Knight could be a cross of L
I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions
231–240 of 269 posts
Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean the game keeps on going? One side has to move but has no legal moves. That's what I was asking - do they get to "pass" and the other side gets to move? This is how it works in the game of go for instance. In chess that would be more or less equivalent to the non-stalemated player winning, because in many stalemate positions if you had an extra move you could checkmate. The stalemate rule adds somethi…
I do not get this Rosen Trap example you linked to... It's an easy win for blacks, just move the rook to 8th row instead of moving the pawn and it's checkmate. The pawn move seems kind of random, as if it was played by a child.
Generally the attacking side can avoid the stalemate trap but often it happens under time pressure etc so the attacker doesn’t have time to calculate whether the defender has any valid moves.
Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions
#233Fun as it may be as a thought/UX experiment, I don't think it's a good design, because half-truth is usually the worst compromise. This design doesn't account for many special qualities and behaviors pieces exhibit. It doesn't indicate that * while pawns do capture diagonally (forward), they are pushed forward in straight line * they can capture en passant * they can move by 2 squares from their initial file, and onl…
I have a fair amount of experience teaching children and adults how to play chess.
I've almost never seen a beginner mess up the basics of how the pieces move(what this piece set displays). Probably 95% of confusion about rules in new players is about the things you mention. Especially en passant and castling rules.
The rule on castling through check is especially confusing, and I've seen even master strength players believe that you can't castle long if b1 or b8 is attacked. Another common mistake is forgetting the rook or king has previously moved.
En passant is also very confusing for beginners because there's no indication of it being possible in the current board state. It depends on the previous ply.
Repetition is also a major footgun in tournament play. It's often referred to as repetition of moves, but it's actually repetition of the position(which is typically reached via repetition of moves, but doesn't have to). And there's a very specific procedure in tournament chess for claiming a repetition. You have to write down your move, stop the clock and call the arbiter without making the move. If you make the move and hit the clock, now your opponent has every right to make another move, creating a new position. The repetition no longer counts when that happens(so you can't claim e.g oh the position repeated a 3rd time 15 moves ago, gimme a draw).
I actually lost a game this way when I had a repetition in a losing position.
Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions
#234The Knight would work better as a cross with perpendicular line segments at the end of both sides of each axis.
Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions
#235Much like this chess set from 1975 [1].
We picked it up from an auction house about 6years ago, but didnt pay anywhere near the price it reached at bonhams. It is really well designed is "travel ready" put on lid and all pieces stay in place. With only 12 supposedly made it was a great find.
edit:forgot to mention who made it Ove Arup (who founded the Arup group)
[1]https://www.bonhams.com/auction/19097/lot/49/a-prototype-arc...
Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it take anyone longer than a game or two to remember the rules of chess? I even taught chess to adults as a child and they caught on within a few moves. Which I guess explains why it remains more popular than FOTM overcomplicated board game #5000. It's not difficult to memorize. IMO this is a solution to a nonexistent problem.
Knowing the rules and 'seeing' the ways that pieces can move are different things. I could see this being helpful to someone who has a working knowledge of the ways pieces can move, but hasn't yet built their skill of visualization thereof.
Except this doesn't help you visualize it either. I can understand this argument for online boards that, when you click on a piece, highlight all the legal moves. This set doesn't do that, it basically just reminds you how the pieces move.
I don't think anyone that actually plays or teaches chess thinks this is a good set design. Honestly amazed by how many people called this clever. I also find it weird that OP claims it makes the board "easier to probe", when it does the exact opposite. This is a textbook example of making up a problem, rather than a solution.
Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions
#237[dead]
Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions
#238This is already incorporated to some extent. Keeping in mind sets vary,
Knight's profile is the L-shape.
Rook has four parapets (and four gaps).
Bishop has a diagonal slit.
King has 8 stubby protrusions in his crown.
Queen has 8 pointy protrusions in her crown.
Pawns are most basic (ironic considering their qualities are most byzantine). I guess it's nice to have a baseline piece for aesthetics.
Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions
#239For me the most surprising observation from this thread is this tweet [1] showing that the knight's moves are exactly the squares that the queen can't get to within a 2 square manhattan distance. I.e. the knight is an anti-queen. [1]: https://twitter.com/skidbladnirr_/status/1750285122769957129
I'm not a master or anything, but I've always found it interesting that the queen is usually thought of as the most powerful piece while I think it's the knight. Yeah the queen can move everywhere, but she's "predictable". The way a knight moves makes it more difficult to defend against IMO.
Knights are prone to getting "trapped". There are limited places a knight can go, so the opponent only has to maintain pressure on those squares. This is the reason why it's generally a bad idea to put a knight near a corner of the board.
Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions
#240What I find funny about chess it's such an elegantly designed game... except castling. Always seemed like a random thing to me to be in the game, and then I found out that it was added centuries after in medieval europe to the game, makes sense why it feels so out of place. Wish we had a league without castling for that sole purpose.
It's indeed a relatively recent addition, but the idea that the king would get a special move is a bit older [0].