Check out Atomic Chess, our featured variant for November, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

First move advantage in Western Chess - why does it exist?[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Aug 9, 2012 11:39 PM UTC:
When things are in doubt, a properly-designed argument can have great impact.

I give you Moving 1 Square Chess
[Betza's] Rule 0: All rules are as in chess, except where otherwise stated, including 8x8 board and standard FIDE set-up.
Rule 1: All pieces may move no more than 1 square in a turn.
1a] King moves as standard king.
1b] Queen moves as king.
1c] Bishop moves as ferz, 1 square diagonally.
1d] Rook moves as wazir, 1 square orthogonally.
1e]Knight moves as either wazir or ferz, depending on the colors of the squares both knights are on.
The parity of the 2 squares is either even - both squares the same color, or odd - squares are different colors.
Any knight move must change the parity of the pair of squares.
If a knight is lost, the pair of squares are the knight and queen.
If the queen is lost, the squares are knight and king.
1f] Pawns move as shatranj pawns - no double first step.

Is there anyone who would seriously argue that white retains any first move advantage? If so, how? Enjoy!