Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 269 posts

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#251

Post by yellowapple »

blharr wrote: post #188
yellowapple wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what would you do if a side is in stalemate and there isn't a stalemate rule? The game keeps going until one side gets too tired and gives up (or makes a mistake that breaks the stalemate). Another idea would be a "Fortnite rule": after $X turns, the outermost edge of the board kills any pieces left in it (or becomes "the storm" in Fortnite parlance); repeat every $X turns until someone's forced into checkmate beca…

In that case the stalemated player has no moves. So you can't keep playing

Well then whomever's forced into check would be the loser, then.

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#252

Post by yellowapple »

seanhunter wrote: post #185
yellowapple wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what would you do if a side is in stalemate and there isn't a stalemate rule? The game keeps going until one side gets too tired and gives up (or makes a mistake that breaks the stalemate). Another idea would be a "Fortnite rule": after $X turns, the outermost edge of the board kills any pieces left in it (or becomes "the storm" in Fortnite parlance); repeat every $X turns until someone's forced into checkmate beca…

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…

> One side has to move but has no legal moves.

If you run out of legal moves then that seems like an outright loss condition, no? My understanding of "stalemate" is when you can move but there's no way to actually force a win (e.g. kings chasing each other around the board). I ain't a chess expert, so maybe I'm using the wrong terminology.

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#253

Post by ssl-3 »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #209
ssl-3 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nor the "promotion" of a pawn that has marched across the board to begin a new life as... a pawn (or anything else that isn't a king -- this almost means a queen, but a promotion to knight can also be useful). Displaying usual the moves on the pieces is certainly super-handy for beginners to understand the moves, but as you've pointed out: Chess also has other nuances. --- I was showing off one night and, at the tail…

> and promoted a pawn to a pawn umm. Commendably warped, but I'm not sure that's legal? (BTW many years ago I experimented creating chess variants, before I even knew it was a thing. I invented a number which all felt contrived, but one actually felt right and an improvement, which is the ability to take your own pieces, as well as the enemy's. Turns out that somebody's already invented it (search for 'self eliminato…

Any move is legal in casual play if the person on the other side of the board agrees that is is OK, especially if that game is held in their own house.

I mean: We're not playing ranked games here. It's supposed to be fun, and it was a fun game.

Self eliminator chess sounds like an interesting dynamic. I'll have to check it out. Some of the games where my thinking feels best (if that makes sense) are the games where a ravenous opponent has shewdly eaten most of my pieces.

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#254

Post by seanhunter »

yellowapple wrote: post #252
seanhunter wrote: post #185

Earlier 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…

> One side has to move but has no legal moves. If you run out of legal moves then that seems like an outright loss condition, no? My understanding of "stalemate" is when you can move but there's no way to actually force a win (e.g. kings chasing each other around the board). I ain't a chess expert, so maybe I'm using the wrong terminology.

No. In ordinary usage "stalemate" means when people are kind of stuck and not making progress, but in chess stalemate specifically means when one side has no legal moves but is not in check. In chess that is a draw. The type of situations you're describing about are covered by four rules.

1. The threefold repetition rule: if a board position repeats 3 times either side may claim a draw. In online chess this is automatic but in over the board chess people may not always realise the position has repeated especially if there is a gap between repetitions.

2. The 50 move rule: if 50 moves pass without a pawn moving or a capture being made then it is a draw.

3. Insufficient material: if neither side has sufficient material to checkmate then it is a draw. In some rule systems [1] it has to be sufficient material to force checkmate in some it's just sufficient material to mate[2] (ie the defending side can blunder into it). So if there are no pawns and both sides just have a lone king, or it is king and knight vs king or king and bishop vs king then it's always a draw. In USCF and chess.com king and 2 knights is a draw in FIDE tournaments or on lichess it's not. King and 2 bishops on up is not a draw because you can force checkmate.

4. Draw by agreement: the two sides can agree a draw. In some tournament situations this is only allowed after a certain move but there are ways the players can deliberately go into some sort of situation which is a known theoretical draw and just repeat 3 times by tacit agreement. Including amusingly/notoriously (depending on your pov) the Carlsen/Nakamura "double bongcloud" game [3]

[1] US Chess federation and chess.com in particular

[2] FIDE and I think lichess

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/mar/18/bongcloud-meme...

