you down a piece?
DrBob, Jun 25 2010
  

       This would be quite tough to strategize. The Queen would be hunted down, not for her attacking capability, but her movement.
RayfordSteele, Jun 25 2010
  

       //What if the king takes another piece?// It would be a losing move. So, trapping the king in such a fashion that it can only survive by taking another piece is, in this chess variant, equivalent to checkmate.
mouseposture, Jun 26 2010
  

       [DrBob] the pieces do not change sides, they only assume the power of the taken piece.
simonj, Jun 26 2010
  

       So, if the King is fortunate enough to capture an unprotected Knight, Bishop or Castle, he might gain significant mobility. If he captures a Queen, does he have to cross-dress? And, most importantly. after the capture and transmogrification, is he still recognized as a *King*, inclusive of his new powers?
jurist, Jun 26 2010
  

       Whether it assumes the power or the identity of the other piece, the players now have to remember that this pawn that looks like a pawn actually moves like a knight, leaving the middle game to be ruled by idiot savants. It will also make it impossible for the casual viewer to walk up and give unwanted advice.
ldischler, Jun 26 2010
  

       [ldischler] //impossible for the casual viewer to walk up and give unwanted advice// Dream on. It will merely make the advice even more useless.
mouseposture, Jun 26 2010
  

       [ldischler] This is where we use a convenient supply of extra pieces... When you take a piece swap out yours for the piece you just took, but in your colour.
simonj, Jun 27 2010
  

       //This is where we use a convenient supply of extra pieces...//   

       Damn! If I had only known about that convenient supply. (Which is just one extra set, right?)
ldischler, Jun 27 2010
  

       //they only assume the power of the taken piece.//   

       Shouldn't the rule give the player the option to assume or not assume?
ldischler, Jun 27 2010
  

       [ldischler]//Shouldn't the rule give the player the option to assume or not assume?//
No (in my opinion) because if the player were *required* to assume, it would give rise to interesting situations:
1) You could win the game by forcing the king to capture another piece
2) You might decline to capture a piece because the capturing piece would lose power. The queen would be used far more judiciously, in this variant.
3) A piece caught in a "fork" where it was inevitably captured by one of two opposing pieces, could "sell its life dearly" by forcing the more powerful opposing piece to be the one which captured it.
mouseposture, Jun 27 2010
  

       This is really a two-board chess game.   

       Consider a normal chess game. Each piece passes through a succesion of "states" corresponding to its current locations on the board. In Stolen Power Chess, the state is defined, in addition, by the piece's current "role." You could conveniently represent this second state variable with a second chess board: let the file indicate the pieces, while the rank indicates the current role.   

       The secondary board has 17 files, corresponding to the 17 distinct pieces on a side. It has 34 ranks (17 for each side). On this board, a piece never leaves its file (until captured, when it's removed from the board). It jumps around from rank to rank according to which "role" it's currently playing. Such moves are determined by its captures on the primary board. Of course, the captures a piece can make on the primary board are, in turn, determined by its location on the secondary board.
mouseposture, Jun 27 2010
  

       Not allowing the player to make a decision (as with pawn promotion) gives the pawns too much power, and will result in a game with a lot of pawn moves, like beginner's chess. If a pawn takes a knight that's a 5 point gain instead of just 3 (by the usual measure), and if a knight takes a pawn, that's a 1 point loss instead of a 1 point gain.
ldischler, Jun 27 2010
  

       The stance on that rule changes the game, altogether. If you want to play the Idischler variant that must be understood from the onset.
daseva, Jun 27 2010
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle