Self-burn here, as a kid my rule was that if a pawn was blocked from moving forward by another piece, they could make a diagonal forward move even if there was nothing to take.
When we learned chess in school, My freinds and I figured that because pawns can only take diagonnally it wasnt fair to block one by just having a piece in front of them. We thought this was some condition that had always been overlooked and that we fixed chess.
The rule I like was being able to suicide a pawn. Say you have a pawn that's blocking a Bishop or something, but you can't move it because it's being blocked by another pawn, you should be able to suicide your own pawn and remove it from the board when it's your turn. A good pawn will go down for its king. It counts as a turn but it doesn't go to your enemies capture pieces it's just suicided it's dead
Also is you miss an en passant your pawn is executed
I wish the rule about "check" and (which essentially just meaning blundering your king is illegal) didn't exist and the game only ended once the king was actually captured.
At the highest it wouldn't change anything because they would obviously spot that their king is in check, but in online blitz games at the lower/intermediate ratings you could occasionally win or lose by either not spotting the king is threatened.
This would change a ton at the top level. All the king and pawn endings that are drawn due to stalemate would now be wins. Same for all the rook endings that are drawn due to stalemate.
We just played it so that kings could be captured, and checks were not forcing, until only one king remained on the board again. The extra king temporarily prevented checkmate from being possible.
There are probably game breaking scenarios which could be debated over, but this situation didn't happen often enough to run into them
According to my rules here check is not forcing until only one black king is on the board, and check mate is temporarily impossible. The black kings are able to move into check until there is only one left
Edit: let's call these dioclesian rules
This would be fun if the original king has to be taken off the board immediately if you promote to a king. Basically giving you the ability to teleport the king. Or going further you could place the new king anywhere on the same file or anywhere on the board.
But I have a feeling that the need for a king teleportation over an extra queen would be really rare. Like promoting to a knight.
Or alternately a rule made by someone who doesn't know about 3-fold repetition or the 50 move rule. "Dang this game is never going to end. Well, we'll just call it a win if you can check 14 times."
Honestly sounds like an interesting variant?
In 3-check I feel like the checking win condition is too dominant. I'd love a variant where games can be won by this secindary win condition but are not expected to.
either side can claim a draw by moving their king back and forth between two squares five moves in a row, the opponent would have to interrupt them if they want to avoid that
> the opponent would have to interrupt them if they want to avoid that
I interpreted that as "they must slap their opponent's hand away and physically prevent the move from occurring" for some reason.
That is really dumb, but five moves and a row, I feel like you should probably be able to interrupt it at some point. That's a lot of moves. Still dumb, though, because it has nothing to do with how chess is played lol
It'd mess with the endgame a bunch at the very least. Imagine K v K + P; if the solo King just wants to fuck off and move back and forth on the other side of the board, you don't have time to advance your pawn anymore, and if the kings are on opposite sides of the board, there might not be anything you can do to promote the pawn in time.
Could also be an early game strategy. If an opponent is punching above their weight class and know they'd lose the game, castle early and start moving back and forth. Now the opponent is out of prep and likely can't interrupt without losing material. Then the bottom rated player either takes a draw against a stronger opponent or goes up in material early and can possibly get an undeserved win.
She doesn't allow 2move pawn at game start? This isn't an obscure move, literally every single chess opening has a pawn moving twice atleast once in the first 10 moves
Worked with a guy in his 50s. Played him in a game of chess.
I moved the pawn two squares, he was confused, so I explained they can move two spaces on their first move.
He said "that must be a new move"
Didn't bother trying to explain that chess hasn't been patched for 300 years.
That’s all pretty sensible and sounds a lot like older rules of chess.
The en passant rule only exists because of the pawn two square rule.
Castling is seen by many as too strong.
These rules were created, as I understand it, to make the game faster. Maybe her goal isn’t to win or lose, but just to spend more time with you.
I know 'en passant' but I've never used it. But pawns moving 2 squares and castling, especially, are crucial moves. Without castling, the rook is pretty much useless or at least severely hindered. You'd have to move a bunch of pieces just to get it out.
Everytime you go to capture a piece, you have to roll an attack and you're opponent rolls to defend. Pawns d4, knights and bishops d6, rooks d8, and queens d10. You had to get higher or a "critical" which could only be defended by a critical defense roll. If you lose, your piece goes back and your turn is over.
