Comments by Rodrigo Zanotelli

I am not sure what entropy exactly is and how it works.
But why not make one chess variant where, the each piece type lose some movement abilities after some turns?

This would be a analogy to entropy???
Correct me if I am wrong.

another idea:
'Hasbro' Monopoly chess.
1.You can spend one turn without moving to buy some square. After this turn this square will be your square. 
1.1-Your piece need to be on the square you will buy.
1.2-If some enemy piece move into this square, the piece is killed.
2-You can trade squares and pieces with the other player, by killing some of your pieces, giving some of your pieces to the other player (they will stay at the same place, but change sides) or giving some of your squares.
2.1-You can also save a enemy piece from being killed on a square or make some squares(s) safe for x turns by trading stuff.



Banker Monopoly chess.
1.Normal 'Hasbro' Monopoly chess rules apply.
2.You can sell one of your squares to the bank and you will be able to move one more piece in this turn.

Thanks for the answer.
Now I see that the situation of both players being in check at the same time is impossible to happen in f.i.d.e. chess.

But, and for variants that because of their rules changes, allow the situation of both players being in check to happen, what would happen in this situation?
A player that becomes in check and cant get out of it would lose the game or he will only lose if the other player can capture his king?

I was thinking about a similar idea, while thinking about simultanous chess ideas:
This idea would be more suited for computer play.
On each turn, each player (or computer) make a list of all the moves he can do right know, then the player put this list in order from the movement he most want to do to the ones the he least want to do. If both players first move in this list, create a conflict, they flip a coin to choose what player will play their move first. 
After this move is played, the other player do the first move in his list that dont create a conflict with the movement the other player done. If he can't pick a movement from the list because the only movements that he is allowedto do that were not possible before, the player can choose what move he will do.

Conflict in this case, means both players moving their pieces to the same square, or one player making his own king be into check or mate after the move.
But other variants can be made that include more conflicts like, both players passing into the same square, one player going to a square a enemy piece was....


VARIANT:
A variant to this idea I proposed here, could be made to find a another way to fix the conflict.
Before each turn the player create a list of his movments and put them in order like in the other variant. But this list of movements would be different, the list would have all movements he would be able to do at this moment, and all the movements he would be able to do, if the enemy made a move right now and them he made his move.
Players flip a coin to decide who will move first. The one that win will get the first movement at his list (that include himself making a movement), after he make this movement, the other player get the first movement (that includes the enemy player moving making the move he did right know).

There is another variant but its even more complex.

In my opinion, if we were going to make a new chess variant in a similar way, I think we could do in this way:

A) First, we choose the max amount of players in the variant.
The users give suggestions like: 2, 1, 4, 10...
Then players give ratings from 1 to 5 on each suggestion, and the one with the highest score wins.

B)Then we choose the possible amount of players that will be able to play the game.
Users will be able to give sugestions like, 2, 4, any odd number, any number higher than 2...
This amount need to include the number we got before, if the max number we got was 10, 10 players will need to be one of the possible amount of players in the game. In this case users will not be able to suggest something like 'any number from 2 to 8'.

C)Then after some suggestion wins we will choose the amount of squares on the board(s).
Player can give suggestions like 80, 84, any odd number between 60 and 80 (in the case of a variant with variable number of squares)..
Then the same voting process will happen.

D)Then we choose the amount of boards
Players give suggestions like 1, 2, any even number... and then we make the voting process. The sum of all boards squares need to fit in the suggestion we got before.

E)After that, players give suggestions how the board(s) will be and we vote.


F) Now we choose amount of pieces each player will have.
The suggestions can be 10, 20, a number from 8 to 16 (in the case of variable amount of pieces based on rules).

G) Then the amount of different pieces.
The is the max amount of different pieces the game will have. This doenst means the game will start with all those pieces. In a variant were players have 39 points to spend on different pieces, players will not start with all pieces.

H) How those pieces are (one piece type per voting turn).
Giving suggestions and voting one piece per turn is a good idea because we vote on next piece based on the other ones already voted.
But this voting process could be done in another way, on the first voting, players give pieces suggestion, only ONE piece suggestion per each suggestion a player make. Players vote on all pieces suggestions and then the most voted ones would be in the game.

I) Where those pieces will be (or if player will be able to choose their starting position, or if it will be random or semi-random) on the previously voted board.

J) Win/draw/loss condition.
Players would be able to suggest rules together with their win/draw/loss conditions, if those rules help the game.



Maybe, we could choose win condition before before we choose the pieces, so win condition would be at F, or even before we choose other stuff from the game. Or we could before making the game, vote if we would choose win condition first, if this would be the last thing or if we would choose the win condition before we choose the pieces.

The shortest range leaper jumps to the same square he is. So, this he would work as a pass piece.

I made a zillion of games test variant, where knights moved to the same square they are only, and are used to pass the turn.

I used my user id in the name instead of the user id text field, when I made the comment.

Jeremy, the rules of f.i.d.e. chess states that you can't capture the enemy king. 
In the case of the idea that I was talking about, where 'mating' the king on the first turn not result in a win (because not moving on the next turn would not count as not having legal moves), 'mating' the enemy using the first of your two turns, would not result in a stalemate situation, if the player is still able to make a movement on the second turn that not capture the enemy king.


