Single Comment

SBlkWlf says 'isn't fide rule zero enough?'

My answer is that I have been feeling the need for an extened rule zero for
quite a while. There are certain situations that have often arisen in games
that I have designed, and the resolution has often been to use the same
rules as some other familiar chess variant.

The rule zero file that I have written is biased towards the ingredients
that I have most often or most recently used in my own variants. Other
chess variant designers may prefer a different mix of ingredients, and may
wish to add some paragraphs to rule zero for this reason.

For example, I have always loved Cylindrical Chess; not so much as a game
to be played, although of course I have often played it, but rather as a
basic archetypical rule. One of the rules of Cylindrical Chess is that one
may not move a Rook (no other piece can do this) from a1 to a1 (via h1,
crossing the border). I also love a piece called the Rose, although I have
never played a game using one against a real opponent.

There is a rule that a Rose may not move from e1 to e1
(e1-g2-h4-g6-e7-c6-b4-c2-e1).

I combined these in rule zero as a general principle. Nothing prevents you
from making up a game where every piece has some sort of null move and is
permitted to play it! the idea of rule zero is that usually the rules
should prevent null moves. Usually.

In fact, one of the benefits of rule zero is that somebody will make up a
game that violates everything in rule zero!