FIDE CM Kingscrusher is the webmaster of Chessworld.net
Chessworld.net is a long established online chess site.

If you would like play relaxed, friendly online chess, then

or

And meet other Youtubers or perhaps even play me in a ChessWorld Simul
Support the Kingscrusher Youtube Channel: â–ºSupport via PayPal ($)

 
Chess World Online Chess Forum - Is 'en passant' the last improvement?

Chessworld Forum Topic


Play | Latest posts | IndexForum Name: Chess - General discussion
Forum goals: world chess events, international chess news, puzzles, OTB games
You are currently subscribed to this forum by Email - Click to unsubscribe
If you see anything that you find offensive, please report it to the Helpdesk forum

  Play ... Latest Forum Posts > Chess Forums > Chess - General discussion
  Is 'en passant' the last improvement?




Previous Page1 2 Next Page   
Taotaomonas

Chess rating: 1715





 Topics started


Australia
Give chess goodie
Tue Dec 8 2015 9:30PM | MsgID: 18699469


[Quote from: "Adeptus_Mechanicus"]
[Quote from: "ockendon"]
[Quote from: "R_De_Siota"]Maybe it could be converted on the next move after losing the other bishop, like an en passant capture only being permitted on the next move after the pawn advance.


That's an interesting idea. It may of course be impossible for the second bishop to convert in this case; so maybe the player could be allowed to defer the conversion until one became available, but then be obliged to convert immediately.

This rule would of course reduce the power of the second bishop, whereas the original rule would be a constant threat to the opponent.



If you go back and read my original stipulations, I did say that a Bishop would not be able to convert unless its counterpart had already been taken. I knew this rule would obviously make Bishops more powerful than Knights, but I didn't want to make a Bishop too powerful. As for the issue of when a Bishop can convert, thank you for bringing that up. Going back and reading my original stipulations, apparently I wasn't too clear on that. My original intent was that once one Bishop has been taken the other Bishop has the right to convert for the rest of the game. It would allow the Bishop a little more tactical flexibility in the middle and end game or help a player from being saddled with a "bad" bishop in the opening. However, a player would have to convert wisely. As my second stipulation states, a bishop can only convert once, so choose carefully because once a bishop has converted it is stuck on that color!

Another issue I had not thought of was would a converting Bishop be allowed to capture or check? I personally feel that if a Bishop converts, it should be allowed to check, but not allowed to capture.

Thank you all for your comments, it makes me think I might be on to something.



Ramesh! Is Dr Who really this popular World Wide :-8O







Adeptus_Mechanicus

Chess rating: 1789





 Topics started


United States
Give chess goodie
Tue Dec 8 2015 3:30PM | MsgID: 18698579


[Quote from: "ockendon"]
[Quote from: "R_De_Siota"]Maybe it could be converted on the next move after losing the other bishop, like an en passant capture only being permitted on the next move after the pawn advance.


That's an interesting idea. It may of course be impossible for the second bishop to convert in this case; so maybe the player could be allowed to defer the conversion until one became available, but then be obliged to convert immediately.

This rule would of course reduce the power of the second bishop, whereas the original rule would be a constant threat to the opponent.



If you go back and read my original stipulations, I did say that a Bishop would not be able to convert unless its counterpart had already been taken. I knew this rule would obviously make Bishops more powerful than Knights, but I didn't want to make a Bishop too powerful. As for the issue of when a Bishop can convert, thank you for bringing that up. Going back and reading my original stipulations, apparently I wasn't too clear on that. My original intent was that once one Bishop has been taken the other Bishop has the right to convert for the rest of the game. It would allow the Bishop a little more tactical flexibility in the middle and end game or help a player from being saddled with a "bad" bishop in the opening. However, a player would have to convert wisely. As my second stipulation states, a bishop can only convert once, so choose carefully because once a bishop has converted it is stuck on that color!

Another issue I had not thought of was would a converting Bishop be allowed to capture or check? I personally feel that if a Bishop converts, it should be allowed to check, but not allowed to capture.

Thank you all for your comments, it makes me think I might be on to something.







R_De_Siota

Chess rating: 1263



 Topics started


United States
Give chess goodie
Sat Dec 5 2015 5:42PM | MsgID: 18691761


Originally posted by: "ockendon"
That's an interesting idea. It may of course be impossible for the second bishop to convert in this case; so maybe the player could be allowed to defer the conversion until one became available, but then be obliged to convert immediately.

