Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Asheron]

I present to you, a new type of gaming, unseen before. Checkers, but differently. Srekcehc!
The game is simple. Take checkers. Throw the "the one who has no more checker-things ( what are they called anyway? ) loses" away and apply the "the one who has no more checker-thing wins". You gain Srekcehc.
Be amazed and the strategy involved! Unlike checkers, a draw is near impossible!

Yeah. I invented backwards checkers.

[Duke 2.0]

 But then there needs to be rules where you NEED to take the opponents checkers, because you will just be stuck with a symphony of checkers moving around the board.

[Asheron]

 But then there needs to be rules where you NEED to take the opponents checkers, because you will just be stuck with a symphony of checkers moving around the board.

Uh... aren't you supposed to take the opponents checkers when you can in checkers?

[Duke 2.0]

 I don't think there is a rule stating you are forced to do such a thing. 'else getting large chains would be horribly difficult to do.

 Not to mention the whole point in capturing the opponents checkers is to make them have less and thus loose. With this you would avoid the opponent like the plague.

[Asheron]

Ah, you are right. There is no official rule. I do it all the time though.

Not to mention the whole point in capturing the opponents checkers is to make them have less and thus loose. With this you would avoid the opponent like the plague.

Your looking at the wrong point; the point of Srekcehc is to place your checker in front of another checker so that the enemy must take them. So, there is some sort of a drive. It just depends on how you look at it.

[penguinofhonor]

This would definitely be amazingly fun in the first bit, but there would be an unwinnable draw when each person had a king and was running around with it avoiding the other person and trying to trick them into getting into a corner so they'd be forced to take their piece.

[Asheron]

Alright, I agree with that. The endgames are a bit of a let down most of the time, but doesn't the regular game has the same problem?

[Cthulhu]

Actually, I'm pretty sure you do have to take a piece when the opportunity presents itself.

[beorn080]

Cthulhu: your right. The official rules of checkers state that one must capture at all  opportunities. If given multiple opportunities, you can select which ones to take and you don't have to complete a full chain if multiple jumps are available.

[Asheron]

and you don't have to complete a full chain if multiple jumps are available.

Oh, I didn't know that. Well, in Srekcehc, you do have to complete a full chain, else it's impossible to get ahead versus the other guy.

[Khosan]

I'm a fan of suicide chess, personally.  First one to lose all their pieces wins, and if you can take a piece you have to take it.  It's surprisingly easy when you're bad at chess.

My other favorite variant is Monster Chess.  White is normal, Black has a King and four Pawns but gets to move twice per turn.  It's hilarious how well Black does the first time you play it.

Least favorite is progressive Chess (white gets one move, black gets two, white gets three, black gets four, etc.) because it will never get past Black's second turn (it can be ended on White's second turn though; their Queen-side Knight can get to the Black King and there is nothing Black can do to stop it).  You have to be determined not to win to get past that point.

[Asheron]

I'm a fan of suicide chess, personally.  First one to lose all their pieces wins, and if you can take a piece you have to take it.  It's surprisingly easy when you're bad at chess.

My other favorite variant is Monster Chess.  White is normal, Black has a King and four Pawns but gets to move twice per turn.  It's hilarious how well Black does the first time you play it.

Least favorite is progressive Chess (white gets one move, black gets two, white gets three, black gets four, etc.) because it will never get past Black's second turn (it can be ended on White's second turn though; their Queen-side Knight can get to the Black King and there is nothing Black can do to stop it).  You have to be determined not to win to get past that point.

Ever heard of nuclear chess? Everytime a piece is taken, all pieces directly around it are taken too ( including your own ).
Those games never last more then 5 turns.

EDIT: Oh, and open warfare chess. You just remove the pawns in front of your bishops and kings or something.

[Khosan]

I'm a fan of suicide chess, personally.  First one to lose all their pieces wins, and if you can take a piece you have to take it.  It's surprisingly easy when you're bad at chess.

My other favorite variant is Monster Chess.  White is normal, Black has a King and four Pawns but gets to move twice per turn.  It's hilarious how well Black does the first time you play it.

Least favorite is progressive Chess (white gets one move, black gets two, white gets three, black gets four, etc.) because it will never get past Black's second turn (it can be ended on White's second turn though; their Queen-side Knight can get to the Black King and there is nothing Black can do to stop it).  You have to be determined not to win to get past that point.

Ever heard of nuclear chess? Everytime a piece is taken, all pieces directly around it are taken too ( including your own ).
Those games never last more then 5 turns.

EDIT: Oh, and open warfare chess. You just remove the pawns in front of your bishops and kings or something.

Oh yeah.  Nuclear Chess was actually kind of fun.

Me and a friend played a bunch of Chess variants during Physics (we were auditing the class), so we usually ended up trying to figure out some of the more specific strategies for each variant together.

Early Nuclear Chess games of ours (meaning we were still playing it sort of like normal chess) usually ended pretty quick; we'd whip out the Bishops and manage to nuke their Rook/Knight and a couple pawns all at once.  Then we started setting up pawn defenses to avoid that.  Then we started sending out sacrificial Pawns to nuke the bejeezes out of their Pawn defense so we could whip out the Bishops.

Same sort of thing with Monster Chess.  Black ended up winning a lot until you figured out how to defend against it.  Early games went in Black's favor because they still really didn't expect the King to be a threat; until I managed to obliterate their defense and then checkmate them with just the King.  Then they figured out that they couldn't let the King be, they had to keep it under constant pressure so that it couldn't just run in and go apeshit on their finely tuned defenses.  Lots of pawns needed to be advanced in order to do it properly.

[penguinofhonor]

I like Battle Chess, AKA Ultimate Chess or Bonzai Chess. It has a couple other names.

It's where there aren't any rules. It's pure silliness. You can do things like make your king toss pawns at the opponent's defenses, which will then reflect them with their energy shields. There's actually one rule, and that's that every game must end in a draw. Either each player's last piece must die at the same time in some sort of DBZ-esque fight scene or your pieces must die immediately after destroying your opponent.

I'm a fan of making my pawns leap into space and fly down, destroying the opponent in a blaze of pawns that just jumped at them out of orbit.

The only problem is that it draws its fun from pure randomness, which means that it's only really fun for one game at a time every once in a while. The more you play it, the less fun it is.

It's probably only appealing to the crazy ADD kids out there, but it's the most hilarious version of chess there is.

[Asheron]

I remember me and some friends doing a 3 v 3 chess game once.
Team 1 would be white, black, white and team 2 vice versa. Every piece you took in your game, you could give to the teammate next to you and he could place it on the board on any of the two first rows in exchange of a turn. It's very hectic and chaotic, but very fun nonetheless.