"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?"
Yes, maybe. Or marked differently. But other variants might need special checks as well so it would be rather tedious :/
"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." Yep
"If a pawn captures a piece on his opponents second row and decides for the pawn this is not the case." Yes, because that means a pawn was there previously, and has moved, thus lost its 2-squares jump right.
"What happens if a pawn captures a pawn on a second row?" The resulting checkered pawn can move 2 squares, since the captured pawn never moved before.
So you assume that everyone chooses the pawn that was taken. From the programming side that makes sense. From the playing side in every other case where you could choose two practically different pieces you can choose which one you want. In this case you can't. I know that this is mostly nitpicking and even in 90+ percent where such a case occures not important but I think that if I technically had the choice I would choose the attacking pawn over the defending. I haven't come up with a reason why I would want to give my opponent more freedom then I could. In other words I argue for not giving the right of moving twice and using the capturing pawn and not the captured one.
That might change if you ever find the time to program phase 2 (I think I like it better without but I have never tried the one with phase 2, so I can't really say wether that implementation would be worthwhile).
Overall it is a pretty interesting game (even through I am bad), so once again thanks a lot.
"So you assume that everyone chooses the pawn that was taken." Ahhh I understand your point now! Good question. Yes that's what is assumed (and clearly simpler from a programming view point). One of the reasons I can imagine is that if you choose the capturing pawn, then it's supposed to go forward. But your opponent will move it "backward" anyway. So it would be strange too. And since your opponent didn't use his right for 2-squares jump he still has it (but it helps you too because after he jumps you can advance the checkered pawn by 1, which is generally unpleasant).
I programmed stage 2 in an early version of the website (for correspondance play only, rather complete but the code was a big mess). I had to give up on that code.
Finally about stage 2 I prefer the game without, but have to mention it because the variant creator likes it a lot. Not sure if I will implement it on this website. I don't like it because it creates an additional tension, at every capture you should consider "will my opponent 'switch' and take checkered pieces now?". So this slow down captures at some point, or at least has consequences on the pieces types you choose.
"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."
When we were playing i noticed very strong replies, and knowing your rating i might have had a slight clue^^.
I understand what you mean regarding time, i kinda felt obligated to make a move, or else maybe human would leave. (if i start thinking can take a looong time xD)
In the second game, my pawnsaq on move2 was not particular intended, there were 2 'minor' (missed) tactics in the opening (for white), and instead of 18. .c6 (??), Ne4 (with attack Bishop c3 closing E file. ~ -1.1 according to Sf) would have been playable (perhaps winning?).
I maybe have played 100 games against humans and still not completely sure what to do with chess :) (i read learn tactics, now i have to start learning endgame etc. Or figure all these things out while playing. Bobby Fischer said jazz musicians are much nicer to each other than chess players followed by his logical explanation, it's a fascinating game nevertheless!)
About the interface and a.i. / human game play, ill make another post, another time. and ill try to summarize my concept one final (decent) time, but it is really just meant as positive feedback; to improve the overall interaction without intervening with your philosophy behind vhcess.club.
Anyway thx for the games n the site :))
I have a few thoughts on magnetic chess:
1. It is pure fun and I would really like to play it against humen players.
2. If the king is neutraly poled, why does he attract/distract other pieces upen moving? I haven't really an opinion on this yet, but would like to know the reason.
3. Is it possible to get the diagonals magnatic as well as the rows/columns, or does that kill the fun of the game?
4. Could you please change the example. Going into the first game I thought we would have an 'local' magnatic field and not a 'global' one. Just make sure that a piece moves about more then one square. Thanks
5. I don't really care at all but the notation seemed odd.
Ah, magnetic chess is not fully debugged. I uploaded a little too soon. However, to answer your points:
2. Yes this is most likely a bug. Thanks for reporting it !
3. I have no idea (I didn't invent the rule :) ). I've a feeling it would make the game too complicated and less fun. But who knows.
4. Ok, I'll change that (I copy-pasted the example from chessvariants.com)
5. Notation is wrong atm because it's not re-defined. It uses notation from standard chess, which consider that if 2 things appear then it's a castle... :)
In short, wait a bit for Magnetic chess (in particular it doesn't promote pawns sent to 8th rank for now ; but it should). Then I plan to implement Alice chess which sounds fun too.
I did not think that the pawn which do not promote are bad or technically wrong. I am not sure wether the pawns move when they are magnatically pushed around. Also I think they are a part of the fun.
You describe a variant of the variant :) As described on chessvariants.com the pawns should promote and be considered as other pieces.
Looking at your rules again I have to concede that this is a bug.
(As well as looking at the example games of that side.) Looking only at their rules the question wether being repelled is counted as moving (and according to the FIDE rules, German translation, that is relevant) would remain open.
So your rules are more precise. Congratulations.
Ah ? It's by chance then ^^ I didn't work much on rules definition so far. I wanted to "mathematize" all of them but it wouldn't look good. But I need to clarify rules sections anyway.
Magnetic chess has just been fixed: promotions apply when a pawn is pushed on final rank, simple king moves do not do anything, and castling repel/attract depending on the position of the moved rook (as they say on chessvariants.com).
Now I start thinking about Alice chess :)