Every time a piece is about to hit another, the players have to arm wrestle and the winner takes the loser’s piece (if you can’t arm wrestle then you lose automatically).
Yes and this isn’t necessary because the two sides are completely identical. No differences in pieces or terrain or anything so there’s no need to change a piece to make it stronger or weaker.
Actually it has had balance changes. Chess clock for instance is a balance update between the players, but there’s also been balancing between pieces. En passant and castling but also changing how the pieces work (for example bishop).
Despite the obvious symmetry of the game there’s still a lot to balance.
You are quite correct that an asymetrical game is much harder to balance.
However having identical sides and a symmetric playing field doesn’t always guarantee a balanced game. For example, if one piece or position dominates all others it can lead to a lack of viable options and just one way to play, making the game uninteresting. You don’t just want the players to have equal strength, you also want the universe of possible playing strategies to contain many different strong options.
I had someone cheat against me the other day (without me realizing it, because I don’t have the game sense to tell), then offer a draw in a clearly winning position. I guess they were trying to avoid detection, but I decided that I didn’t want their handout, declined the draw offer, and resigned.
The system immediately flagged them as cheating and refunded my elo, so I guess all’s well that ends well.
It’s the rating system for competitive gaming that was originally developed for chess, but has since been applied to all sorts of gaming, sports, etc. sometimes you might even hear people refer to a game’s matchmaking rating as “elo”, even it’s not called that.
Also, fun fact: it’s not an acronym, it’s a guy’s name:
Oh no, it’s completely free to play. What I meant was that when a game is over, the winning player gains rating points and the losing player loses rating points, proportional to the rating difference between them.
Since I had lost that game, I lost rating (elo) points. But, since the system recognized that it was against a cheater, which isn’t fair, it gave me the points back when they banned him so that my rating would be unaffected.
Eh. My last move was to tie a ballistic missile to a pawn and roll it down a pinball machine. Their move is to keep it from hitting the bottom and exploding. That would keep them occupied for a while.
It is too simple to be useful in real life: a mere 8 by 8 grid, no fog of war, no technology tree, no random map or spawn position, only 2 players, both sides exact same pieces, etc.
Castling itself (as a single move) is a 17th century balance update. Before that it was done as separate moves. But the only reason castling became a thing was because the Queen and Bishop were buffed in the 15th century allowing them to threaten more spaces. This made it more advantageous to fortify the king’s position than to have him flee.
OK, I looked it up on Wikipedia. The bishop and queen were the last to have their moves set changed to the modern form in the 15th or 16th century. But even since then there have been some tweaks, such as the 3 move and 50 move rules for draws, and the orientation of the board. So you could maybe argue no balancing since the 16th century, and only a few bug fixes after that.
It’s French for “in passing”. It’s a special move for taking a pawn with another pawn, if the first pawn tries using its double space first move to go past an enemy pawn.
Are you like an idiot or something? You actually thought asking “what’s en passant?” Was going to come across as funny or sarcastic? Do you actually think everyone knows what en passant is? Most people don’t know how to play chess, yet you think asking what en passant is, is some sort of witty thing? Moron.
Someone failing to recognize a niche joke from a small community is not a whoosh. And of course he doesn’t get the joke. Because it’s a niche joke from a small community.
Wow. Heaven forbid I used a joke from the largest online chess influencers following when there are multiple threads on this post from the same community…
The whoosh is part of the joke… Which apparently you didn’t know. Also, it isn’t insular. It’s literally the opposite of that. I thought they were participating in the joke until they replied in such a negative way.
I don’t understand why you are so upset about this and why you are so derogatory towards what is potentially the largest generation of chess players proportionally to their generation size to have ever existed.
I don’t feel that I’ve been derogatory or acted upset. I’ve explained that people are not likely to know an inside joke. That’s what inside jokes are. And if part of an inside joke involves mocking someone, then you’d certainly hope that the jokester would be confident that the other person was in on the joke. And if it turned out the other person didn’t get it, you’d hope that the jokester would apologize and politely explain the joke - not act like everyone else is the problem.
It’s great that there are a lot of people that like chess. I assure you though, that by far, the majority of those people do not have any idea about your joke, from a tiny part of the chess community.
Someone took the time to answer your question, then you mocked them. That’s derogatory. Then after having it explained what you did wrong, you blame everyone but yourself. Choose your own words more carefully.
Excellent. It looks like we both explained ourselves. You appear to understand my position, and when I ask for clarification further on yours you tell me that it is my fault. Thanks for pointing out my flaws without clarification.
startrek.website
Gorące