>we're playing chess >they're playing checkers

>>48777033
We ought to have an overwhelming advantage, what with being able to stand on a color they can't access. At the very least you can force a draw by keeping the king on a light square indefinitely.

Also, isn't that double jump illegal?

that would actually be interesting

File: image.jpg (1MB, 1518x1200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1518x1200px

>>48777033

File: 1461985492237.jpg (56KB, 499x572px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 499x572px

No one can take me down now.

>>48777054
Yeah.

>>48777033

Explain why they capture the first pawn by jumping over, the second pawn by jumping over, but the king by jumping onto and we're in business.

>>48777033
>checkers unit moving onto the space of another unit
that ain't checkers nigga

File: diagram.png (7KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 320x320px

>>48777033
>>48777054
>>48777055
>>48777215
>>48777636
>>48777935
>>48778028
>>48778053

I wonder if you could make an actually okay game out of this. Each side treats the other as if they were pieces in the same game (so checkers pieces jump to take and chess pieces move into the same square).

Obviously the chess player would win almost every time since the white squares are inaccessible to the checkers player (making checkmate impossible), so you'd have to do two matches switching sides, and keep score in pieces lost...

>>48778673
While checkmate would be difficult/impossible, every time the chess player takes a piece, the piece used then becomes an open target, so trades would be very common.

>>48778720
Exactly. The winner is the player who gets all the checkers off the board while losing as few of their chess pieces as possible.

>>48778673
While it makes for an interesting setup at first glance, it's really not much of a game unless you go out of your way to play badly.

By which I mean it's trivial for chess to force a win. Even if you go second, you can turn your pawns into an impenetrable wall before checkers can even reach you. After that, you don't even need to bother capturing, just dick around until they run out of moves, then they lose by default.

Is checkers vs chess a thing?

Seems like it should be a thing.

File: backgammon8-1.jpg (28KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 450x300px

I never cared for chess, or any regional chess-like games. It just seems like winning boils down to whose read the most chess books and can stock the most strategies beforehand. I like games with a more adaptive strategy. Some element of luck or randomization thrown in helps keep players on their toes, because you can't necessarily anticipate what moves your opponent will make.