Check out Atomic Chess, our featured variant for November, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

The birth of two variants: Apothecary chess 1 & Apothecary chess 2[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
V. Reinhart wrote on Sun, Mar 5, 2017 05:48 PM UTC:
Hi George,
I wrote about the Huygens in a comment, but it's not an entry in the CVP "Piececlopedia". I might like to submit it later, but I already have one game waiting for review (it's called "Trappist-1" which is the Infinite Plane game using the Huygens chess piece). I've heard about the Fibonacci series but not Lucas. What is the Lucas about?

Hi Aurelian,
I agree repetitions in chess can be complicated, and often difficult to discern if it should be a draw, or if one side is better. Usually it doesn't have to occur in chess. There's always another move, and if not, then it's a stalemate.
So if there is a repetition opportunity, one player or the other can simply make a different move. Repeating is only an advantage for the side that believes he/she is weaker and wants to get a draw. The side that is strong should PROVE he is stronger by not repeating, and win the game.
So neither player should be allowed to jump to the point system and get an "advantage" by repeating a position. If one player believes he is stronger, he should be requried to keep playing to prove his advantage. But if he doesn't think his position is strong enough, then he can repeat the position, but should get no credit for this. He only gets a "draw" for essentially "Giving Up".
(Basically my theme is players must keep playing if they can, but if they give up, then they get no credit).
Let me know what your think. Either way is OK, but it's just my opinion.
Regards, :)