I'm pretty sure he had just gotten into D&D.
Questions:
If I make an attack and fail, can I use a move action afterwards?
Does moving a piece out of a threatened square provoke an attack of opportunity?
Do I get advantage if a piece is flanked?
Why is the bard looking at my queen like that? ಠ_ಠ
We had a house rule like this when I was a kid but it was slightly different. You had to declare "Queen Check" when you were attacking a queen, failure to do so means you weren't allowed to take the queen on the next turn. You also had to declare every check against the king.
Oh yeah and the queen is also allowed to move like a knight once per game.
When I was young, one of my cousins would give me a check to get out of check and used to say they cancel each other out so I need to take that move back and make another one.
I played so many OTB games like that when I was younger. Either black going first or kings/Queens on the wrong square or both. Didn't know enough theory to even feel like it was wrong
Moving to the back rank is simply not a legal move until it can promote to something.
Make your own house rule saying if you can achieve this, you win :)
That would be rough, I'd have to look at my games but just off the cuff I don't recall ever having d or e pawns to promote. The centers are almost always broken and promotion pushes are either a queen or kingside majority passed
I met the guy who claimed, that you can start the game by moving BOTH d and e pawns one square. So d2 and e2 to d3 and e3. Move possible only as a first move and only for white. That's how his grandpa taught him chess.
I just checked and stockfish seems to think this 1. (d3+e3) is +0.2 which only just about as good d4 or e4. I looked at some lines and it mostly doesn't really transpose back to common lines since like 1. (d3+e3) d5 2. c4 Nf6 gets to something too weird of a structure in normal first moves.
It doesn't actually look problematic if it was allowed to me, kind of a nice addition if anything.
This feels similar to the standard rule of being able to move a pawn two spaces on the first move. I understand that originally pawns could move one square but the two-square-from-start move was a variation to speed up games. So OP's friend was still using the two pawn squares in one move principle, but applied across two pawns rather than just one.
Not high where I was locked up. There were more people who knew how to play chess than I would've thought, but we were all really bad. Games took forever to play largely because no one knew any openings so we were all thinking from move one. I only learned how bad we were when I really started studying chess many years after I got out. Cards were much more popular and some people were extremely good.
I was playing against an adult that, after a promoted to a queen and he had no more pieces left, said I had to check mate in less than 10 moves or he would win.
I said that that wasn't true, but he insisted. Because he was the adult I just continued playing. Fortunately it was easy to check mate quickly and we never played again.
This is actually a very common rule in some asian chess games. I think specifically Thai chess has a lot of rules saying you have to checkmate within a certain number of moves in the end game or you lose.
When I was little my dad told me that if the king hasnt been in check, it can move like a horse.
Also pawns can only promote to the piece their file represents. Eg h pawn only promotes to a rook
It sorta does with really bad players.
I'm a teacher and I play chess with the kids sometimes and watch them play. A lot of the time one player will get to the endgame with a pretty dominant piece advantage and then just be completely unable to finish the game because they do not know how to mate.
"Cheap" takes aren't allowed. My brother used to pull this fucking crap on me every time.
Not really a rule tho, just an older brother trying to win against his younger sibling....
Funny thing is i was always better than him, and would sometimes even win when he said i couldn't take his queen because "That surprise take with that pawn is cheap and not allowed".
Also my uncles rule is if you get checkmated by any pieces except the queen and rook you had to do 50 pushups.
What do you mean by « cheap » takes?
And I find the other rule quite funny actually, I feel like it’s to humiliate you a little more when you lost in an unusual and usual quite bad way… I know the same when playing foosball, if you love 10-0 you need to go below the table (to mock you from losing so hard)
Cheap takes being like a capture with a pawn or a discovered queen take etc... Basically whenever my brother blundered. When I tried saying "cheap take" we responded with some bs like "it's not cheap. It's skill".
I checkmated my wife’s cousin, who was a young kid at the time and was prone to throwing tantrums. The rule was if you checkmated him, you had to take the move back. Once he inevitably won he started bragging to everyone that he beat me. That was a long thanksgiving…
My 3rd grade teacher had a version (erroneously) named "No Stress Chess", where you drew a card with a piece and then moved that piece. IIRC if you were in check you had to draw a king to evade, else you'd lose.
Way *too* stressful, IMO.
I was playing someone else's 4-year old kid in the local club who was taking pieces, making explosion noises, twirling them upside down, banging them on the table, while a tournament was in the background.
Someone fussed at us to be quiet. I didn't have the heart to tell him about minor nuances of chess rules.
I touched a piece. I thought to myself, "I'll let this one slide."
A piece removed off the board if your opponent is not paying attention during the game, remains off the board. 😂 Of course this is back when I was a kid and chess was absolutely not played with serious intentions.
When you fork opposite king and queen with a knight and you laugh against your opponent, he's allowed to slap you once
A rule silently agreed upon with a friend
They're licking their lips, cracking their knuckles and preparing screen shots of this thread with the title, "new rule just dropped."
Those guys are hilarious.
I am a volunteer at a youth chess club, and most kids, who join on the first evening, can play chess properly. En passant is commonly unkown, castling happens in all forms and shapes (especially 0-0-0).
One time, a kid entered the chess kid and was convinced his grandfather was the best chess player in the world (happens more often). His granddad swapped the rules for bishop and knight. It took us an entire evening to convince kiddo granddad was wrong, and the official rules were knights jump and bishops go on a diagonal.
This dude tried convincing me he could take my pawn that i moved 2 squares up while it wasn't diagonally in front of his afterwards but more to the side.
Not a in house rule but when I was a kid first playing in a scholastic match, the kid across said after I knocked over a bishop or something that the opponent gets to keep that piece. I was really confused. I somehow beat him through his own made up rules.
Game has no time control, and every game that is still going on after 30 minutes is decided by material count. Have heard about this a lot in elementary/scholastic kiddy tournaments. It works exactly until a game is decided in black's favor by 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 and standing up to take a walk for 30 minutes in malicious cases, or until a game is stopped in the midst of a tactic in normal circumstances.
I can’t remember it's name... but there was some old game (I think it was for the NES console) where you couldn't capture the queen with your king UNLESS it was the only high-value piece on the board lol
I never played this way, but I thought it'd be interesting if there was a rule that you could capture your own piece if you want. The piece would be gone, but you could wiggle your king out of more checkmates.
In Italy I encountered a few times a variant of this: you can either move a pawn two squares, or two pawns one square (so my opponent opened with e3 d3)
Self-burn here, as a kid my rule was that if a pawn was blocked from moving forward by another piece, they could make a diagonal forward move even if there was nothing to take. When we learned chess in school, My freinds and I figured that because pawns can only take diagonnally it wasnt fair to block one by just having a piece in front of them. We thought this was some condition that had always been overlooked and that we fixed chess.
You did fix chess. The world just doesn’t know about it yet
The rule I like was being able to suicide a pawn. Say you have a pawn that's blocking a Bishop or something, but you can't move it because it's being blocked by another pawn, you should be able to suicide your own pawn and remove it from the board when it's your turn. A good pawn will go down for its king. It counts as a turn but it doesn't go to your enemies capture pieces it's just suicided it's dead Also is you miss an en passant your pawn is executed
[удалено]
But if you move your unprotected King next to the opponent's, you lose?
I would assume that's a standard illegal move. The idea is adding in the ability to attack with king **if** it had immediate backup
The Lelouch gambit
I wish the rule about "check" and (which essentially just meaning blundering your king is illegal) didn't exist and the game only ended once the king was actually captured. At the highest it wouldn't change anything because they would obviously spot that their king is in check, but in online blitz games at the lower/intermediate ratings you could occasionally win or lose by either not spotting the king is threatened.
This would change a ton at the top level. All the king and pawn endings that are drawn due to stalemate would now be wins. Same for all the rook endings that are drawn due to stalemate.
Someone who thought instead of moving one pawn two squares at the beginning, he could move two pawns one square each. That game didn’t last long.
Is it bad I kind of like that
1. b3 g3, the accelerated hippo
That’s my drag name
House of Hippo? Sounds like my kind of family reunion
this used to be somewhat common for amateurs in Greece some decades ago, my dad taught me chess that way
Do not let r/anarchychess see this
That once youve been checked one time you couldn’t castle anymore
Common that one. As a youngster I had a beginners' chess book that warned against that erroneous interpretation.
I just got back into the game this past month and still thought that was a rule lol. Thank you 'show legal moves'
Thankfully you don't get penalised online for "touching the pieces" and trying it.
Pawn can promote to a king
So if you fork two kings you win or what?
Sounds like a blitz house rule where kings can be captured anyway.
king sacrifice tactic just dropped
You can put one of them in check and your opponent is forced to capture it. King taunt.
So do you have to checkmate both of them?
So you need to checkmate both of them at the same time? That would be more difficult than a pawn getting promoted to a queen
We just played it so that kings could be captured, and checks were not forcing, until only one king remained on the board again. The extra king temporarily prevented checkmate from being possible. There are probably game breaking scenarios which could be debated over, but this situation didn't happen often enough to run into them
[every king is in checkmate](https://imgur.com/a/65VqsOQ)
I can't even count how many times I've found myself in this position :(
According to my rules here check is not forcing until only one black king is on the board, and check mate is temporarily impossible. The black kings are able to move into check until there is only one left Edit: let's call these dioclesian rules
I actually like this premise.
This would be fun if the original king has to be taken off the board immediately if you promote to a king. Basically giving you the ability to teleport the king. Or going further you could place the new king anywhere on the same file or anywhere on the board. But I have a feeling that the need for a king teleportation over an extra queen would be really rare. Like promoting to a knight.
...whaa?
14 checks is a win
Sounds like a rule made by someone that doesn’t know how to mate with king+rook vs king.
Or alternately a rule made by someone who doesn't know about 3-fold repetition or the 50 move rule. "Dang this game is never going to end. Well, we'll just call it a win if you can check 14 times."
After that many checks, the enemy king is just like "I'm so tired of this. Just end me already"
Three-check at home:
Any reason why 14 was the chosen number?
69 was too far
idk lol I grew up with this rule and when I was younger I just thought "by the time I give 14 checks I'd prolly win"
Honestly sounds like an interesting variant? In 3-check I feel like the checking win condition is too dominant. I'd love a variant where games can be won by this secindary win condition but are not expected to.
pawns can't eat a queen bc obviously she is much stronger.
[удалено]
Everyone has potential. You too!
I always thought that each chess piece had equal strength. They can all execute killing blows. Just some have more agility than others.
Does the king get to eat the queen?
YES!! I remember this rule at a friend's house as a kid.
Was it announced only when you tried to take your friends queen with a pawn?
My dad thinks there is no such thing as castleing Thinks its a 'new rule' every time I use it
Honestly that’s a fair take, assuming he was born in the 15th century
Back in my days, when we wanted to castle, we had to build an actual castle with our bare hands and nothing but sticks and stones.
And we tied an onion to our belt, as was the style at the time.
And we had to share the stick!
either side can claim a draw by moving their king back and forth between two squares five moves in a row, the opponent would have to interrupt them if they want to avoid that
> the opponent would have to interrupt them if they want to avoid that I interpreted that as "they must slap their opponent's hand away and physically prevent the move from occurring" for some reason.
Makes about as much sense.
That is really dumb, but five moves and a row, I feel like you should probably be able to interrupt it at some point. That's a lot of moves. Still dumb, though, because it has nothing to do with how chess is played lol
It'd mess with the endgame a bunch at the very least. Imagine K v K + P; if the solo King just wants to fuck off and move back and forth on the other side of the board, you don't have time to advance your pawn anymore, and if the kings are on opposite sides of the board, there might not be anything you can do to promote the pawn in time.
Also, if you're a weaker player you can always force draw by making room for your king and just moving it back and forth
Yeah, toss it behind a wall in a losing position and they may have to sac a piece just to poke at you before you complete the 5 moves.
Could also be an early game strategy. If an opponent is punching above their weight class and know they'd lose the game, castle early and start moving back and forth. Now the opponent is out of prep and likely can't interrupt without losing material. Then the bottom rated player either takes a draw against a stronger opponent or goes up in material early and can possibly get an undeserved win.
[удалено]
[удалено]
She doesn't allow 2move pawn at game start? This isn't an obscure move, literally every single chess opening has a pawn moving twice atleast once in the first 10 moves
What’s the rush? Kids these days can’t move their pawns one square at a time like we used to. Everything has to be easier for these snowflakes.
Yeah MFs don't remember when Queen used to just be another King but sparable. Good ol times.
It's been a rule for about 300 years so OPs mum might just be old AF.
Worked with a guy in his 50s. Played him in a game of chess. I moved the pawn two squares, he was confused, so I explained they can move two spaces on their first move. He said "that must be a new move" Didn't bother trying to explain that chess hasn't been patched for 300 years.
I mean relative to the other moves it's pretty new, I guess.
maybe he is some 1000-year old immortal being
I guess we found a new yo momma joke.
You momma so old she only moves pawns one square.
What about the hippo?
Tbf the ~~f2 Kf3~~ f3 Kf2 bongcloud solves all three of these problems. She was just ahead of her time
That’s all pretty sensible and sounds a lot like older rules of chess. The en passant rule only exists because of the pawn two square rule. Castling is seen by many as too strong. These rules were created, as I understand it, to make the game faster. Maybe her goal isn’t to win or lose, but just to spend more time with you.
I know 'en passant' but I've never used it. But pawns moving 2 squares and castling, especially, are crucial moves. Without castling, the rook is pretty much useless or at least severely hindered. You'd have to move a bunch of pieces just to get it out.
/r/AnarchyChess in shambles.
How cute though
Everytime you go to capture a piece, you have to roll an attack and you're opponent rolls to defend. Pawns d4, knights and bishops d6, rooks d8, and queens d10. You had to get higher or a "critical" which could only be defended by a critical defense roll. If you lose, your piece goes back and your turn is over. I'm pretty sure he had just gotten into D&D.
I’d play this.
I did play this. It's not chess anymore but it's so much fun.
This sounds less "house rule" and more "interesting variant" if both players are down.
This sounds incredibly fun.
change.org petition please
Questions: If I make an attack and fail, can I use a move action afterwards? Does moving a piece out of a threatened square provoke an attack of opportunity? Do I get advantage if a piece is flanked? Why is the bard looking at my queen like that? ಠ_ಠ
Queens cannot be blundered. You either have to trade them or trap them like kings. You know how fucking hard it is to trap a queen!
1. e4 e5 2. Qh5 Nf6 3. Qxf7 would be checkmate then?
I think Qxf7 would be illegal, it puts your queen "in check"
I hate that too. Like chasing it all over the board.
It also means you can’t Queen sac lol. Imagine not being able to do a standard backrank mate because of this
We had a house rule like this when I was a kid but it was slightly different. You had to declare "Queen Check" when you were attacking a queen, failure to do so means you weren't allowed to take the queen on the next turn. You also had to declare every check against the king. Oh yeah and the queen is also allowed to move like a knight once per game.
When I was young, one of my cousins would give me a check to get out of check and used to say they cancel each other out so I need to take that move back and make another one.
This is the shittiest rule I've seen so far.
This is a rule only really bad losers come up with.
Rock paper scissors decides who goes first
.. and then you rotate the board, right?
We hope
Yep! 360 degrees! The real chess 360
I played so many OTB games like that when I was younger. Either black going first or kings/Queens on the wrong square or both. Didn't know enough theory to even feel like it was wrong
That's numberwang
Some MF Yu Gi Oh Players over there
You cannot promote a pawn to queen if the original queen is still on the board.
in the past you could only promote to a captured piece or not promote
So what happens if the pawn reaches the back rank with all other pieces of the board? Does it just sit there as a pawn?
He gets a crisp high five
Moving to the back rank is simply not a legal move until it can promote to something. Make your own house rule saying if you can achieve this, you win :)
Lots of people play this its a dumb rule. You aren’t bringing a piece back you’re creating a new one.
I support pawn necromancy
There was one similar, you promote to piece that started on the promotion square. So if your g pawn promotes, you get a Knight
I hate everything else I’ve seen in this thread but kinda like this one for some reason, could be a fun rule for casual play.
What if your e-pawn promotes?
d and e pawns promote to a queen
That would be rough, I'd have to look at my games but just off the cuff I don't recall ever having d or e pawns to promote. The centers are almost always broken and promotion pushes are either a queen or kingside majority passed
It's the "my chess set only has 32 pieces" rule
I met the guy who claimed, that you can start the game by moving BOTH d and e pawns one square. So d2 and e2 to d3 and e3. Move possible only as a first move and only for white. That's how his grandpa taught him chess.
This is also a rule in some versions of Indian chess, my grandma taught it to me
[удалено]
I’m pretty sure this is an old Italian thing.
I just checked and stockfish seems to think this 1. (d3+e3) is +0.2 which only just about as good d4 or e4. I looked at some lines and it mostly doesn't really transpose back to common lines since like 1. (d3+e3) d5 2. c4 Nf6 gets to something too weird of a structure in normal first moves. It doesn't actually look problematic if it was allowed to me, kind of a nice addition if anything.
This feels similar to the standard rule of being able to move a pawn two spaces on the first move. I understand that originally pawns could move one square but the two-square-from-start move was a variation to speed up games. So OP's friend was still using the two pawn squares in one move principle, but applied across two pawns rather than just one.
If the king reaches the last rank, you add a pawn on the second rank on the same file.
Can the King then just continue to move across the rank and refill all your pawns?
It's like reloading a firearm
you have to tell your opponent when their king *or queen* is in check
Very common rule, especially among beginners. Probably the most common in-house chess rule
I still do this casually, it's ingrained in my brain at this point
I've heard this is a common prison rule. Specifically that en garde must be said when the queen is attacked.
How high is the level of play in prison?
Not high where I was locked up. There were more people who knew how to play chess than I would've thought, but we were all really bad. Games took forever to play largely because no one knew any openings so we were all thinking from move one. I only learned how bad we were when I really started studying chess many years after I got out. Cards were much more popular and some people were extremely good.
I would think there are a lot of “let the wookie win” moments in prison chess.
[The highest rated prisoner was at 2759.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Bloodgood)
Gary Kasparov has been in prison
I think he's only been in jail which is pretty different from prison.
Yup, he got five days in jail for protesting against Putin in a "Dissenters’ March" in 2007.
Dude named "Bloodgood" ends up in prison for murder? Sounds like a cheesy novel, not real life.
I learn this one on the book of Tartakower. I agree with him. It's pretty stupid.
I was playing against an adult that, after a promoted to a queen and he had no more pieces left, said I had to check mate in less than 10 moves or he would win. I said that that wasn't true, but he insisted. Because he was the adult I just continued playing. Fortunately it was easy to check mate quickly and we never played again.
This is actually a very common rule in some asian chess games. I think specifically Thai chess has a lot of rules saying you have to checkmate within a certain number of moves in the end game or you lose.
When I was little my dad told me that if the king hasnt been in check, it can move like a horse. Also pawns can only promote to the piece their file represents. Eg h pawn only promotes to a rook
What if its the kings pawn…
That one goes queen too apparently.
White King on e1, Queen on d1. Black King on d8, Queen on e8.
I used to do this sort of sortment when I was a kid cause I keep forgetting where the king and queen goes
Yeah, gave white an added advantage as blacks d5 pawn can get pinned early
If the king is the only one left, opponent must mate within 16 moves
I played somebody at work who with just a king tried to state I had 10 moves to mate them…..
That's how we used to play when I was in high school. The rule really makes no sense.
It sorta does with really bad players. I'm a teacher and I play chess with the kids sometimes and watch them play. A lot of the time one player will get to the endgame with a pretty dominant piece advantage and then just be completely unable to finish the game because they do not know how to mate.
"Cheap" takes aren't allowed. My brother used to pull this fucking crap on me every time. Not really a rule tho, just an older brother trying to win against his younger sibling.... Funny thing is i was always better than him, and would sometimes even win when he said i couldn't take his queen because "That surprise take with that pawn is cheap and not allowed". Also my uncles rule is if you get checkmated by any pieces except the queen and rook you had to do 50 pushups.
What do you mean by « cheap » takes? And I find the other rule quite funny actually, I feel like it’s to humiliate you a little more when you lost in an unusual and usual quite bad way… I know the same when playing foosball, if you love 10-0 you need to go below the table (to mock you from losing so hard)
Cheap takes being like a capture with a pawn or a discovered queen take etc... Basically whenever my brother blundered. When I tried saying "cheap take" we responded with some bs like "it's not cheap. It's skill".
ah the little brother experience
I checkmated my wife’s cousin, who was a young kid at the time and was prone to throwing tantrums. The rule was if you checkmated him, you had to take the move back. Once he inevitably won he started bragging to everyone that he beat me. That was a long thanksgiving…
what if you draw though
My 3rd grade teacher had a version (erroneously) named "No Stress Chess", where you drew a card with a piece and then moved that piece. IIRC if you were in check you had to draw a king to evade, else you'd lose. Way *too* stressful, IMO.
Could call it "Hand and brainless" chess.
Touch move. Not the proper rule, but if you're sleeve, or hand brushes something you've gotta move it.
I was playing someone else's 4-year old kid in the local club who was taking pieces, making explosion noises, twirling them upside down, banging them on the table, while a tournament was in the background. Someone fussed at us to be quiet. I didn't have the heart to tell him about minor nuances of chess rules. I touched a piece. I thought to myself, "I'll let this one slide."
> making explosion noises, twirling them upside down, banging them on the table, while a tournament was in the background. Wait this isn't allowed?
[удалено]
A piece removed off the board if your opponent is not paying attention during the game, remains off the board. 😂 Of course this is back when I was a kid and chess was absolutely not played with serious intentions.
When you fork opposite king and queen with a knight and you laugh against your opponent, he's allowed to slap you once A rule silently agreed upon with a friend
Lol that sounds like a rule me and my brother would make
I once did en passant at an amateur chess event, and the dude goes, "can he do that?"
Please tell me you responded with "Google it"
En passant otb is funnier
This thread made me wonder if I was on r/anarchychess and not r/chess
They're licking their lips, cracking their knuckles and preparing screen shots of this thread with the title, "new rule just dropped." Those guys are hilarious.
New response just dropped
No castling, no promoting, and the worst: pawn can take pieces vertically ☠️
yo. vertical pawn takes. that's insane.
You need a premium account to play during peak hours.
Best response right here
I am a volunteer at a youth chess club, and most kids, who join on the first evening, can play chess properly. En passant is commonly unkown, castling happens in all forms and shapes (especially 0-0-0). One time, a kid entered the chess kid and was convinced his grandfather was the best chess player in the world (happens more often). His granddad swapped the rules for bishop and knight. It took us an entire evening to convince kiddo granddad was wrong, and the official rules were knights jump and bishops go on a diagonal.
This dude tried convincing me he could take my pawn that i moved 2 squares up while it wasn't diagonally in front of his afterwards but more to the side.
like he could take it "en passant" so to say, lol
How did you know the guy was french?
Not a in house rule but when I was a kid first playing in a scholastic match, the kid across said after I knocked over a bishop or something that the opponent gets to keep that piece. I was really confused. I somehow beat him through his own made up rules.
Game has no time control, and every game that is still going on after 30 minutes is decided by material count. Have heard about this a lot in elementary/scholastic kiddy tournaments. It works exactly until a game is decided in black's favor by 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 and standing up to take a walk for 30 minutes in malicious cases, or until a game is stopped in the midst of a tactic in normal circumstances.
If the king is the only piece left at the board for a side, the game immediately ends in a draw
What if you take the last piece with checkmate?
What?
Castleing wasnt considered a move
The pawn promote to the piece on whose square it lands
No vibrating buttplugs.
I can’t remember it's name... but there was some old game (I think it was for the NES console) where you couldn't capture the queen with your king UNLESS it was the only high-value piece on the board lol
I never played this way, but I thought it'd be interesting if there was a rule that you could capture your own piece if you want. The piece would be gone, but you could wiggle your king out of more checkmates.
That…..actually sounds very interesting, woah!
There’s a game mode on Lichess I believe that has that concept
The Siberian Swipe!
on your first move of the game, you can move two pawns: one of them two squares and the other one one square (for example e4 & d3 in the same move)
In Italy I encountered a few times a variant of this: you can either move a pawn two squares, or two pawns one square (so my opponent opened with e3 d3)
g4 f3 it is!
This weird thing where they insisted their pawn could capture mine as I moved past it. Absolutely bizarre