- May 26, 2005
- 321
- 47
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
I propose more logical version of chess, with the following modifications:
1) You have to actually capture the king in order to win. Thus, if you made a checkmate, you didn't win yet. You only win after your opponent makes a move in response to your checkmate, and then you capture the king in your move after that.
2) Stalemate is not a draw. Just like with checkmate, the next move will be made, which will result in capturing the king of stalemated party, thus stalemated party losing the game
3) If someone doesn't pay attention, its possible to fail to capture the king after either checkmate or stalemate, simply because one doesn't notice that they just checkmated/stalemated their opponent. So in this case the game continues.
4) Conversely, if one doesn't pay attention, its also possible to accidentally put a king under threat without being either checkmated or stalemated. In this case, your opponent will capture your king the next move and you will lose
5) Its also possible that both parties are careless: one party accidentally puts a king under threat, and the other party doesn't notice it. In this case, the game continues.
6) If someone accidentally puts a king under threat and then notices it before their opponents move, they are not allowed to undo that move. Because the move of putting the king under threat is just as legal as any other move. And, just like you aren't allowed to undo any other move, you aren't allowed to undo this move either.
7) If the game is timed, and the one who checkmated/stalemated their opponent runs out of time immediately after that, they lose the game. So if its the checkmate then normal rules would say they won (since they checkmated their opponent before running out of time) but my rules would say they lost (because they didn't capture the opponents king before running out of time). And if its a stalemate then normal rules would say its a draw, while my rules would again say they lost (and if they didn't run out of time it wouldn't be a draw either, instead they would have won per part 2).
8) If someone resigns, then yes they lose. So, of course, its possible to resign due to being checkmated/stalemated. And in this situation they would lose without any more moves. But the official reason why they would lose would "not" be checkmate/stalemate. Instead, it would be the fact that they resigned. So, unless they officially resign, another move needs to be made.
9) On the other hand, if you do capture their king, then yes, they would lose without resigning. Losing a king is the official reason to lose the game, without any need for resignation.
10) By the same token, no position is automatic draw unless the draw is agreed upon. Thus, if the game is timed, in the draw situation they would simply be moving their pieces as quickly as possible until one of the parties runs out of time. Thus, if one player has a lot more time left than the other player, then the former is much more likely to win (unless the latter player happens to be able to move pieces faster). So, the player with less time left might realize this, resign, and lose due to resigning. Or they might decide not to resign and hope to move pieces really fast and see what happens. Or if they have similar time left, they might both agree to have a draw since they don't like mindlessly moving pieces for five minutes. And then they would have a draw, but official reason for a draw would not be the actual position but instead the fact that they agreed for a draw. If they don't agree for a draw, they would have to be moving pieces. Now, as they are moving pieces as quickly as possible, its very easy to accidentally put a king under threat. And then whoever does it would lose this way -- provided their opponent notices it, which they might not notice due to also being focus on moving as fast as possible.
11) An alternative way to deal with draws is that, instead of putting the limit on the total time of all moves (say, 10 minutes total for all moves) put the limit on the time for each move (say, 1 minute total each move). Thus, the total number of moves would be of unlimitted time. And since 1 minute per move is very easy to fulfill, especially in a draw situation, both players would realize the game would never end unless they agree for a draw. And this would induce them to agree for a draw. The purpose of 1 minute per move is completely different from the one for 10 minute total. You see, 1 minute per move is very easy, so it has nothing to do with thinking fast. Instead, it has to do with the fact that, without limitting time per move, the losing player would stall indefinitely. So this is the way to prevent them from stalling. So, if you like, I can make it an hour per move. Even that would do the job too. The losing player will realize they would lose after the hour runs out, so they would either make their bad move they are forced to make sooner or they will resign.
12) Here is even better alternative. Instead of saying 1 minute per move, say 1 day per move. So then even if they do move it indefinitely it won't be too bad: they just have to remember to make one move per day so the challenge would be to remember it. But still its a bit of a nuisance. So one thing they might do is this. Apart from being able to agree to have a draw, they can agree to postpone the game. And if they reach that agreement then the time for a move wont be a day. And so the game that is to be drawn can simply be indefinitely postponed instead. Or they can simply change their mind about allowed time per move on the condition that both players agree (so one player can't stall since it takes agreement of both to change the time per move). So in a situation of a draw, both players can agree to take a year per move, and then they don't have to come back to that game for a year.
