Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Hiya. This thread is for things of interest in variants and heterodox chess.

I will add an example of discovered quadruple check below.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread



1. Nf10!! mate

Discovered quadruple check and checkmate. Or is that double double checkmate?

Of course, neither King is checkmated by himself. But, since both pieces cannot be moved at the same time, it IS checkmate. The twin double checks are just ... over kill.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Does Nd10 also give mate? Both Kings are attacked, one with a discovered check. Only one can move. However, it's not quadruple.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

1. Nf10!! mate

Discovered quadruple check and checkmate. Or is that double double checkmate?

Of course, neither King is checkmated by himself. But, since both pieces cannot be moved at the same time, it IS checkmate. The twin double checks are just ... over kill.

This position would be better if there were 42 Black Queens on the board.:p

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

This position would be better if there were 42 Black Queens on the board.:p

Just a guess, but I imagine 42 Black queens being on the board wouldn't be legally possible, even in this variant (but I don't know its rules).

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

The Bishop on a4 and the Knight give discovered double check to the King on h7; the Rook on e1 and the Knight give discovered double check to the King on e12. That's quadruple check for the two Kings, yes? Mind you, a simple fork would win the game since only one King can move. It's an unusual consequence of having two Kings that conditions for checkmate include a simple attack on both Kings at once.

Just imagine what an Alekhine gun would look like on this board. A battery of two Queens and four Rooks would tear through opposing ranks like a hot knife through butter.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Just a guess, but I imagine 42 Black queens being on the board wouldn't be legally possible, even in this variant (but I don't know its rules).

Since the board is 12(ranks) x16(files) , the maximum number of Queens would be (2+16) = 18 for White and the same number of Queens for Black.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

I would imagine the only quadruple checks possible in this variant are with a knight giving the discovered checks in combination with a fork of the kings (a possible situation that may not be obvious until one sees one), as the diagram in first post of this thread examplifies. Fwiw, a triple check would normally be mate as well (e.g. Gary's suggested move). That's assuming the rules are as I think they are (same as regular chess, more or less - though I wonder if special rules such as for castling and an initial double step of a pawn and en passant still apply in similar fashion. Any example(s) of (a) fairly short game(s) played with this variant, Nigel? :D Perhaps some sort of a fool's mate or scholar's mate-style quickie is possible, at least if the victim is a 'duffer' at this game.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Hiya. This thread is for things of interest in variants and heterodox chess.

I will add an example of discovered quadruple check below.

I'm wondering if by playing out these moves, can anyone determine the restriction on making a double-move?

This is not Marseillais Chess, although it is inspired by that variant.

Except for White's first move, which can only be a single move, all other moves may be either double-moves or single-moves, but double-moves do have a restriction which you can try and figure out. It is this restriction which accounts for why some moves besides White's first move are single moves. What that means is there may have been double-moves available, but the restriction made the player choose only a single-move.

I can tell you this though:

- both moves of a double move may give check and / or capture material
- a double move cannot be made with the same piece
- if the King is in check, the first move of a double-move can leave the King in check (but the second move cannot, of course)

?! = dubious double-edged move
!? = interesting double-edged move

 1. d4			Nf6, e6 
 2. e4, Bd3 		Be7, d6 
 3. e5, f3 		Nd5, Nc6 
 4. c4, Ne2 		Nb6, Bd7 
 5. Bf4, a3 		f5 
 6. exf6ep, Qc2 	Bxf6 
 7. Bxh7 		Ne7, c6 
 8. Be4, Be3 		Qc7, d5 
 9. cxd5, Nc3 		exd5, Be6 
10. Bd3, Rd1 		0-0-0, Re8 
11. h3, Kf2 ?!		g6, Bf5
12. g4, Bxf5 !?		Bh4+, Nxf5
13. Kf1, gxf5		Rxe3, Nc4
14. fxg6, Qf5+		Kf1, Rde8
15. Rg1, f4		Nxb2, Rf3+
16. Kg2, Rd2		Rf2+, Nc4
17. Kh1, Rdd1		Ne3, b6
18. g7, Qf8 ?!		Qd7, Kb7 ?!  (Rxf8, Be7 is better)
19. Rg6, Ng1		Bg3, Ng4 (threatening mate on h2)
20. Rxg4, Nf3		Ree1, Rf1+ ?!
21. Kg2, Rxg3 ?!

(Kg2, Nxe1 is winning quicker)

21. ...			Rff2+, Rf1
22. Rg4, Kg3		Rxf3+, Rf2
23. Kh4, g8=Q		Rxh3+, Rh2
24. Kg4, Qgg7  +/-

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

I'm wondering if by playing out these moves, can anyone determine the restriction on making a double-move?

This is not Marseillais Chess, although it is inspired by that variant.

Except for White's first move, which can only be a single move, all other moves may be either double-moves or single-moves, but double-moves do have a restriction which you can try and figure out. It is this restriction which accounts for why some moves besides White's first move are single moves. What that means is there may have been double-moves available, but the restriction made the player choose only a single-move.

