Simplified Chess

[Jhoravi]

rulest to be removed:

1.Stalemate: because Stalemate only adds more draw to our already Drawish game.

2. Two square pawn moves. By eliminating it will also eliminate blacks proven disadvantage in the opening.

3 Castling: Eliminating it will make both kings unsecured therefore results to more decided games.

[Evert]

Well, it turns out the name Simplified Chess is already used (http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdi ... lifiedches). I should have guessed This version, instead of putting the pawns on the third rank, shortens the board to seven ranks. The victory condition is king capture, but without castling the king is somewhat exposed.

I'll need to rename this game. Basic chess is also taken. Maybe Abridged Chess? Or Stoic Chess? Chessito? I'm open to suggestions.

Well, as I said, I wouldn't call it "chess" at all, because it lacks one of the defining characteristics of (historical/regional) chess variants: checkmate.

Perhaps "pawn race" if that isn't already taken?

[Greg Strong]

Well, as I said, I wouldn't call it "chess" at all, because it lacks one of the defining characteristics of (historical/regional) chess variants: checkmate.

I would say it's still mostly chess. It retains all the pieces and would be immediately recognizable as a chess variant. To me, the single feature that is most essential to the nature of chess is the chess pawn. And yet I still think the name of Berolina Chess is appropriate because everything else is the same except for the replacement of the pawn move.

Now, you could say that I don't have true chess pawns either because I've removed promotion. That is true, but I don't think that's such a big change either... When a player promotes a pawn, that's almost always enough material advantage to win the game if the opponent can't capture it immediately. So I've just streamlined that as well.

Finally, in case there was any doubt, let me say that I'm not claiming that this game is better than chess, or is the future of chess, or anything like that. I don't imagine it will be played hardly at all. I was just responding to Lucas' challenge because the idea interested me. I find it interesting to compare what I came up with to what John Kipling Lewis came up with in Simplified Chess. Anyone else want to take up Lucas' challenge?

[AlvaroBegue]

Wouldn't it be a simpler game if you defined promotion as a win, with no extra conditions?

[Ferdy]

Well, as I said, I wouldn't call it "chess" at all, because it lacks one of the defining characteristics of (historical/regional) chess variants: checkmate.

I would say it's still mostly chess. It retains all the pieces and would be immediately recognizable as a chess variant. To me, the single feature that is most essential to the nature of chess is the chess pawn. And yet I still think the name of Berolina Chess is appropriate because everything else is the same except for the replacement of the pawn move.

Now, you could say that I don't have true chess pawns either because I've removed promotion. That is true, but I don't think that's such a big change either... When a player promotes a pawn, that's almost always enough material advantage to win the game if the opponent can't capture it immediately. So I've just streamlined that as well.

Finally, in case there was any doubt, let me say that I'm not claiming that this game is better than chess, or is the future of chess, or anything like that. I don't imagine it will be played hardly at all. I was just responding to Lucas' challenge because the idea interested me. I find it interesting to compare what I came up with to what John Kipling Lewis came up with in Simplified Chess. Anyone else want to take up Lucas' challenge?

Sample version.
1. Remove ep capture.
2. One repeat is enough to claim a draw.
2. Remove 50-move draw rule, just let the time and repetition pressure the winning side to make progress.
3. When in check, the king can castle as part of evasion routine.
4. The king can castle even if the square it passes is under attacked by enemy pieces, (e1g1 and f1 sq is under attacked).
5. When the king or rook has already been moved it can still castle.

[Stormb]

I like it!

[wgarvin]

The first-repeat-is-a-draw rule seems too draconian, to me. Suppose I advance my queen, and you move something (a knight) to threaten it. I realize my mistake, but I am not allowed to retreat back to my original position without effectively offering you a draw

[syzygy]

The first-repeat-is-a-draw rule seems too draconian, to me. Suppose I advance my queen, and you move something (a knight) to threaten it. I realize my mistake, but I am not allowed to retreat back to my original position without effectively offering you a draw

WIth other mistakes you immediately lose the game, so a draw isn't so bad

[Vinvin]

I tested the game against a friend at my chess club. It seems to drawish because "no promotion" rules. In the endgame if a pawn threat to win, simply give a piece for a pawn because pawns are too important in the game. It was only 1 or 2 games but we were not excited at all

[syzygy]

In the endgame if a pawn threat to win, simply give a piece for a pawn because pawns are too important in the game.

Sounds like chess.

In chess you would at some point run out of pieces, I would assume this is the same in simplified chess... I don't see how it could be more drawish than chess.