On Apr 23, 5:52 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
wrote:
> Why? Nearchess is won by king capture instead of checkmate
> (which implies that a king can move into check, and indeed
> may have to do so in what would otherwise be a stalemate).
> Why apply the normal chess rule to both sides?
In Near vs Normal, the idea is to have it as balanced as possible.
Near has unfair advantage if it captures the enemy king, and Normal
Chess has to checkmate. Stalemate results in a win for the Near side.
> BTW, Rule three of Near Chess contains an error.
>
> "3. Game is won by capturing the opponent's king, rather
> than checkmating it. This eliminates stalemate."
>
> The above should be "This eliminates most stalemates."
> It is possible to create a position where a player has
> no legal move even if the king is allowed to move into
> check. It isn't likely to come about in normal play,
> but it is possible.
Ok, I will go ahead and make the needed update.
> (Best viewed with non-pro****tional
> Monospace font such as Courier)
>
> NEAR CHESS STALEMATE #1
> - - - - - k B K
> - - - - - P R P
> - - - - - - P -
> (White to move)
I will change the wording. The idea of Near Chess isn't to eliminate
stalemate (ok, it reduces the numbers of stalemates), but to be a
gateway game into chess for people who don't know chess (drop castling
and en passant, and simplify the rook). What Near vs Normal is meant
to be is a potential alternate piece set up, with its own rules, that
people could use for a change of pace, or a potential handicapping set
up, if Near or Normal has a clear advantage.
- Rich
|
