When and why did "Mad Queen" chess take off? Why weren't people happier with the older piece movement rules? And why did Chess, as opposed to some other game, win the premier spot of the "intellectual game", at least in Europe?
People just like variety. If you play chess all of the time, you will begin to notice patterns, and while this is part of becoming a good player, it also causes some of the mystique and excitement that one might have had when they first started learning to dissipate. It's why Go earned some popularity in the west in the last several years. I for one enjoy the sense of confusion and not knowing exactly what the expect when playing games.
>I for one enjoy the sense of confusion and not knowing exactly what the expect when playing games.
Don't kid yourself. Unless you are a GM, you are not even close to knowing even most patterns. If you know exactly what to expect when playing chess, you need to stop playing your 4 year old sister and move on to tougher competition.
>What the fuck is Mad Queen chess?
Mad Queen chess is modern chess as it's played pretty much everywhere: The queen moves horizontally, vertically, or diagonally any number of spaces until it hits something.
Prior to this, IIRC, the queen/vizier only moved one space diagonally.
Well, at least in say, 10th/11th century chess, which I have some material on (and then nothing until Ruy Lopez in the late 15th century), the knight was the only one of the backrank pieces that moved the way it does in modern chess.
Kings were only one space horizontal or vertical.
Rooks were exactly 2 spaces horizontal or vertical, not one
Bishops were exactly 2 spaces diagonal, again, not one.
Interesting to note is that if you put a knight at the center of a 5x5 grid, the legal moves of the knight are all the squares you couldn't reach by any of the other pieces.
One by one the pieces (knight excluded) changed their moves, but I'm not really sure as to when and why. By Ruy Lopez's time, they're in their modern incarnations. As for it's purpose, it was that of any other piece, to move and take things, eventually corner the enemy king.
Didn't Isabella complain about how weak the queen was? And in honour of her everyone started to play the mad queen variation.
You play with increments to allow for the length of a game. a 100+ mover endgame is going to be different than a short violent middlegame struggle.
Not to mention it's how FIDE plays most fast tournaments.
>tfw no one to play chess with
I play my 13 year old nephew, who was in chess club last year but I can usually beat him 3/4 times, as he's overly focused on the queen (both his and mine) because she's the most powerful piece.
Also, the way I learned to play chess back in 1977 on a visit to family in Poland, pawns could also attack backwards diagonally and knights couldn't jump over enemy pieces.
>One by one the pieces (knight excluded) changed their moves, but I'm not really sure as to when and why.
Obviously to make the game more interesting and fun. If all the pieces are limited to 1-2 spaces per move, you’re going to have a pretty slow and boring game.
Breddy useful rule. I use it occasionally, but it doesn't come up that often.
One thing I've noted, is that it's a great trap for like 14-1600 players. They'll know about En passant at that strength, they'll know that if they don't do it immeidately, they'll lose the chance, so they'll take en passant even if it's not a good idea to do so, because they don't want to lose the opportunity.
Play a lot. Lose a lot. Get at least basic opening pronciples down: piece development, center control, king safety.
When you're ready, start rook and pawn endings, that's where you really learn how to play and calculate in depth
No. If you're in a position where you can queen multiple pawns, you've won anyway. It can possibly be an effective supplement if you don't know how to pull off a checkmate with less material, but it won't win you any games you don't already have an overwhelming advantage in.
Exact same situation, and I've been playing on the same site. I learned about openings from http://chess.about.com/od/openings/tp/TopOpenings.htm Basically, protect the center. Very simple, move your two pawns in front of the king and queen forward two spaces, move your two knights up to defend the pawns, and once those pawns are moved you can move your bishops as well. Losing to Cody (the retard tier AI) becomes impossible once you've got an opening down. I have to learn more though because Claire rekts my shit every fucking time.
Anyone want to play a game of casual crazyhouse? Rules are explained, but it's basically modern chess except capture pieces are now yours and can be placed during your turn. Only rule is that pawns can't be auto-promoted, however feel free to check.
Yeah I'm getting my shit pushed in by Claire as well, although I seem to not get checkmated as quickly if I try to draw her pawns out with my knights and cockblock her good pieces with bishops.
I always forget about the queen though and it manages to tear its way through my rear unchecked and everything falls apart.
Where do I get friends?
She always abuses the Queen, which yeah definitely fucks my shit up, but I'm positive it's her weakness. Still, once in a while I'll be able to take it and it's easier to play but I still can't seem to win.
This is embarrassing.
Once the queen is behind my lines I'm gone. I can never counter it, whether my rook is kill or there are immovable pieces in front of it.
She just gobbles up my pieces while my only available moves are to get my king out of dodge.
Castle your king and be very conservative with his movements. Always prepare a counter attack, ideally with pawns set up to retake a square. Of course I say that haven't not won a single game against that AI
It was simulating armies moving around a battlespace... Lots of anticipation and manoeuvre of 'winning' pieces into the right place for a victory.
The game was, and is, about position.
This combative autist bullshit is what makes these boards suck. Everyone has a point at which they will start to plateau. In lieu of stagnation for some people, fairy chess can add some interest when higher skill is illusive. Don't be a such a ornery cunt looking for an argument.
Black's position is hopeless. Queen for a bishop is overwhelming, and that's before you have to deal with the immediate threats.
After exd6+, Be7 loses instantly to Qxe7#, and Kd8 is bad because Qxb6 and picking up the rook. That leaves Be6 as the only "reasonable" alternative. However, it contains no offensive potential, and white can take his time developing his queenside knight, castling, bringing his rooks to the center, and then ramming through the d pawn.
Lucky for him, Be6 is what he played, even though it seemed to take him a while to figure out which was surprising considering he has a pretty decent ELO. After that I castled kingside, just to be safe in case. After that though, he played f6, which made no sense, and I won his bishop. After that point it resulted into chasing his king around the queenside and ultimately winning on time.
Honestly, like I said, the only really rational "move" to make is to resign. You could put Stockfish, or whatever your favorite AI in the former position as black and you should be able to beat it easily, even with a "perfect" defense. Queen for a bishop is too much to overcome.
>After that point it resulted into chasing his king around the queenside and ultimately winning on time.
Sloppy, unless he was the sort to huddle in a lost position and to force you to win by flag falling. Trade off pieces, force a pawn promotion, do a K+Q v K mate. It shouldn't take more than a minute of your clock-time from >>693128
Qd4 was the best move, as it fixes the king in place and threatens the kingside rook. Then you castle in order to quickly get your rook in the center, ram everything into whatever is in front of the king, and gg