Better way to play chess

Post Reply New Topic

I would like chess better if you were to make few changes to it

1)You have to actually EAT a king of your opponent in order to win.

2)You are allowed to leave your kind under the threat and hope that your opponent won't notice it in which case the game will continue since your king haven't actually been eaten.

3)Stalemate is NOT a draw. Quite the opposite, unless your opponent not notice it, he is about to eat your king and you are about to lose the game.

What do you think? May be we should try this form of chess on aspie chess place.

That would be a rather odd game of chess.

Would this king be made of food, or the regular chess piece material?

No it won't be odd. On the contrary it would be MORE LOGICAL. If the purpose of the game is to eat a king (which is what I WANT the game to be)... thats simple enough. But if the point is to simply put a king in a certain position... it becomes less logical... and when in some other position, equally lethal, it is actually a DRAW, it getts plain odd.

In the context of chess, the word "eat" is used in a way that it means "beat". When the figure A "eats" figure B it is when figure A steps on the square where figure B used to stay, while figure B is being taken off the desc.

In chess a checkmate means that there is no escape for the king, if the players were allowed another turn the king would be captured.

1)If there is no escape for a queen, she isn't captured UNLESS the other person acutally notices. I want to be consistant and say that king isn't captured either unless the other person notices it. So if the to-be-loser is lucky enough for his opponent to be asleep, then he can have a check mate and still the game will continue

2)Even if no one is asleep, I would still find it more logical to actually play this one more turn and actually caputure the king. Mathematically rigurous definition of "no escape" would take a page. On the other hand mathematically rigurous definition of "captured" only takes one sentence. So the game would be more BEAUTIFUL if we are to wait for a king to be captured.

How about a seven by seven board with no kings? This is the brand of chess we invented in DENSA, the low IQ society. It was to make fun of the pretentious fools in Mensa.

Jerry Newport

I am so confused @_@

Haha, thats hilarious.

Swallow it? Weird.

Edit: read what Roman said a little down the thread. I thought it was some strange test of endurance or something, it would certainly liven chess up.

What are you confused about? All I am trying to do is make chess more natural. In chess as we know it, you are to do a check mate. In my chess, you are to actually eat a king. In chess as we know it stalemate is a draw. In my chess stalemate only leads to the next move when one of the kings is eaten and one party wins, the other loses.

I like the rules regarding your opponent being asleep If someone doesn't notice it, it didn't happen.

It is funny, in Mexico we actually used the word "eat" (comer) when you capture a chess piece. Maybe that's the source of all the confusion.

that's interesting