Announcement: Be excellent to each other.


Caravel Forum : Other Boards : Forum Games : Anti-Discrimination Chess (Since "Simultaneous Chess" was already taken.)
New Topic New Poll Post Reply
Poster Message
Lucky Luc
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 961
Registered: 08-19-2012
IP: Logged

File: practicallycheckmate.png (18.8 KB)
Downloaded 274 times.
License: Public Domain
icon Anti-Discrimination Chess (+1)  
So, here's an idea that I'd like to discuss and possibly test.

Basically I wonder if the concept of simultaneous action games could be extended to complex abstract strategy games, giving absolutely equal rights and chances to all players. And because I don't want to think of an abstract strategy game myself, why not try to do it to chess?


Rules:

- Both players simultaneously "propose" moves for their side (i. e. they secretly write down / send their proposed move within a given time frame for each move). These moves would have to be legal in standard chess if it was the players' turns. (So a check has to be parried, you can't move a piece to a square occupied by one of your own pieces anticipating a capture, ...)

- If one player tries to capture a piece and the other tries to move that piece away, the piece is captured anyway and the other player's move expires.

- If performing both moves would lead to two pieces occupying the same tile, or two pieces try to capture each other, the whole turn expires and the move number stays the same (i. e. it doesn't count towards threefold repetition). Both players then have to propose a new move that has not been proposed during the current move number.

- In any other case, both moves are performed.

- Addition to checkmate and stalemate: These occur if a player has no more legal move proposals left. For example, consider the secreted position. Black has to propose Bf8. Because of that, white can propose Rf8, and because of rule 3, both moves will then expire. After that, black has no more legal move proposals left, so white has won by checkmate.
Click here to view the secret text


- Instead of proposing a move, a player can instead resign on any turn. Should both players resign on the same turn, the game ends in a draw. Additionally to proposing a move, a player can also offer a draw. On the following move, the responding player can either accept the draw or play a standard move; the offering player has to propose a standard move either way.

- As usual, if a stalemate, a threefold repetition or 50 turns without moving a pawn occur, the game ends in a draw. If a checkmate occurs, the checkmating player wins.

EDIT: I forgot, as usual, you can also not score worse than a draw if your opponent doesn't have enough material left to checkmate in theory. The conditions might be slightly different than in standard chess, though.

Additional remarks and thoughts:

- While the proposed moves have to be legal on their own, the combination of both doesn't have to be. Two pieces (two rooks, for example) may hop over each other; kings may accidentally move into a check and even adjacent kings may happen.

- Pieces can "defend" attacks by trying to capture the attacking piece and hoping the move expires. For example, Queens can do a lot of plundering this way, though they are very weak to Knight attacks. Of course, this may backfire under certain conditions.

- Obviously, this game is a lot more about anticipating what the other player might play -- nah, who am I kidding, there's a lot more luck involved than in standard chess. However, I'd like to know if the luck element outweighs the strategy element.


So, what do you guys think? Have I covered all the edge cases? Any rules seem entirely unreasonable to you?

I'd love to actually test this out, since it's practically impossible to play this game against myself. If two people were willing to play, I'd be happy to be the "referee". You'd send me your move proposals via pm, and as soon as I see that both of them are in, I'd post an update in this thread showing both move proposals and the current game position. I think a time control of 3 days per move proposal would be appropriate.

Anyone interested? :)

[Last edited by Lucky Luc at 12-08-2016 11:37 AM]
12-08-2016 at 11:24 AM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Chaco
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 3087
Registered: 10-06-2005
IP: Logged
icon Re: Anti-Discrimination Chess (+1)  
This seems like an interesting idea, but I think there's still some kinks to work out, particularly with regards to move nullification - it seems like in some cases that might make it too easy to checkmate a King if you could move multiple pieces into certain squares to help nullify other moves, without having to actually commit to moving them into place. (Although, the rear elements of e.g. a Rook + Rook battery or a Bishop + Queen battery can't contribute to nullification due to the front members being in the way, which could be important.)

Also, I'd like to know what happens if White proposes a move that would pin a piece (say, a Bishop) to the Black King, and Black proposes a move that would move that same piece away from the King. Do the moves happen truly simultaneously (White checks the Black King and the Bishop successfully moves to its new position to allow the check), or does White move first, pin the Bishop to the Black King, and nullify Black's move (because the piece got pinned by White's move and now can't move)?