1) You have to actually capture the king in order to win. Thus, if you made a checkmate, you didn't win yet. You only win after your opponent makes a move in response to your checkmate, and then you capture the king in your move after that.
2) Stalemate is not a draw. Just like with checkmate, the next move will be made, which will result in capturing the king of stalemated party, thus stalemated party losing the game
3) If someone doesn't pay attention, its possible to fail to capture the king after either checkmate or stalemate, simply because one doesn't notice that they just checkmated/stalemated their opponent. So in this case the game continues.
4) Conversely, if one doesn't pay attention, its also possible to accidentally put a king under threat without being either checkmated or stalemated. In this case, your opponent will capture your king the next move and you will lose
5) Its also possible that both parties are careless: one party accidentally puts a king under threat, and the other party doesn't notice it. In this case, the game continues.
6) If someone accidentally puts a king under threat and then notices it before their opponents move, they are not allowed to undo that move. Because the move of putting the king under threat is just as legal as any other move. And, just like you aren't allowed to undo any other move, you aren't allowed to undo this move either.
7) If the game is timed, and the one who checkmated/stalemated their opponent runs out of time immediately after that, they lose the game. So if its the checkmate then normal rules would say they won (since they checkmated their opponent before running out of time) but my rules would say they lost (because they didn't capture the opponents king before running out of time). And if its a stalemate then normal rules would say its a draw, while my rules would again say they lost (and if they didn't run out of time it wouldn't be a draw either, instead they would have won per part 2).
8) If someone resigns, then yes they lose. So, of course, its possible to resign due to being checkmated/stalemated. And in this situation they would lose without any more moves. But the official reason why they would lose would "not" be checkmate/stalemate. Instead, it would be the fact that they resigned. So, unless they officially resign, another move needs to be made.
9) On the other hand, if you do capture their king, then yes, they would lose without resigning. Losing a king is the official reason to lose the game, without any need for resignation.
10) By the same token, no position is automatic draw unless the draw is agreed upon. Thus, if the game is timed, in the draw situation they would simply be moving their pieces as quickly as possible until one of the parties runs out of time. Thus, if one player has a lot more time left than the other player, then the former is much more likely to win (unless the latter player happens to be able to move pieces faster). So, the player with less time left might realize this, resign, and lose due to resigning. Or they might decide not to resign and hope to move pieces really fast and see what happens. Or if they have similar time left, they might both agree to have a draw since they don't like mindlessly moving pieces for five minutes. And then they would have a draw, but official reason for a draw would not be the actual position but instead the fact that they agreed for a draw. If they don't agree for a draw, they would have to be moving pieces. Now, as they are moving pieces as quickly as possible, its very easy to accidentally put a king under threat. And then whoever does it would lose this way -- provided their opponent notices it, which they might not notice due to also being focus on moving as fast as possible.
11) An alternative way to deal with draws is that, instead of putting the limit on the total time of all moves (say, 10 minutes total for all moves) put the limit on the time for each move (say, 1 minute total each move). Thus, the total number of moves would be of unlimitted time. And since 1 minute per move is very easy to fulfill, especially in a draw situation, both players would realize the game would never end unless they agree for a draw. And this would induce them to agree for a draw. The purpose of 1 minute per move is completely different from the one for 10 minute total. You see, 1 minute per move is very easy, so it has nothing to do with thinking fast. Instead, it has to do with the fact that, without limitting time per move, the losing player would stall indefinitely. So this is the way to prevent them from stalling. So, if you like, I can make it an hour per move. Even that would do the job too. The losing player will realize they would lose after the hour runs out, so they would either make their bad move they are forced to make sooner or they will resign.
12) Here is even better alternative. Instead of saying 1 minute per move, say 1 day per move. So then even if they do move it indefinitely it won't be too bad: they just have to remember to make one move per day so the challenge would be to remember it. But still its a bit of a nuisance. So one thing they might do is this. Apart from being able to agree to have a draw, they can agree to postpone the game. And if they reach that agreement then the time for a move wont be a day. And so the game that is to be drawn can simply be indefinitely postponed instead. Or they can simply change their mind about allowed time per move on the condition that both players agree (so one player can't stall since it takes agreement of both to change the time per move). So in a situation of a draw, both players can agree to take a year per move, and then they don't have to come back to that game for a year.
