AnarchyChess

5186 readers

95 users here now

Holy hell

Other chess communities:
!Chess@lemmy.ml
!chessbeginners@sh.itjust.works

Matrix space

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

itszednotzee@sopuli.xyz

itszednotzee@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz

chessfinder2e (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by eldritch_lich@lemmy.world to c/anarchychess@sopuli.xyz

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Well the saying goes "if you aim for the king, you best not miss". I think going for check or checkmate should be 3 actions, same with capturing with king. Mostly because the king would likely be in check in most situations where the king can capture

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, I like that.

I'd say it should do away with checkmate and use a Drawback Chess–style system where you win by capturing the king. This would cost 3 actions. I think merely moving into check could cost 2.

My original idea was that capturing with king would cost less than a normal capture because I wanted to buff the king's ability to protect himself, and in particular I was worried about strategies that could force the opponent to spend 2 actions capturing your piece with their king. But making moving into check cost 2 actions and capturing the king cost 3 would completely negate the need for that.

Moving into check with a capture would, obviously, cost 3 actions (1 for move, 1 extra for capturing, 1 extra for the check). And discovered checks would also cost 2 actions, with discovered check via a capture costing 3.

[–] explore_broaden@midwest.social 2 points 5 months ago

It would make sense not to have discovered check cost extra, which would encourage that kind of strategizing.