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#255

Post by _a_a_a_ »

ssl-3 wrote: post #253
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and promoted a pawn to a pawn umm. Commendably warped, but I'm not sure that's legal? (BTW many years ago I experimented creating chess variants, before I even knew it was a thing. I invented a number which all felt contrived, but one actually felt right and an improvement, which is the ability to take your own pieces, as well as the enemy's. Turns out that somebody's already invented it (search for 'self eliminato…

Any move is legal in casual play if the person on the other side of the board agrees that is is OK, especially if that game is held in their own house. I mean: We're not playing ranked games here. It's supposed to be fun, and it was a fun game. Self eliminator chess sounds like an interesting dynamic. I'll have to check it out. Some of the games where my thinking feels best (if that makes sense) are the games where a…

Point taken, rules are as agreed between players, not divinely imposed. I was just curious about P-to-P promotion legality per the 'standard'

I hope SE chess lives up to its promise! It felt right and somehow freeing not to be always hemmed in by your own pieces.

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#256

Post by eru »

seanhunter wrote: post #254
yellowapple wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One side has to move but has no legal moves. If you run out of legal moves then that seems like an outright loss condition, no? My understanding of "stalemate" is when you can move but there's no way to actually force a win (e.g. kings chasing each other around the board). I ain't a chess expert, so maybe I'm using the wrong terminology.

No. In ordinary usage "stalemate" means when people are kind of stuck and not making progress, but in chess stalemate specifically means when one side has no legal moves but is not in check. In chess that is a draw. The type of situations you're describing about are covered by four rules. 1. The threefold repetition rule: if a board position repeats 3 times either side may claim a draw. In online chess this is automa…

The important thing to mention: in many respects, you can pretend that in chess the objective is to capture the opposing king. But for historical reasons, the game actually tops one move before, and the king is never captured.

But they also have weird rules that both (A) forbid putting your king in check, and (B) hand you a draw when you are out of legal moves.

A simpler version of chess would actually play until the king is captured, and allow people to move into check.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf reports on some experiments with variants like this.

Another interesting thing to try out is to allow players to capture their own pieces. Or to abolish castling.

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#258

Post by lgeorget »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #195
lgeorget wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The official definition, as per the FIDE laws of chess [1], article 3.6 is "The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal." [1] https://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf

That's a horrendously hard to parse definition. Couldn't they say "3 squares away but not on the same rank/file/diagonal" or something a bit easier?

"3 squares away" is not entirely obvious though. The definition as it stands is mathematically unambiguous. Obviously, it's not how you teach the rule to a beginner, but that's irrelevant.

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#259

Post by lutzh »

100 years ago Josef Hartwig designed a chess set for Bauhaus with the same principle: "the shape of each piece reflects how it moves: pawns and rooks move in straight lines and are represented as rectangular prisms, the bishops feature diagonal lines, the king has both straight and diagonal elements, and the knights are L-shaped" See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Hartwig#Chess_sets

Re: I realized chess pieces can be redesigned to be geometric attack directions

#260

Post by SeanLuke »

eru wrote: post #247
SeanLuke wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry, when I was talking about the stalemate rule, I meant the rule that declares that the game is a draw, if the only move you can make is putting yourself into check. There is a Chess game that does this. It's Chinese Chess (which is just as old as Western Chess, and has the same origin in India). In Chinese Chess, the objective is to capture (or as the Chinese say, "eat") the king. There is no prohibition again…

Thanks for bringing up the Chinese chess example! Btw, see https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.04374.pdf for an investigation. > Now stalemate by repeated back-and-forth is a different matter. I would favor some variant of Go's Ko rule, which is that you may not make a move if the result would be a board that looked exactly the same as it had in the past. I would favour that rule as well, but keep in mind that even in Go that…

I don't know about Japanese rules, which are borderline insane. I use the only rational ones: Chinese rules! As far as I know, in Chinese rules, Ko only considers the board configuration.
Post reply on HN