Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
17:52 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Cheat Chess |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Jun 7, 2009 15:17] | Cheat Chess
Just an idea for a fairy condition. Probably exists already.
In the FIDE rules there stands "Mate immediately ends the game."
Obvious FIDE is not *completely* stupid: "...if the mating move
was legal".
Just for fun, drop this condition. Obviously there aren't any
degrees of illegality, so you could begin the game with
1.Bc4+Qxf7#, but let's restrict a "move" to be just with one
piece at a time. That is, a typical opening might be 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4
threatening Qxf7#.
Hauke
| | | (2) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, Jun 7, 2009 15:36] |
Far better would be Tim Krabbé's variation 1.Rh1xh8 Sg8-f6 2.Sg1xg7 mate
| | | (3) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Sunday, Jun 7, 2009 17:04] |
in a revanche game, white played just legal moves, but this time black mated in two (without a capture!) - even so, far from a single solution...
| | | (4) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Jun 8, 2009 12:00] |
You'll have to define this more strictly -- otherwise, Black is mated in the diagram.
Threat: anything (literally anything, even the empty squares!?) takes e8, thus black is in check...
White is on the move, thus Black is already mated.
Game over.
| | | (5) Posted by Joost de Heer [Monday, Jun 8, 2009 13:19] |
The way 'cheat chess' is defined in the first post, all moves except the mating move itself must be legal. So the begin position isn't mate, since there is no legal move that captures the king.
| | | (6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Jun 8, 2009 21:45] |
I do understand this, Joost.
Still, if this is to be taken seriously, a more complete definition is needed (a few simple problems would help).
Until then, I will assume the goal was only to provoke discussion.
If anyone is intent upon defining these rules, might I suggest that the illegal move should be allowed on any one move which ends the game in one move (read: stalemates should also trigger a departure from legality).
Triggering only on checkmate is something that always bothered me about Republican Chess -- try composing a h=n in Republican Chess! It seems to me that triggering on checkmate/stalemate was possible, and might improve the play...
For example (Republican Chess, type III and IV?):
Type 3:
1) White makes a legal move.
2) Black may drop his King to demonstrate that black is checkmated/stalemated (may opt for either, if both outcomes are possible).
NOTE 1: The player whose King is being dropped (in this case black) should have priority to drop his King first.
NOTE 2: If both outcomes (pat/mat) are possible, the player making the drop may opt for whichever outcome they prefer.
3) If black fails to demonstrate an end of game, white may drop black's King to demonstrate that black is checkmated/stalemated.
4) If black fails to demonstrate end of game, black must make a legal move.
5) Now white may drop the white King...
6) Then black can drop the white King...
7) then white moves...
etc
Type 4: claims of stalemate/checkmate allow drops of the 2nd King, which allow counter claims of stalemate/checkmate!
(as in Republican Chess Type 2, except here instead of checkmate being only answerable with counter-checkmate, now checkmate can be answered with counter-stalemate, stalemate with counter-stalemate or counter-checkmate). Here, ANY counter-claim supercedes all previous claims, and again drop priorities favor the player whose King (the 2nd King) is being dropped, who may opt for the most favorable outcome.
So, to achieve stalemate of bKing, one might have to checkmate the wKing, claim it, then counter-claim a stalemate!?
Hyper-complex yes, but so rich with fascinating possibilities... why not?
| | | (7) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Jun 9, 2009 14:10] |
@Kevin:
"If anyone is intent upon defining these rules, might I suggest that the illegal move should be allowed on any one move which ends the game in one move (read: stalemates should also trigger a departure from legality)."
ACK to that. (Dead reckoning qualifies too.)
Hauke
| | | (8) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Jun 9, 2009 21:53] |
ACK = ?
| | | (9) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Tuesday, Jun 9, 2009 23:33] |
May I propose the following lecture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acknowledgment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACK
| | | (10) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Jun 10, 2009 10:24] |
<mental image of H.R. as Bart Simpson writing
100 times on the blackboard:
MatPlus is not 4chan.
MatPlus is not 4chan.
MatPlus is not 4chan.
...
Yippie!>
:-)
Hauke
ObProblem: Kc8 Pb6 - Ka8 Pa7, h#1, CheatChess. How many solutions?
1...a6/a5 2.b8Q# surely are acceptable.
But what, say, about 1...a5 2.a6Q/R#?
Or, totally wacky, 1...a5 2.castles with pawn (K->b6,P-c8=Q#)? :-)
Indeed, we need a clearcut definition what is legally illegal in
CheatChess. Obviously, we have to exclude capturing the enemy king
from initial position *by definition*.
A very concise possibility would be: as cheat move, any serial move
with the same piece is allowed. But I don't like it.
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Cheat Chess |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
