111–120 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've lost it a lot lately, for some reason, after what I suppose was my third multi-year victory streak. Like, five or so losses this year.
Same here, oddly enough, and every time besides this one was without anyone else mentioning it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rook doesnt attack the king because N6 is in the way. So black is not in check and has no legal moves, so stalemate.
Isnt that a forced move to K8? The king is forced to take N6 or move to K8, either of which results in a capture. Isn't this the definition of checkmate, not stalemate?
> Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king are not allowed.
N6 and K8 both expose the black king to attack, so black is not allowed to make those moves. And with no other options, black has no legal move.
And since black isn't in check where they are right now – that's a stalemate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chess has different pieces, which has higher entropy than a true 1d backgammon or 1d checkers with only one piece a field. You could play with pieces that have a value of 1..N instead. Starting with 2,3, and 5 value pieces, and splitting them as needed. Making it one-dimensional again, while keeping 100% of the rules. Final verdict, therefore: backgammon is 1D, not 1.5. We could pretend that the second dimension was…
The "dimensions" in these board games isn't a mathematical/topology thing, is it? Normally one dimension = one real number space. Every board game ever would fit in 1D then, "2D" chess included. I'm fine calling Backgammon 1.5-D. Physically you focus on a single dimension, and the second one matters too but it's not the same.
E.g. a pawn can move exactly 8 squares towards its opponents end (16 on its first move if no piece occupies 8 squares away), but can only capture 7 or 9 squares forward (with some extra modulo math to prevent wrapping)
This is really nice. Incidentally, there is an actual 1D game that is one of the most popular games on the planet: Backgammon.
If you enjoyed this, you might like Mind Chess, which can be played without a board and pieces [1]: Consider Mind Chess. Two players face each other. One says "Check." The other says "Check." The first says "Check." This continues until one of them says, instead, "Checkmate." That player wins -- superficially. In fact, the challenge is to put off checkmate for as long as possible, while still winning. This may be bet…
Which reminds me that I just lost the game. I also lost the game not too long ago, but before that, I think I didn't actually lose it for a decade of more? And losing it wasn't even because it was mentioned anywhere, I genuinely just thought of it by myself, after forgetting about it for so long. So my sincerest apologies if my comment just made any readers lose their long streak in the game.
If you enjoyed this, you might like Mind Chess, which can be played without a board and pieces [1]: Consider Mind Chess. Two players face each other. One says "Check." The other says "Check." The first says "Check." This continues until one of them says, instead, "Checkmate." That player wins -- superficially. In fact, the challenge is to put off checkmate for as long as possible, while still winning. This may be bet…
Wait, how is the "put off checkmate" objective scored? Turns before checkmate? Or what? Is it just a joke?
Both players choose a card. Players then in turns reveal their card, and if Check, make another choice. The player first revealing Checkmate wins if their opponent's currently-chosen card is also a Checkmate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never played it, but I could imagine a scoring mechanism that would make it interesting, and perhaps is implied by the rules: The score value starts at 1. Every additional "check" multiplies the score value by 2 (so 2, 4, 8, 16...). The first player to say "checkmate" receives the score. Track your summed score between games; the player with the highest overall score at any given time is "winning."
Isn't the optimal strategy just to say "checkmate" immediately? That dominates anything else.
Then the game at least has a chance to develop some mechanics. Players who delayed longer have a chance at winning more points. They also might be challenged more…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, how is the "put off checkmate" objective scored? Turns before checkmate? Or what? Is it just a joke?
Give two players cards, "Check" and "Checkmate". Both players choose a card. Players then in turns reveal their card, and if Check, make another choice. The player first revealing Checkmate wins if their opponent's currently-chosen card is also a Checkmate.
I tried and failed a couple times before looking at the hint. And then I had to ask ChatGPT to explain the hint because I didn't understand chess notation. But with all of that out of the way, I am now winning 100% of my matches and feel it's not an overstatement to call myself a 1D chess grandmaster.