11–20 of 26 posts
1. You win if you get rid of all your pieces
2. The king is just any other piece. No castling, no check/checkmate. A pawn can promote to king.
3. If you can capture you must capture. You can only decide if you have more than one capture option.
I haven't play since. This Really Bad Chess looks like it could be fun though...
(*) Bob P.: If you read this, I miss ya buddy!
This removed the "Turn Based" application of Chess and instead made it real-time online - with only a period of 1-5 seconds of waiting to be able to move a piece again, depending on your settings.
The other "novel" feature was the introduction of a 4 player chessboard - it added to the strategy having three other opponents all looking to get the jump on you.
The game unfortunately shut down in 2008 - not sure where it ended up.
> This gulf in skill and experience meant that the two couldn’t play together in a meaningful way; if they tried, Gage would get crushed, and the match wouldn’t be much fun. So he decided to fix the problem. This problem has already been solved for hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_handicap
Thank you for the link. I was unaware of the handicap system. Although I think this is a novel approach because you don't need to first rank the players, both players are equally disadvantaged. In theory, I still bet that a strong player would win regardless of which pieces are on the board.
When I was about 17 I used to give my 10 year old brother queen-odds (I played without my queen). He apparently remembers it fondly, and I had to really think.
> This gulf in skill and experience meant that the two couldn’t play together in a meaningful way; if they tried, Gage would get crushed, and the match wouldn’t be much fun. So he decided to fix the problem. This problem has already been solved for hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_handicap
The idea feels fresh, challenging, curious. It has me thinking about other ways to add variety to old games, similar to the flood of creativity board games have experienced the past couple decades.
> This gulf in skill and experience meant that the two couldn’t play together in a meaningful way; if they tried, Gage would get crushed, and the match wouldn’t be much fun. So he decided to fix the problem. This problem has already been solved for hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_handicap
In my opinion, there is no acceptable handicap system for chess; its symmetry isn't conducive. It is also something that is almost never done - I've never seen a handicap (beyond time and color) used in any chess club. Allotting more time to the weaker (and less to the stronger) player is probably the best method of balancing skill discrepancy. This is one of the reasons I abandoned chess for go (baduk, weichi, igo,…
That would allow the newb to quickly try different strategies and see their outcomes right away, enabling them to learn faster.
My first college roommate* and I played chess a couple of times. He beat me within a few moves both games. After winning the 2nd game he said to me (in jest): "That's called the Fools Mate. You know why it works on you?" I haven't play since. This Really Bad Chess looks like it could be fun though... (*) Bob P.: If you read this, I miss ya buddy!