I'm game to try out a test game to see for myself how this changes matters.

____________________________
Quick links to my stuff (in case you forgot where it was):
Click here to view the secret text


[Last edited by Chaco at 12-08-2016 02:35 PM]
12-08-2016 at 02:35 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts High Scores This architect's holds Quote Reply
Nuntar
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 2973
Registered: 02-20-2007
IP: Logged
icon Re: Anti-Discrimination Chess (+3)  
Sure, I'll be the second player :thumbsup

____________________________
50th Skywatcher
12-08-2016 at 03:59 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts High Scores This architect's holds Quote Reply
LeoS
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 257
Registered: 04-02-2015
IP: Logged
icon Re: Anti-Discrimination Chess (0)  
Neat idea!

Looks to me that Rg8 is an automatic win in your secreted example? (rook hops over bishop, no need to anticipate or care about the blocking move) As I think about it - and I've rewritten this thrice now - there's no real point to blocking a check then, is there? Checked player is only able to move the king away or capture the attacking piece.

Also, what do you do with en passant?
12-08-2016 at 06:41 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts High Scores Quote Reply
Lucky Luc
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 961
Registered: 08-19-2012
IP: Logged
icon Re: Anti-Discrimination Chess (0)  
Cool! :) Let's try to clarify / discuss some of the rules and then get this thing started.
quote:
Chaco wrote:
Also, I'd like to know what happens if White proposes a move that would pin a piece (say, a Bishop) to the Black King, and Black proposes a move that would move that same piece away from the King. Do the moves happen truly simultaneously (White checks the Black King and the Bishop successfully moves to its new position to allow the check), or does White move first, pin the Bishop to the Black King, and nullify Black's move (because the piece got pinned by White's move and now can't move)?

For the second scenario, I'd go for both moves being performed simultaneously. Since black is able to move again right away, it's not too bad if his turn ends in a check; he just has to parry it with his next move proposal. "Double checks" (where both sides end up in check) might be a bit awkward, but then again, both opponents get a chance to parry it.

I do admit that this isn't completely consistent with how capturing works, but I feel like you have to make an exception there to avoid the queen or other high range pieces to plunder the entire opponent army.
quote:
Chaco wrote:
This seems like an interesting idea, but I think there's still some kinks to work out, particularly with regards to move nullification - it seems like in some cases that might make it too easy to checkmate a King if you could move multiple pieces into certain squares to help nullify other moves, without having to actually commit to moving them into place. (Although, the rear elements of e.g. a Rook + Rook battery or a Bishop + Queen battery can't contribute to nullification due to the front members being in the way, which could be important.)


I agree that move nullification is pretty awkward, especially in the scenario you describe. Here are some alternatives I considered, as well as some points against them. (Note that for a lot of these cases, I kind of imagine the pieces to have values similar to those of standard chess. This might be a fallacy, but it seems like the best approximation you can make without analyzing the game to death)

Click here to view the secret text

If you prefer any of these variations or can think of something I haven't considered yet, let me know!

quote:
LeoS wrote:
Neat idea!

Looks to me that Rg8 is an automatic win in your secreted example? (rook hops over bishop, no need to anticipate or care about the blocking move) As I think about it - and I've rewritten this thrice now - there's no real point to blocking a check then, is there? Checked player is only able to move the king away or capture the attacking piece.

Also, what do you do with en passant?


No capturing kings, just like standard chess ;) En passant should work just like it does in normal chess. Can be performed directly after a pawn moves two squares forward. Rule 2 applies.

Anyway, I'd be happy to just start the first game with the current rules and tweak the rules afterwards if you're both okay with it and there are no more questions :)

[Last edited by Lucky Luc at 12-08-2016 06:46 PM]
12-08-2016 at 06:44 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Insoluble
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 976
Registered: 09-04-2014
IP: Logged
icon Re: Anti-Discrimination Chess (0)  
quote:
LeoS wrote:
Neat idea!

Looks to me that Rg8 is an automatic win in your secreted example? (rook hops over bishop, no need to anticipate or care about the blocking move) As I think about it - and I've rewritten this thrice now - there's no real point to blocking a check then, is there? Checked player is only able to move the king away or capture the attacking piece.



