User:TonyB1000/sandbox

Fighting Chess Fighting Chess Rules Chess has so many draws for two reasons: The weak pieces of chess and the stalemate rule. This is the cause of so many decades of consternation of holding tournaments with a rule to attempt to reduce the number of draws. If we could adjust the rules of our game to address these two problems (and leave the tournament rules alone so that game outcomes stand without replaying or giving extra time to one side or making a draw a “win”), it would solve the problem of too many draws. And, this solution will be a true solution, not the pseudo solutions produced at numerous chess events over the last couple of centuries. You would think that such a solution would be welcome (and it will be shortly)! The weak pieces of chess lead to the draws by insufficient material and the 50 move rule. Stalemate occurs because of a clash of subordinate rules in chess to the game objective. We should never have absolute rules in a game because if they ever clash, it can set up untenable possibilities. So, Fighting Chess is a set of rules that alters the game of chess in a minimal way so as to fix the two problems outlined above that contribute to the large draw statistic seen in chess. This new chess variant, then, is an upgrade to chess. Around 1495 (coinciding with the invention of the printing press), chess got upgraded to its modern version we see today. The changes made sped up the game. The changes that Fighting Chess makes to the game complete the upgrade to chess attempted in 1495 to also make the game more powerful. The initial imbalance (White’s opening advantage) should also be minimized because Black has no weaknesses in the initial setup like f7 is in the chess setup. Thus, in addition to reducing draws, Fighting Chess should also have more balanced decisive game outcomes than chess. To play Fighting Chess, the regular rules of chess apply with the following alterations: The rooks, bishops, and knights now also move and capture like a king. This creates a whole back rank of major pieces (i.e. a king plus any one of these pieces versus a lone king can force a checkmate and subsequent capture of the king). The pawn may now also capture one square straight ahead. This strengthens the pawn so that it can forcibly promote against the bare king with the help of its own king. The king is no longer inviolate. This means the king may now be captured if it is left exposed. A player may now pass on a turn leaving the position intact, and so the opponent may then take another turn. This rule gets rid of zugzwang. Rule 3 and rule 4 together remove the conflict in the rules that created stalemate. Thus, stalemate is abolished. Note: If both players pass twice each in succession (a total of four consecutive passes), then a draw shall be declared. This shortens the time to the draw by threefold repetition by one full turn. It is now legal with Fighting Chess to castle while in check, across a check, or even into check (but it obviously isn’t advised to castle into check because the opponent may capture the king). 6) The object of the game is to capture the opposing king. Checkmate in Fighting Chess is a real threat to capture the opposing king the next turn, so a checkmate in Fighting Chess is also a victory (provided your own king is not captured first). In classic chess a checkmate is not really a threat to capture the opposing king next turn because both kings are inviolate. The inviolate king in chess immediately creates a game objective crisis. The object of the game for chess is not to capture the opposing king. Why is this? It is because the king is inviolate! How can an omnipotent king be captured? What do the rule makers do to get around this problem? They invent the rule that the object of the game is checkmate, which can occur in so many ways that it can be difficult for a beginner to even comprehend when this has occurred. So, Fighting Chess has improved upon this by making the game objective clear: to capture the opposing king. Additionally, a checkmate ends the game (and a checkmate in Fighting Chess is a real threat to capture the opposing king because it is not inviolate). However, you may not abandon your own king to checkmate the opponent’s king because the opponent will capture your king before you capture his king. In Rule 5, I got rid of the castling stipulations in chess. They only conflict with the goal of orderly game flow. It was a mistake to put these stipulations in the castling rule, so they have simply been removed. The pieces are all now much more powerful in Fighting Chess; however, the king and queen are unchanged. So, the back rank now has seven major pieces compared with just three for regular chess. The pawns are each now powerful because having a pawn advantage is a win if carried to the logical extreme of a pawn plus a king versus the lone king. The chess pawns are weak by comparison because they can be blockaded to cease their forward movement. Zugzwang is a German word that chess has borrowed into its vocabulary. It means constraint to move. Thus, a player who is in zugzwang has a position that is perfectly fine as it is, but the chess rules declare that a move must be made. So, whatever move the player chooses, some positional concession will be made and could cost the player the game right there. Zugzwang has caused players to resign, and it has cost players many a piece which ultimately led to a loss of the game. Thus, allowing the pass option did two things: it abolished zugzwang, and it assisted the removal of inviolateness from the king with abolishing stalemate. It is important to understand that you cannot just “abolish” stalemate because that won’t work — you have to understand why stalemate exists and remove its underpinnings to remove it.