This rule would of course reduce the power of the second bishop, whereas the original rule would be a constant threat to the opponent.




What effect would bishop conversion have on standard openings in which black is saddled with a bad bishop? (French, Orthodox QGD, for example). And would the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation players appreciate it? Seems like it would breathe new life into some old and drawish lines.







ockendon

Chess rating: 1777
LCF 109 Fide approx. 1795






 Topics started


England
Give chess goodie
Sat Dec 5 2015 5:15PM | MsgID: 18691708


Originally posted by: "R_De_Siota"
Maybe it could be converted on the next move after losing the other bishop, like an en passant capture only being permitted on the next move after the pawn advance.



That's an interesting idea. It may of course be impossible for the second bishop to convert in this case; so maybe the player could be allowed to defer the conversion until one became available, but then be obliged to convert immediately.

This rule would of course reduce the power of the second bishop, whereas the original rule would be a constant threat to the opponent.







R_De_Siota

Chess rating: 1263



 Topics started


United States
Give chess goodie
Sat Dec 5 2015 3:27PM | MsgID: 18691470


Maybe it could be converted on the next move after losing the other bishop, like an en passant capture only being permitted on the next move after the pawn advance.







bwzins64

Chess rating: 2217





 Topics started


United States
Give chess goodie
Chess goodies: 1
Sat Dec 5 2015 4:42AM | edited: 4:45:54 | MsgID: 18690750


[Quote from: "R_De_Siota"]
[Quote from: "ockendon"]Wow, that's an interesting idea! If it has been thought of before, I've never heard of it.

Would the 'conversion' count as a move? Would it be allowed to put the opponent's king in check? And would it be allowed to capture an opposing pawn or piece with that sideways move?



Count the 'conversion' as a move (notated 27.Bg5=Bg4, for example). To allow a check or capture may be a bit too much of an advantage for the converting player.



What triggers the conversion? Does the bishop need to reach the 8th rank like the pawn? Perhaps a return to it's starting square?







R_De_Siota

Chess rating: 1263



 Topics started


United States
Give chess goodie
Fri Dec 4 2015 6:30PM | MsgID: 18689885


Originally posted by: "ockendon"
Wow, that's an interesting idea! If it has been thought of before, I've never heard of it.

Would the 'conversion' count as a move? Would it be allowed to put the opponent's king in check? And would it be allowed to capture an opposing pawn or piece with that sideways move?




Count the 'conversion' as a move (notated 27.Bg5=Bg4, for example). To allow a check or capture may be a bit too much of an advantage for the converting player.







MOHANAN

Chess rating: 1948



 Topics started


India
Give chess goodie
Thu Dec 3 2015 2:06AM | MsgID: 18686422


In old Indian chess (shathranj or chathuramgam) Bishop (called elephant or camel at different ares) moves diagonelly to third square only and the Queen (called minister) only one step in any direction at at a time. Every pawn reaching 8th square becomes a minister and only that. The game is dead slow but interesting as well, with very many difference in rules.







ockendon

Chess rating: 1777
LCF 109 Fide approx. 1795






 Topics started


England
Give chess goodie
Wed Dec 2 2015 8:32PM | edited: 9:02:59 | MsgID: 18685886


Wow, that's an interesting idea! If it has been thought of before, I've never heard of it.

It would, in an instant, make the bishop a more powerful piece than the knight. Because quite often one deliberately aims to capture the bishop of a certain colour to reduce threats, e.g. if most of one's pawn's are on the other colour, or if a particularly vulnerable square is on the same colour.

Would the 'conversion' count as a move? Would it be allowed to put the opponent's king in check? And would it be allowed to capture an opposing pawn or piece with that sideways move?







Adeptus_Mechanicus

Chess rating: 1789





 Topics started


United States
Give chess goodie
Wed Dec 2 2015 6:57PM | MsgID: 18685682


I actually had a thought while reading this thread. I'm not naive enough to think that I am the first person ever to have this idea, but ill bring it up nonetheless.

What if Bishops had the option to 'convert'? It would go like this:

1. A Bishop may convert by foregoing its normal movement and instead move one square horizontally or vertically.

2. A Bishop may only convert once in the game.

3. A Bishop may only convert if the other Bishop has been taken.

Thoughts?







Previous Page1 2 Next Page