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]
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.
I wanted to apply standard checkmating rules; otherwise, with the current rules, any check would be an instant win."