I can tell you this though:

- both moves of a double move may give check and / or capture material
- a double move cannot be made with the same piece
- if the King is in check, the first move of a double-move can leave the King in check (but the second move cannot, of course)

?! = dubious double-edged move
!? = interesting double-edged move

 1. d4			Nf6, e6 
 2. e4, Bd3 		Be7, d6 
 3. e5, f3 		Nd5, Nc6 
 4. c4, Ne2 		Nb6, Bd7 
 5. Bf4, a3 		f5 
 6. exf6ep, Qc2 	Bxf6 
 7. Bxh7 		Ne7, c6 
 8. Be4, Be3 		Qc7, d5 
 9. cxd5, Nc3 		exd5, Be6 
10. Bd3, Rd1 		0-0-0, Re8 
11. h3, Kf2 ?!		g6, Bf5
12. g4, Bxf5 !?		Bh4+, Nxf5
13. Kf1, gxf5		Rxe3, Nc4
14. fxg6, Qf5+		Kf1, Rde8
15. Rg1, f4		Nxb2, Rf3+
16. Kg2, Rd2		Rf2+, Nc4
17. Kh1, Rdd1		Ne3, b6
18. g7, Qf8 ?!		Qd7, Kb7 ?!  (Rxf8, Be7 is better)
19. Rg6, Ng1		Bg3, Ng4 (threatening mate on h2)
20. Rxg4, Nf3		Ree1, Rf1+ ?!
21. Kg2, Rxg3 ?!

(Kg2, Nxe1 is winning quicker)

21. ...			Rff2+, Rf1
22. Rg4, Kg3		Rxf3+, Rf2
23. Kh4, g8=Q		Rxh3+, Rh2
24. Kg4, Qgg7  +/-

For anyone who actually plays out these moves and tries to solve the puzzle (what is the restriction on double moves?), I can point to a few positions and ask questions that will give you a hint or two.

For example: after Black plays 7... Ne7, c6 one could ask: why doesn't White just play 8. Bxd6, as either a single move or in combination with a double move? Well, just the single move is out because Black can play 8... g6, Rxh7. So then the question becomes, why not just retreat the h7 Bishop to save it? In other words, White's 8th move would be 8. Bxd6, B?? . The clue is that the light-squared Bishop cannot be saved, and the restriction on double moves is the reason why.

Another example, much clearer:

After Black plays 21... Rff2+, Rf1, why can't White just play 22. Rxf1, Kxf2. The double-move restriction makes this move illegal. That's a very big hint.

Oh, and there is also a restriction on single moves. It's very similar to the one on double-moves.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Kevin, I can give you an example of a similar Chess Variant.

However, there are a couple of different pieces introduced: Fers are pieces that move one square diagonally (depicted as an inverted Bishop) and couriers are pieces that jump two squares laterally, vertically or horizontally (depicted as inverted Knights). The King or Fers can make a double move on its first turn (but not to capture or out of or through check)

So we have the back rank as follows ...

RNCBFQKFBCNR which gives us a 12x8 board. The game can be found in the August 2005 issue of Chess Variants and there is a link here to a pdf file of that issue. Enjoy!

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Some typos ...

9. Nbc3
10. Rhe8
14..... Kb8 (Kf1 is impossible)
20..... Ree1 (unnecessary as only one R can go to e1)
21. ... Rff2+ Ref1

but the best one is

22. Rg4 .... followed by
24. Kg4. Two pieces on the same square? ugh.

The rule is maybe something like "you cannot move a piece that has captured for a whole turn" or something like that.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

Some typos ...

9. Nbc3
10. Rhe8
14..... Kb8 (Kf1 is impossible)
20..... Ree1 (unnecessary as only one R can go to e1)
21. ... Rff2+ Ref1

but the best one is

22. Rg4 .... followed by
24. Kg4. Two pieces on the same square? ugh.

The rule is maybe something like "you cannot move a piece that has captured for a whole turn" or something like that.

Thank you, Nigel! You are correct that move 9 should be 9. Nbc3, one of several good catches on your part.

Move 10 is technically not a typo, but a good recommendation. It's not technically a typo because the Rook that just castled cannot be moved again, but Rhe8 is still helpful.

I didn't catch 14... Kb8, that was a pretty bad oversight. To have typed 14... Kf1 doesn't make any sense.

With 20... Reel and 21... Rff2+, looks like I was trying to be too careful. All of these typos were actually written down wrong on our scoresheet, which I was keeping (I was playing someone who wishes to remain anonymous).

And the best one, I just typed it wrong, but it was written correctly. Move 24 should be 24. Kg5, Qgg7 . Don't fret, two pieces on the same square are not allowed!

The game ended at that point, Black resigned.

I wonder if you are the only one who played out the moves?

That was a good guess as to the restriction, but no, it has nothing to do with whatever a piece did on a previous move. I'll give a final hint before I give the answer in a few days: it has to do with NUMBERS and nothing else. But there is one twist involving any Knight move. For that, think about how any Knight move can be looked at in two different ways.

