[LonelyWolfe]

Seems like it got the hug of death from many users - few interesting quirks I saw while it was still running:

* You need to actually capture the king to win. Check/Checkmate does not apply here

* You can't move the same piece twice in a row (I think)

* You can actually skip a turn - This is somehow more strategic than it sounds, but I'm not sure how to use it - maybe just wait with your "venus flytrap" and then capture the pieces?

[macintux]

The last bullet point reminds me of the description from a game in China Miéville's Kraken.

> The “universal leaper” was usually thought the most powerful piece, he read, as it could go from where it was to any other square on the board. But it was not. Kraken was... It could move to any square including the one it was already on. Anywhere including nowhere.

[boredhedgehog]

Or the Lion from Chu Shogi, which steps twice and can thus land on its starting square.

[RuthlessCheater]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang

Any position like this would essentially be drawn if both sides could skip their move

[HlessClaudesman]

Even tho I can't see the site, I love the idea of rule changes. We live in a golden age my friends; computers, automation and a massive online player base opens up so many opportunities to tweak the rules of existing games and see what falls out.

Maybe my rule change idea has already been implemented, but, other than building it myself, is there a way to play / automate chess / checkerboards of arbitrary sizes? Bigger / smaller boards, odd numbers of tiles, rectangles, etc. How about adding and removing pieces, an extra rank of pawns for example. Letting it run / learn for a million games or so and see what comes out.

Please let me know if yous guys have seen something similar.

[kthejoker2]

Pychess.org is a Lichess clone dedicated to variants (both traditional chess-like variants and newly invented ones)

[causi]

Check/Checkmate does not apply here

Good. The entire check system is a pointless bolt-on esotericism. Not being able to place your king in check has never improved a single game of chess.

[dale_glass]

How would it make anything better? If you could, you'd just be voluntarily losing the game.

[causi]

Yeah, that's you screwing up and losing, or trying to bluff your opponent into not noticing. Both should be allowed.

[JyB]

In the off chance your opponent misses it maybe?

[dorgo]

What about the rule that the king is not allowed to castle if one of the squares moved over by the king is under attack? If you allow the king to be placed in check then you surely would also allow the king to step over squares attacked by opponents peaces? But this would change the game in the sense that it will not be equivalent to chess any more.

[gershy]

You're pretty much dead-on! (There's a lil "how to play" section on the site!)