Ben ([info]benhimself) wrote,
@ 2005-02-23 14:48:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Game Idea: Backwards Chess
Basically, if it would be a legal move to go from gamestate X to gamestate Y in normal Chess, you could go from gamestate Y to gamestate X in backwards chess. The 'goal', which I suppose would have to be slightly cooperative, would be to get all the pieces of both sides into the normal chess starting positions (This variant starting with just a few pieces in a proper 'checkmate' position). The real goal would be to horribly confuse all onlookers, of course.

Interestingly, if the king moves "into" check, the other player must move out of it. Because it wouldn't be a legal move otherwise. Hmmm. That might actually be a good way to establish an actual competitive goal, get it so they can't get your king unchecked in their next move. That also provides good incentive to "uncapture" pieces, which would be moving a piece away from a square and leaving an opponent's piece there. And, hmmm, you couldn't move a piece INTO a location which 'checks' the other king, because that would imply, if you "restored" the proper turn order, that they moved themselves into check somehow. Interesting.

Now I need a chess set and somebody to test this idea with. Hmmm.



(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]kevandotorg
2005-02-23 08:34 pm UTC (link)
Er, tut, I thought of this the other day, although with the goal just being "get your own colour back to a starting setup", and allowing players to choose which piece became uncaptured, when their opponent moved. Was I talking to someone about this, or just thinking it? Damn. (I have got "BACKWARDS CHESS: Opponent may place a piece in any square you move away from." scrawled in the corner of a moleskine page, though, so will claim prior art when you go to press with this.)

I think chessvariants.org has a completely configurable Java applet that lets you play any of their insane variants online; choose your starting setup and specialised pieces and move them around however you like. Haven't got any Java on this machine to check with, though.

(The reason I tailed off thinking about Backwards Chess was because someone had probably done it already, and properly, but I couldn't see anything obvious amongst all the Chess Variants.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kevandotorg
2005-02-24 12:00 am UTC (link)
Aha, there's an unfinished conversational version called RetroChess on the Chess Variants site, which you can win by either getting your pieces back to their starting blocks, or by locking the gamestate so your opponent can't do anything.

Includes the phrase "un passant". And, er, "we each had this idea independently when talking to other people".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]benhimself
2005-02-24 06:59 pm UTC (link)
Ah, they noticed the "Can't place a king in check, and must move a piece out if the king moves into check" consequence of the rules, interesting. Although, to be fair, backwards chess does seem like an idea that's reasonably likely to occur to a number of people independently. The real trick will be to come up with a playable set of rules, and actually play a game or two.

Although we could always just take a normal game, run it backwards, and claim it was Backwards Chess working exactly as planned. Hmm.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]kevandotorg
2005-02-24 09:06 pm UTC (link)
Or run it backwards and film it, and play that film backwards, as conceptual art.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]benhimself
2005-02-25 06:01 pm UTC (link)
Which would be excellent because it would feature each player making a move with almost no deliberation, then pondering that move for a long while.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

But in interesting ways
[info]xorphus
2005-02-23 08:37 pm UTC (link)
You're both insane, for the record.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: But in interesting ways
[info]joranj
2005-02-23 09:06 pm UTC (link)
i think it's part of their charm.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

As long as I'm not tediously insane.
[info]benhimself
2005-02-24 06:28 pm UTC (link)
It could be worse. Understanding "legal move" as a relation between gamestates, I've been considering a borgian-library style listing of every possible game, given a finite number of possible gamestates (much like you have a finite-sized book with only so many characters that could be in each potential space). You have a finite number of possible gamestates, and thus, a finite number of possible ordered pairs of gamestates, and a ruleset is just a listing of which of these ordered pairs are legal moves, and which aren't. So, for X gamestates, 2^(x^2) possible rulesets.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…