Suppose we take the chess rules and add a new one:

A1: You have the option of moving two pieces simultaneously,
as long as each move considered separately was legal in
'single move' chess. The two pieces can't land on the
same square, obviously.


So you can't move a pawn, then the bishop behind it
which was previously blocked by the moved pawn. Or,
if your king is checked, you move your king,
and move another piece to kill the check.


I'm just wondering how drastic would a change be?
Would a typical chess game have half the number of
turns for each player? Would the games be faster?

Would there be some opening trick that white can play
that will always guarantee a win in a few turns?

Now, if we were to look at the entire decision tree
for double-move chess, it would be bigger than
single-move chess, because double-move chess would
have all the moves of single-move chess too.

But now, let's look at the decision tree for those
double-move chess games where two pieces were always
moved if legal to do so. Would the tree be roughly
twice as wide but half as deep as the single-move
chess decision tree?

I know silly questions... just curious to know the
answer.

In article ,
(FreddyFoobar) wrote:

Suppose we take the chess rules and add a new one:

A1: You have the option of moving two pieces simultaneously,
as long as each move considered separately was legal in
'single move' chess. The two pieces can't land on the
same square, obviously.


So you can't move a pawn, then the bishop behind it
which was previously blocked by the moved pawn. Or,
if your king is checked, you move your king,
and move another piece to kill the check.


I'm just wondering how drastic would a change be?
Would a typical chess game have half the number of
turns for each player? Would the games be faster?

Would there be some opening trick that white can play
that will always guarantee a win in a few turns?



It would probably go much faster. One thing that might help is to give
white one move, then black gets 2 and they alternate 2 moves from there
on.

Two moves in a row is such a huge advantage that in Monster Chess (white
gets Ke1, Pc2d2e2f2 and two moves per turn, black gets the normal setup
and one move per turn) is pretty much a forced win for white.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In
,
Harold Buck typed:

Two moves in a row is such a huge advantage that in Monster
Chess
(white gets Ke1, Pc2d2e2f2 and two moves per turn, black gets
the
normal setup and one move per turn) is pretty much a forced win
for
white.


On the contrary, with careful play, Black should win. It isn't
easy, and if you never seen it before, Black is very hard to
play, but nevertheless it's better for Black.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

In article ,
"Ken Blake" wrote:

In
,
Harold Buck typed:

Two moves in a row is such a huge advantage that in Monster
Chess
(white gets Ke1, Pc2d2e2f2 and two moves per turn, black gets
the
normal setup and one move per turn) is pretty much a forced win
for
white.


On the contrary, with careful play, Black should win. It isn't
easy, and if you never seen it before, Black is very hard to
play, but nevertheless it's better for Black.


Really? I thought I'd read that it was hugely in white's favor. In any
case, the fact that it's even playable shows how important those extra
moves are.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

In
,
Harold Buck typed:
In article ,
"Ken Blake" wrote:

In

,
Harold Buck typed:

Two moves in a row is such a huge advantage that in Monster
Chess
(white gets Ke1, Pc2d2e2f2 and two moves per turn, black
gets
the
normal setup and one move per turn) is pretty much a forced
win for
white.


On the contrary, with careful play, Black should win. It isn't
easy, and if you never seen it before, Black is very hard to
play, but nevertheless it's better for Black.


Really? I thought I'd read that it was hugely in white's favor.
In any
case, the fact that it's even playable shows how important
those extra
moves are.


Yes, I agree.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

"FreddyFoobar" wrote in message
om

Suppose we take the chess rules and add a new one:

A1: You have the option of moving two pieces simultaneously,
as long as each move considered separately was legal in
'single move' chess. The two pieces can't land on the
same square, obviously.

Hi, it's not a stupid question at all. See the website

http://homepages.stayfree.co.uk/gpj/gvc.htm

and scroll down to "Two-Move Chess".

Marco


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG