Wayyyy to easy to just take the king. And kinda ruins checkmate if you can't take the king with your actions but they then get up to 3 moves to take attackers. Idk.
Because each piece costs 2 or 3 and you only get three points, you could never two-move checkmate with a single piece — or move the same piece twice in any turn, unless it's a pawn. This variant really just makes pawns way too good and then makes it so you can also move a pawn any time you move a minor piece or a rook.
Only if the mate in 2 is from a pawn and a minor piece, or two pawns. And only if the defending player can't get out of the check with his own multiple moves.
Only if the mate in 2 is from a pawn and a minor piece
It's more common than you think, with discovered attacks, and rooks aren't really minor pieces, and yet they're factored into that.
Also, it's not clear if someone is in check they get priority, so that's also an issue with this variant. Because if someone's in check and then the opponent can just remove their escape routs after already being in check that would also be mate.
If you’re allowed to make 2 moves in a row you can just take their king, can’t you?
Like the only reason the king isn’t a take-able piece is that the rules make it functionally impossible, but in terms of what the pieces represent the state of checkmate is just when your king is 1 move away from being taken.
So most positions in this hypothetical are check or checkmate. You’d have to analyze all 2 move combinations every turn to see if your king is in check. AND you would need to analyze all your opponents moves in response in order to make sure you’re not moving into check.
Seeing how often people miss checks when playing outside of a formal setting or a computer program, it seems like this would be pain to play.
Yeah, but it's not only that, it would be three moves sometimes too. Because if someone checks them with a pawn on their first move it's over, it will be three pawn moves. Like... Wtf.
Also, I have a feeling stoping pawns when they're on the 5th would be nigh impossible. Someone can simply move their pawn three squares, lol. Move faward, capture a pawn, capture a piece, and promote.
I have a feeling that White's advantage would be huge in this variant.
I think if the opponent can remove all escape routes then that is just the win con in this variant like normal chess? It's just different and that is the point of a variant
Also, it's not clear if someone is in check they get priority, so that's also an issue with this variant.
That's true of a bunch of chess variants though. You can always go with the tried and true solution of ending by capturing the king. It's definitely more punishing, especially for players newer to the variant, but far from a deal breaker.
Well, that's why there's a need to make it more challenging like having doubles so that you can coordinate like Bughouse. Bughouse you can stratagise to actually mate in a few just by adding pieces, which is kinda cool.
I think that this "action" point chess would add the strategy of saving up points in order to do exactly what you're saying. But without the added challenge that you need to coordinate with your team mate.
Unfortunately either it would become very easy or very hard to play if someone figures out some opening that like you said can just lead to mate in two or three pretty quick, because they just pushed pawns until they had enough action points to mate.
Would be an interesting variant, but still not as good as the official or 960.
Edit, also the problem with this variant would be for example, if someone has more points, there's nothing to stop them from for example doing two consecutive moves and just winning a piece or the queen without any possibility of counter-play.
He meant that in a given player turn, not the very first, someone will be able to mate the other because he always have 2 moves at least. It is not like Yu-Gi-Oh that you can activate a trap or magic card to defend you. There would be necessary some sort of defense mechanism if you want to allow a player to move twice
This variant is not nearly as different from normal chess as it appears. Due to costs, you can't ever move the same piece twice in a single round except for pawns, which become too good, imo. Imagine capturing f6, g7, h8=Q in a single turn.
Other than that, the only difference from normal chess is that you also get to make a pawn move any time you move a minor piece or Rook.
The king costing 3 makes an exposed king game losingly bad. If you can check with with a minor piece you get a free pawn move while they have to move the king, if you can keep checking the king a pawn can just walk all the way to the other side and capture a bunch of stuff before promoting.
Woah, this is a great explanation of why the King needs a Buff to Action Cost in this variant.
Minor Piece Check + Free Pawn Move would be very OP, especially since the Rook also only costs 2! (It's easiest to nuisance check with a Rook compared to the Knight and Bishop, after all.)
I was thinking a double buff to address this: 2 Points for King Movement, but you also gain an extra AP if you are put in check. That way, a King can move twice but only when checked. (Or move a minor piece/Rook + the King.)
You could try implementing it in code as a chess variant, get some people and an engine to playtest it, see what needs to be fine-tuned.
If you're near any city you should be able to find a local indie game/indie dev club that you could bring it to to share in playtesting. I've seen chess variants come up occasionally in our club, but this is the first time I've seen AP.
How would check work would kings be in check if they are hypothetically threatened at the end of a players set of moves. If so wouldn’t that make the game restrictive as there would be loads of checks.
For example a pawn concealing a check from a bishop. Would the king be in check and have to move. If not does that mean the king can be taken?
Some additional changes. Each piece can only be moved once per turn. King should only be 1 point otherwise, checks forcing you to move can be more brutal costing 2/3 of your turn making it easier for your opponent to maintain pressure. Either choose to switch to win by capture rather than checkmate or have an established rule that a piece cannot capture the opponents King if that piece wasn't checking the King at the beginning of your turn (I personally prefer the former but either way I think a clear rule about discovered checks on the opposing King should be established). Otherwise I think it's an interesting concept.
After reading the comments, I decided to update the rules a bit.
Players now have 4 action points, starting player gets 3 on first move
Pawns double moving costs 2, moving single space costs 1.
You can't take the king
Also, since I see a lot of people saying that the king's movement should be lower, I thought of that, but then realized that a king moving twice would make checkmating it nearly impossible.
then realized that a king moving twice would make checkmating it nearly impossible
If a king isn't allowed to move through check even if it it's not the last move of the turn it should still be doable and could make things more interesting.
Two move checkmate in a single turn, impossible to counter, so - not very well.
Yeah we need to lower the king down to one action point
But the other player has up to two moves to get out of check.
Wayyyy to easy to just take the king. And kinda ruins checkmate if you can't take the king with your actions but they then get up to 3 moves to take attackers. Idk.
Because each piece costs 2 or 3 and you only get three points, you could never two-move checkmate with a single piece — or move the same piece twice in any turn, unless it's a pawn. This variant really just makes pawns way too good and then makes it so you can also move a pawn any time you move a minor piece or a rook.
Maybe we could keep it at one move per turn, but every turn after the first nets only one bankable point with the option to pass.
What moves are they?
Whenever you have mate in two.
Only if the mate in 2 is from a pawn and a minor piece, or two pawns. And only if the defending player can't get out of the check with his own multiple moves.
It's more common than you think, with discovered attacks, and rooks aren't really minor pieces, and yet they're factored into that.
Also, it's not clear if someone is in check they get priority, so that's also an issue with this variant. Because if someone's in check and then the opponent can just remove their escape routs after already being in check that would also be mate.
If you’re allowed to make 2 moves in a row you can just take their king, can’t you?
Like the only reason the king isn’t a take-able piece is that the rules make it functionally impossible, but in terms of what the pieces represent the state of checkmate is just when your king is 1 move away from being taken.
So most positions in this hypothetical are check or checkmate. You’d have to analyze all 2 move combinations every turn to see if your king is in check. AND you would need to analyze all your opponents moves in response in order to make sure you’re not moving into check.
Seeing how often people miss checks when playing outside of a formal setting or a computer program, it seems like this would be pain to play.
Yeah, but it's not only that, it would be three moves sometimes too. Because if someone checks them with a pawn on their first move it's over, it will be three pawn moves. Like... Wtf.
Also, I have a feeling stoping pawns when they're on the 5th would be nigh impossible. Someone can simply move their pawn three squares, lol. Move faward, capture a pawn, capture a piece, and promote.
I have a feeling that White's advantage would be huge in this variant.
Not to mention that it takes 2 turns for any pawn to reach the promotion rank from starting rank, so you can also swarm your opponent with queens
I think if the opponent can remove all escape routes then that is just the win con in this variant like normal chess? It's just different and that is the point of a variant
That's true of a bunch of chess variants though. You can always go with the tried and true solution of ending by capturing the king. It's definitely more punishing, especially for players newer to the variant, but far from a deal breaker.
Well, that's why there's a need to make it more challenging like having doubles so that you can coordinate like Bughouse. Bughouse you can stratagise to actually mate in a few just by adding pieces, which is kinda cool.
I think that this "action" point chess would add the strategy of saving up points in order to do exactly what you're saying. But without the added challenge that you need to coordinate with your team mate.
Unfortunately either it would become very easy or very hard to play if someone figures out some opening that like you said can just lead to mate in two or three pretty quick, because they just pushed pawns until they had enough action points to mate.
Would be an interesting variant, but still not as good as the official or 960.
Edit, also the problem with this variant would be for example, if someone has more points, there's nothing to stop them from for example doing two consecutive moves and just winning a piece or the queen without any possibility of counter-play.
??
I was thinking of commenting the same thing. Glad I'm not the only one.
