Very few of these rules make sense without more clarifying rules.<p>Never-mind the impossibility of Kings playing en-passant, there is also the concept introduced of "higher piece" without defining an order. Can a bishop upgrade to a knight? Can a knight upgrade to a Bishop? Can a rook upgrade to a bishop?<p>Despite the popular "valuing" of pieces, they aren't actually in the rules of chess and need to be stated.<p>> If a king is within its starting row, it can castle with both rooks.<p>What does it mean to castle with <i>both</i> rooks? Is that a typo for "either"?<p>Also it seems to suggest that you can move the king along the starting rank and still castle later. How would that work if your king was on b8 for example?<p>This is a strange kind of nonsense. It shows the difficulty of translating some home-brew rules into actual rules that others can follow.
I would've liked an explanation on why each of these rules were added to the game. As an advanced-beginner chess player, most of those new rules add needless complexity to the game and seem to serve absolutely no purpose.<p>> Each player rolls the die, and the number is the amount of turns each player has.<p>I'll have to think about this. My knee-jerk reaction was to call this "absolutely ridiculous". It may hold some potential upon further thought.
What's the benefit of rolling a 4-sided die to decide who goes first, over flipping a coin? Each player has 50% chance of going first, except with a single coin flip there can't be a tie.
One of my ideas for a toy project is Schrödinger´s Chess or perhaps Quantum Chess:<p>when you move a piece, you can move it to any and all possible squares at the same time - your piece is on all of the squares you've placed it, so in your opponent's next move they can eliminate your piece by attacking any of the positions it's currently in.<p>In your own next move, you can move the piece from any of the positions it's currently in and place it in a new set of positions.<p>Eliminating or moving a piece removes it from all positions it's currently in.
> <i>If both players roll the same, a coin-flip is used to determine a re-roll or if the turn goes to the other player.</i><p>Why wouldn't you just flip the coin and be done with it? The simplest procedure that produces a 50% probability is best; why invent a complicated protocol that is equivalent to a coin toss <i>and</i> possibly includes one.<p>Or, for that matter, to avoid the proliferation of random devices, why not treat a four-sided-die as a coin for the purposes of determining who goes first. 1 or 2, first is you; 4 or 3, it goes to me.
>The opposing player has 1-turn to defend, or remove, the king from danger.<p>Does this mean that if I am put in check, regardless of what I roll on the die, my king must be out of danger after my first move?
To determine who goes first, you can just have one player select even or odd, then both role dice. The even/odd of the sum of both dice determines who goes first.
There have been many chess variants and I always feel that adding randomness is a little sloppy. There is one awesome variant called 'retrospective chess' - the piece you move dictates how ALL your pieces move on the next turn. Crazy checkmate, instant pawns to queens, a whole new intuition. Mindbendingly good.
If the player going first rolls 4 or more they can checkmate? e4 Bc4 Qf3 Qf7# (for White with a mirror equivalent for Black) With closer reading I think there’s a missing rule where you just move a single piece that many times?
This is my favorite chess variation:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bughouse_chess" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bughouse_chess</a>
I really like the challenge of taking a well-known set of rules and adding some new ones. I'd like the author to clarify a few of the questions, but the spirit of this is great.
Not for me, but each to their own.<p>I like to play Stockfish, with the playing level set so I win or lose about half the time.<p>For dice games, Backgammon is just about a perfect game, and skill matters.