Heh. I literally asked this same question in Caravel Chat a couple of minutes before this post :) Luc's answer:

"No capturing kings :P I wanted to apply standard checkmating rules; otherwise, with the current rules, any check would be an instant win."

____________________________
Links to neat forum tools that I always have trouble finding:
Click here to view the secret text

12-08-2016 at 06:45 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Send Email to User Show all user's posts High Scores This architect's holds Quote Reply
Lucky Luc
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 961
Registered: 08-19-2012
IP: Logged
icon Re: Anti-Discrimination Chess (+3)  
Chaco and Nuntar played the first game in chat; here's the game (mostly uncommentated):

Click here to view the secret text

Observations:
- Wow, Queens are powerful. A way to nerf them a bit would be to remove both pieces if a mutual capture is attempted. However, this might make Bishop (and other) attacks on Queens too powerful.
- Guarding pieces works very differently than in standard chess. A single guard is hardly better than no guard at all if a queen attacks.
- Still, there seemed to be a decent amount of strategy involved, which I'm pleasantly surprised about.

So I'd referee another game if other people want to try, too; either with the current ruleset or with the modification that mutual captures remove both pieces.

EDIT: Also, not too surprisingly, I'm not the first person who thought of this: http://www.pathguy.com/chess/Synchron.htm . The rules are slightly different, though. Thanks to Doom for the link!

[Last edited by Lucky Luc at 12-08-2016 08:56 PM]
12-08-2016 at 08:44 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
Lucky Luc
Level: Smitemaster
Avatar
Rank Points: 961
Registered: 08-19-2012
IP: Logged
icon Re: Anti-Discrimination Chess (0)  
So, after consulting my pillow, I'd like to try out the following rule changes:

- Change to rule 2: If piece A tries to capture piece B and piece B attempts to perform a move itself, piece Bs move is performed but it is removed afterwards. That means that A tries to capture B tries to capture C results in pieces B and C being taken from the board and A performing it's normal capture move. This also means that you can castle on the same turn your rook is taken away.

- Change to rule 3: If two pieces try to capture each other mutually, both pieces are removed from the board, which can also be seen as a logical conclusion of the new rule 2. I suppose that means you have to be a lot more careful about your Queen if you care for keeping her. An attempted move onto the same tile is still nullified as usual

Now that I've tried to make things more clean, simple, and consistent, let's add a totally absurd extra rule that makes the game ten times more complicated! :D

- New rule (8, I guess): Additionally to standard chess moves, you can also propose a "reinforcing" move. This can be done if piece A guards piece B and makes guarding pieces more viable in this variant.
Proposing this move doesn't directly result in moving pieces, but instead creates a reinforcement link between the guarding piece and the guarded piece. As soon as the guarded piece is captured by the opponent, however, the guarding piece instantly recaptures. A reinforcement link is visible as an arrow in the game diagram.
The reinforcement link stays in place until either guarding or guarded piece leaves the square it's currently on. A piece can reinforce several other pieces at the same time, but can only be reinforced once at a time.
Attempting reinforcement moves happens after the regular double-move is performed. If the reinforcement move would be illegal in that situation, it is nullified. However, a reinforcement move can be proposed even if an immediate recapture would be illegal. Kings may not capture reinforced pieces.
I suggest the symbol ">" to denote a reinforcing move.
Example:
Click here to view the secret text

So, yeah. A bit of an ugly mess and very experimental, but maybe it works?

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it again, making both changes would feel like overkill, so I'd be happy with either going for the simple change to rule 2 and 3 or the additional rule 8, whatever you guys would rather want to try out.

[Last edited by Lucky Luc at 12-09-2016 12:56 PM]
12-09-2016 at 12:48 PM
View Profile Send Private Message to User Show all user's posts This architect's holds Quote Reply
New Topic New Poll Post Reply
Caravel Forum : Other Boards : Forum Games : Anti-Discrimination Chess (Since "Simultaneous Chess" was already taken.)
Surf To:


Forum Rules:
Can I post a new topic? No
Can I reply? No
Can I read? Yes
HTML Enabled? No
UBBC Enabled? Yes
Words Filter Enable? No

Contact Us | CaravelGames.com

Powered by: tForum tForumHacks Edition b0.98.8
Originally created by Toan Huynh (Copyright © 2000)
Enhanced by the tForumHacks team and the Caravel team.