Edit: it seems my comment hurt some people very deeply
He meant that in a given player turn, not the very first, someone will be able to mate the other because he always have 2 moves at least. It is not like Yu-Gi-Oh that you can activate a trap or magic card to defend you. There would be necessary some sort of defense mechanism if you want to allow a player to move twice
Chess variants with multiple moves per turn generally make it so checks end your turn.
This variant is not nearly as different from normal chess as it appears. Due to costs, you can't ever move the same piece twice in a single round except for pawns, which become too good, imo. Imagine capturing f6, g7, h8=Q in a single turn.
Other than that, the only difference from normal chess is that you also get to make a pawn move any time you move a minor piece or Rook.
If i could triple en passant in a single turn I would die a happy man
Holy hell!
New response just dropped
What about a one capture per turn rule?
I would make pawn captures 2 points(keeping movement at 1) so that you cannot have a pawn doing double or triple captures in one turn
Add a percent chance to capture, like in XCOM
Missed!
https://preview.redd.it/h52alu2ghj5g1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=11e8e0ed27a8eb61c675c600a7fedb4bd745035f
I would like you point out you can now perform en passent from your pawn's starting rank by moving one pawn 3 times.
Add a constraint that you cannot move a pawn on the same turn again after it captured and this would be a fun game.
Nope, removes En Passant and maybe smother mate. How will we meme anymore?
On the other hand, wouldn't you be able to en passent using a pawn in the starting rank now, by moving 3 times at once?
The king should only cost 2, it’s a high value piece but he can’t move like the queen
The king costing 3 makes an exposed king game losingly bad. If you can check with with a minor piece you get a free pawn move while they have to move the king, if you can keep checking the king a pawn can just walk all the way to the other side and capture a bunch of stuff before promoting.
Woah, this is a great explanation of why the King needs a Buff to Action Cost in this variant.
Minor Piece Check + Free Pawn Move would be very OP, especially since the Rook also only costs 2! (It's easiest to nuisance check with a Rook compared to the Knight and Bishop, after all.)
I was thinking a double buff to address this: 2 Points for King Movement, but you also gain an extra AP if you are put in check. That way, a King can move twice but only when checked. (Or move a minor piece/Rook + the King.)
This should discourage nuisance check spam.
Maybe if you remove the doubled first move for pawns.
Every variant that buffs pawns too much is really weird.
Make a limit for only one move per turn or it goes bad fast.
Perhaps only give 2 points per turn or 1.5. So in order to activate your bigger pieces you need to work the smaller ones more.
Overall don't think it changes the game much ot better in any way though.
So you can't castle in this variant?
Castling is a king move so I suppose it would cost 3.
I'm inclined to think that pawns are way too good. The starting pawns can capture anything in the center 4 ranks in one move.
8 points
Pawn 3
K/B 4
Rook 5
Queen 5
King 0 but only once per turn
Castle 8
Pawns only move 1 square (i.e. 1.e4 is 6 points)
Captures and checks end the turn
Skip an entire turn to get 10 points for the next turn only.
I suggest combo chains instead
You could try implementing it in code as a chess variant, get some people and an engine to playtest it, see what needs to be fine-tuned.
If you're near any city you should be able to find a local indie game/indie dev club that you could bring it to to share in playtesting. I've seen chess variants come up occasionally in our club, but this is the first time I've seen AP.
How would check work would kings be in check if they are hypothetically threatened at the end of a players set of moves. If so wouldn’t that make the game restrictive as there would be loads of checks.
For example a pawn concealing a check from a bishop. Would the king be in check and have to move. If not does that mean the king can be taken?
They wouldn't: I don't know what the meta is now, and I wouldn't know after.
Some additional changes. Each piece can only be moved once per turn. King should only be 1 point otherwise, checks forcing you to move can be more brutal costing 2/3 of your turn making it easier for your opponent to maintain pressure. Either choose to switch to win by capture rather than checkmate or have an established rule that a piece cannot capture the opponents King if that piece wasn't checking the King at the beginning of your turn (I personally prefer the former but either way I think a clear rule about discovered checks on the opposing King should be established). Otherwise I think it's an interesting concept.
After reading the comments, I decided to update the rules a bit.
Also, since I see a lot of people saying that the king's movement should be lower, I thought of that, but then realized that a king moving twice would make checkmating it nearly impossible.
If a king isn't allowed to move through check even if it it's not the last move of the turn it should still be doable and could make things more interesting.