Hmm I didn't know about this one (but there are hundreds of variants, I just know a few so.. :) ). Seems that it's orthodox chess with 2 pieces having different moving rules. I planned absorbtion chess, among others, which is close to this. But this variant specifically I don't know. You like it a lot ?
yes... seirawan chess is better than regular chess
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess_piece create your own as well
In addition, try using the lichess source code. It's open source and free (like bughousetest)
"yes... seirawan chess is better than regular chess"
Why? Matter of taste, I'd say. Orthodox chess has proved over the centuries to be quite interesting, isn't it? ;)
"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess_piece create your own as well"
Sure, everything can be invented. But I'm a poor designer, so I just pick pieces images that I find on the web. I found quite many so I'm happy so far :)
"In addition, try using the lichess source code. It's open source and free (like bughousetest)"
At first I tried to use chessground, the code for lichess board UI. But it seemed too specific for me (and now I think I was wrong). So it's a nice option that I will consider in the future. Clearly superior to my chessboard, but not required yet I think. I'd rather focus on adding a fair set of variants (it's more fun for now ^^)
EDIT: in particular, my definition of a move is more general and would probably require changing chessground in many places. Still a good idea I think, I would learn things in the process :) but not now.
Why? Matter of taste, I'd say. Orthodox chess has proved over the centuries to be quite interesting, isn't it? ;)
"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_chess_piece create your own as well"
Sure, everything can be invented. But I'm a poor designer, so I just pick pieces images that I find on the web. I found quite many so I'm happy so far :)
"In addition, try using the lichess source code. It's open source and free (like bughousetest)"
At first I tried to use chessground, the code for lichess board UI. But it seemed too specific for me (and now I think I was wrong). So it's a nice option that I will consider in the future. Clearly superior to my chessboard, but not required yet I think. I'd rather focus on adding a fair set of variants (it's more fun for now ^^)
EDIT: in particular, my definition of a move is more general and would probably require changing chessground in many places. Still a good idea I think, I would learn things in the process :) but not now.
@ulath "I found one by chance the previous night ^^ we played two Zen games, it was quite interesting. But yes we need more players :)"
I also played two 960 games against a human :) one i resigened after 'miscastling' the other game human tacticly blundered queen on move 18 (just in endgame according to sf) and resigned 2 moves after.
The PGN is great! (avg centipwn n stuff:))
Itd be nice to be able to see lobby when playing computer, and be able to select an opponent rather than having the board reset all of the sudden.
The option to toggle interface is excellent!
I also played two 960 games against a human :) one i resigened after 'miscastling' the other game human tacticly blundered queen on move 18 (just in endgame according to sf) and resigned 2 moves after.
The PGN is great! (avg centipwn n stuff:))
Itd be nice to be able to see lobby when playing computer, and be able to select an opponent rather than having the board reset all of the sudden.
The option to toggle interface is excellent!
Thanks O42 ! I think you played Chess960 against me ^^ I was playing too fast in the second game and fell to Qh8+ followed by Be5+ which wins the queen (allowing Qa6+ was bad too).
Computer is not supposed to be a serious opponent (it's really basic depth 3 search), so I still believe giving priority to human opponent is better.
About selecting the opponent, that would imply an identity, challenges system and so on. My first version of the website had all that (and a chat too), but more and more I like the current version (I mean if there are enough online players).
Because, the moves on a board are a language after all. You can tell a lot on your opponent based on how he plays. It express something. So it reduces the interactions to the basics : the game, which is what people should focus on :)
Computer is not supposed to be a serious opponent (it's really basic depth 3 search), so I still believe giving priority to human opponent is better.
About selecting the opponent, that would imply an identity, challenges system and so on. My first version of the website had all that (and a chat too), but more and more I like the current version (I mean if there are enough online players).
Because, the moves on a board are a language after all. You can tell a lot on your opponent based on how he plays. It express something. So it reduces the interactions to the basics : the game, which is what people should focus on :)
I just had the option to castle while being checked. If I remember the rules correctly that shoun't be possible. Could you please change that.
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
So I was playing against you :)
There is a subtelty in checkered chess, since checkered pieces are yours on your turn, you can castle if "attacked" by them (because they don't attack you yet). You can also pass through squares they attack. But not end up on a square controlled by checkered pieces.
If it wasn't you, and the variant not checkered chess then it would be a bug. But I don't observe it in my tests (on actual checks).
There is a subtelty in checkered chess, since checkered pieces are yours on your turn, you can castle if "attacked" by them (because they don't attack you yet). You can also pass through squares they attack. But not end up on a square controlled by checkered pieces.
If it wasn't you, and the variant not checkered chess then it would be a bug. But I don't observe it in my tests (on actual checks).
Interesting. Then this was my mistake. You could add this to the rules (yes, I have read them now). In the help function you mark a chess by an opponents piece the same way as an 'not yet chess' by an checkered piece. Shoudn't the later case be technically not marked? (Through that would probably cause even more questions for most people).
I have another technical question:
If a pawn is captured by a piece on his original second row and the opponent decides that he wants a pawn it has the right to move 2 sqares.
If a pawn captures a piece on his opponents second row and decides for the pawn this is not the case.
What happens if a pawn captures a pawn on a second row?
I have another technical question:
If a pawn is captured by a piece on his original second row and the opponent decides that he wants a pawn it has the right to move 2 sqares.
If a pawn captures a piece on his opponents second row and decides for the pawn this is not the case.
What happens if a pawn captures a pawn on a second row?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.