Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Forward Chess. Variant where backward movement is limited. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Peter Aronson wrote on Sun, Jan 25, 2004 06:03 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Looks to be an excellent combination of elements. But why no draws by agreement? BTW, it's Feebback Chess, not Feedback Chess. Now I'm wondering what Feedback Chess would be like.

💡📝Michael Nelson wrote on Sun, Jan 25, 2004 07:33 AM UTC:

Peter, 

Sorry about that typo--I know the correct name of your fine game, but my
fingers don't work so well sometimes.

As for no draws by agreement, the rest of the rules by design make it
impossible for a game played to a conclusion to be drawn. My feeling is
that the players cannot agree on an impossible result, any more than two
players of FIDE Chess are able to agree to split the point 3/4 - 1/4.

My reason for a drawless game is personal one: playtesting and analysis
indicate draws would be extremely rare using checkmate and King to the
eighth rank as win conditions. I simply dislike the idea of a draw rate of
say 1/2%. 

The fifty move rule is arbitrary, but will never be invoked by skilled
players: the player with the won position can win quicker than that.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Sun, Jan 25, 2004 03:08 PM UTC:

Corrected!

Anonymous wrote on Sun, Jan 25, 2004 05:15 PM UTC:

Feedback Chess:  The players are hooked to electrodes and receive electric
shocks when their pieces are captured...<evil grin>

Doug Chatham wrote on Mon, Jan 26, 2004 03:54 PM UTC:

Would Backward Chess be playable?

💡📝Michael Nelson wrote on Tue, Jan 27, 2004 02:26 PM UTC:

Yesterday I tried several varieties of Backward Chess adapted from these rules and none seemed playable. When Peter published Feebback Chess, I tried a backward version of it. (Would that be Feebfore Chess?) I have been unable to find a way to make the pawns workable--it always seems too hard to break up pawn formations.

Anonymous wrote on Wed, Feb 4, 2004 11:24 PM UTC:

Forward Chess is a highly positional game. Material is important only as
far as it lets you control the board. Three Queens on the enemy back rank
will usually lose to a lone king on its own third rank--the King 'runs
for the border' and the Queens can't catch it. The strong side can win
if its King can reach the eight rank first.  Gaining the opposition is
probably not sufficient, the strong side will tend to lose by triple
repetition.

Capturing a piece with the next lower ranking piece is a particularly
strong move: the newly created piece defends the capturing piece.

Another powerful capturing move is the 'split fork' where the capturing
piece attacks one piece and the created piece attacks another.

Charles Gilman wrote on Fri, Feb 20, 2004 09:11 AM UTC:

Further to Peter Aronson's question and the anonymous suggestion, Feedback Chess could be a variant where a backward move could not capture a piece on the destination but could reintroduce a captured piece on the departure square - feeding them back into the game. Whether the pieces reintroduced should be those captured by the enemy or (as in Shogi) ones own captives but changing sides is open to discussion, and would influence the choice of physical set used (FIDE-array variants can be played with Shogi or even Xiang Qi sets).

Anonymous wrote on Fri, Feb 25, 2005 12:38 AM UTC:

Have you tried Sideways Chess yet? If not, can you tell me if it is a
workable idea? P.S. You must be wondering about the rules, and so I will
tell you.  Every piece has limited sideways movement, this will
definitely
affect Queens and Rooks, this may also affect Bishops, Knights, and
Pawns,
but they would gain from it instead.  Please try it! I will be looking
forward to your     
thoughts on it!- JCR

9 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.