Jeremy said: 'The obvious generalization of the rules of check is that the king is in check if it could be captured before the owner's next move'

So this generalization means that the 'the opponent has no legal move.' part of this rules: 'The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.', means that: Not being able to move because the next turn is the enemy one, counts as having no legal moves.

With that this means that the variant I was creating would be:
Turn order: White, Black, Black, White
If you mate the enemy king on the first of your two consecutive turns, he would not have legal moves (because the next turn is your turn), so you win the game.

Also using this generalization of the rules you wouldn't need to check if king could be captured within 2 moves, only the first one.
The player would be able to put his king in a situation where the enemy player can't put him in check using the first of his 2 consecutive turns, but would be able to do that in the second one.

In f.i.d.e while choosing what movement you will do, you only for check the within next enemy turn.
The key thing here is something I maybe forgot to say/explain about my variant idea: The 2 consecutive turns, are not '2 turns into one', but different ones. The thing is that the turns are alternating, first the turn order is white, black and then the turn order changes to Black, white, then it changes again back to white, Black, and then it changes again...




Thanks George Duke, I usually search here, but most of the time only to check if there is already chess variants with some variant name I was thinking about, also the variant is not finished yet.
Also the ideas I get with this variant will be used on other variants I am creating, even if there is a variant that is 100% equal my one, the ideas of this variant will still be usefull.

Now we need one where queen:
Has also the movements of knight.
Can castle
Can also capture like a pawn.
Can also do en passant capture.

About you Super-Hecatomb-Chess idea, you could make a hyper hecatomb one, where amazons can also be used for castling.

Anyway I was making a similar variant it was like the Hyper-Hecatomb Chess that I said here on zillion of games to test. But the amazons would be only on first and second rank. 
I didnt liked the results and so decided to forget it.

This variant assumes pawn can move 2 squares forward without capturing while he is on second rank.

But f.i.d.e chess rules says:
"3.7
   A)The pawn may move forward to the unoccupied square immediately in front of it on the same file, or
    B)on its first move the pawn may move as in 3.7.a or alternatively it may advance two squares along the same file provided both squares are unoccupied, or"
http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=124&view=article.

So this means the pieces would be able to move 2 squares foward on their first move, provided both squares are unoccupied.

Or, if you include the part "pawn may move as in 3.7.a or alternatively" on rule 3.7b, they would be able also to move one square foward in their first move if the square is unoccupied.

One variant could be made in this way.
1-The pieces values of all enemy pieces he captured, cant be higher than 21 (promoted pawn pieces count as the value of the piece pawn promoted to). If this value gets higher than 21 the player lose.
2-When one player mate the enemy king, if value of the pieces he captured is higher than the total value of pieces the other player captured, he wins, if the value is smaller than the other player value or is higher than 21 he lose.
3-In the case of a stalemate and draw, the player with the highest amount of points wins.

A new variant could be made. Maybe called Hivemind chess.
1-You can move enemy pieces that you are attacking.
1.1-You can only move those pieces to a square you are attacking.
2-You can't attack other enemy pieces or your own pieces using a enemy piece.
3-You can't put your king in check by moving a enemy piece.
4-Win by checking the enemy king.
5-All other rules as in chess.

A minor sub-variant of this variant I made here, can be made here:
1-All rules as in hivemind chess.
2-While controlling a enemy piece you can use this piece to capture one of you own pieces, excluding the king, as long the enemy piece end into a attacked square after the capture is done.

One cool variant could be made where
1-You can capture your own pieces.
2-You can't capture the king
3-Its possible to put your king in check with friendly pieces. So you need to avoid it.

In this variant both players would need to start by capturing their own

Try madcap chess
http://www.pathguy.com/chess/MadcapCh.htm
The idea you are thinking, not exactly because you can also win by enemy having a bare king.

"Keller, in his 10th issue of World Game Review mentions the following paradox: what if, say white checks black, such that blacks only move is to check white, but in that position, whites only move is to check black, and so on and so on."
How this would happen in checkless chess? The rules say that you can only mate the enemy king, not check him. In fact this is the main idea of the variant.

"Capturing by a draughtsman or a damka is compulsory. However, when there are different alternative captures, the player can choose which capture to make."
In theory, by logic capturing with draughtsman or danka should be forced even if the other pieces are possible to capture.

In draughts pieces have forced capture while in chess they dont:
So you can:
1-Assume this is a rule of draughts and while doing a crossover with chess and so do A or B: 
A- use this rule (all pieces have forced capture) 
B - not use it (and so use the chess rules, no pieces have forced capture).

OR

2-Assume this is a rule of the draughts pieces, and so only the draughts pieces will have this rule.

He assumed 2 (since the draughts pieces have forced captures and the chess ones dont). So, this would means draughts pieces MUST capture if possible, period.

If both rook needed to be at least 3 squares one the left (and the other on the right) side of king how many positions would we have?

"All `double move' variants, I had known until then allowed the player to move different pieces."
I am almost sure there are 2 moves variants that only allow you to move the same piece.

But YES they aren't 100% like your variant.
If I remember one variant I saw allowed the player to make just one move (instead of the 2 ones) if he wanted.