So it looks like the final scoresheet should read:

 1. d4			Nf6, e6 
 2. e4, Bd3 		Be7, d6 
 3. e5, f3 		Nd5, Nc6 
 4. c4, Ne2 		Nb6, Bd7 
 5. Bf4, a3 		f5 
 6. exf6ep, Qc2 	Bxf6 
 7. Bxh7 		Ne7, c6 
 8. Be4, Be3 		Qc7, d5 
 9. cxd5, Nbc3 		exd5, Be6 
10. Bd3, Rd1 		0-0-0, Rhe8 
11. h3, Kf2 ?!		g6, Bf5
12. g4, Bxf5 !?		Bh4+, Nxf5
13. Kf1, gxf5		Rxe3, Nc4
14. fxg6, Qf5+		Kb8, Rde8
15. Rg1, f4		Nxb2, Rf3+
16. Kg2, Rd2		Rf2+, Nc4
17. Kh1, Rdd1		Ne3, b6
18. g7, Qf8 ?!		Qd7, Kb7 ?!  (Rxf8, Be7 is better)
19. Rg6, Ng1		Bg3, Ng4 (threatening mate on h2)
20. Rxg4, Nf3		Re1, Rf1+ ?!
21. Kg2, Rxg3 ?!	Rf2+, Ref1
22. Rg4, Kg3		Rxf3+, Rf2
23. Kh4, g8=Q		Rxh3+, Rh2
24. Kg5, Qgg7  		Resigns, 1-0

[Louis Morin]

Re : Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

What about your own game? Is it still coming for 2013?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Re : Re: Variants and Heterodox Chess Problem thread

What about your own game? Is it still coming for 2013?

Louis, you are really chomping at the bit for my game to appear! But seriously, I am glad that you continue to show interest.

Perhaps I should even ask you: are you interested just personally, because you would like to see something new appear on the chess scene? Or is there more to your interest than just that? Perhaps your interest is even on behalf of the FQE, as I seem to recall you've mentioned the FQE has been supportive of chess variants in the past and that you are somehow affiliated with them?

Things are not yet quite so far along that I can tell you everything I'd like to tell you. I cannot yet disclose details without signing of a non-disclosure, non-compete agreement. The amount of revenue that is possible worldwide is quite ridiculous (remember: this is NOT standard chess!) and the patent protection will ultimately need be in as many countries as possible.

To afford all those patents and the full scale development, we will soon be looking for more seed capital. The law firm involved is in Silicon Valley and that is the general area where development will probably take place. We may apply for acceptance into the Y Combinator program for January 2014:

http://ycombinator.com/

Should that happen, or even not happen, we will need a 3rd person to fill a combination marketing / corporate funding / CEO role. Anyone interested in applying, please be preprared to live in the San Francisco area between January 2014 to end of March 2014 and possibly extending well beyond that, although the eventual head office location of the corporation has yet to be decided and may be elsewhere in the U.S. Also be prepared to be working for equity, not wages, and living on the cheap for at least that January - March 2014 time period. Finally, please be very very talented and prepared to prove it, with prior startup / business funding experience, preferably in the U.S.

Louis, if the FQE (or even you personally) has any interest in exploring any kind of investment position or licensing agreement within the next few months, I'd be glad to discuss this with you privately if you are authorized to do so on their behalf.

Since we are getting relatively close to the money-raising stage, I should extend that opportunity to anyone with money sitting on the sidelines looking for a high-return opportunity (yes, with some risk), but again, be willing to sign a legal agreement before getting any details. The utility patent search and process may have another month or two to run yet. The search is global, so if as I expect it comes back free of prior art, then both the U.S. and Canadian patent application processes can be undertaken, and at the point of filing, we are free to fully engage in capital raising.

In the unlikely event the patent search reveals disqualifying prior art (and I really can't imagine that, because someone would be making money hand over fist and it would be all over the Internet), we shall proceed without a patent, remove the licensing aspect of the business plan, and rely on simply having a sufficient head start on anyone else to create a brand advantage. Just mentioning that to let you know we aren't totally dismissing the possibility and we do have a "Plan B".

I should also add that once this game launches (leaning towards Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2),

http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/

there will be the simultaneous launch of a central federation to sanction events and oversee ratings (which may not be ELO). That is part of the business plan: not just internet play, but physical play licensed through the corporation and sanctioned by the federation. It may interest you to know that the most probable type of physical location for such play would be casinos and hotels.

That's right, folks: a form of chess being played at casinos! OMG, does that mean... chess... with luck???? I hope Jean Hebert doesn't get whiff of this!

It is unlikely we will engage in crowdfunding, although the idea does have a certain appeal. We could, for example, actually manufacture a game kit and sell them for home play. In fact, game kits will be needed for the aforementioned physical play, but whether we will manufacture / sell them for home play is TBD. If yes, then crowdfunding may be used for strictly this aspect of the business plan, should that be allowed by any particular crowdfunding entity.