"There's also en passa-" Say less. This chess variant is goated already with its advanced battle style, and including this classic rule makes it even better. Edit: Nvm. It's there but it's not there. Still, I respect the nodes being implemented to show that the en passant was possible.
If you look closer its just not possible to en passant there regardless, since the pawns technical "forward" wasn't blocked as indicated by the arrow to the upper left of it. So its not that en passant isn't possible in the game or was bugged at all, it is simply because the board was read wrong (What a shocker in this version of chess lmao)
So if I'm not mistaken, the way it handles things: Spaces are orthogonally connected if they share an edge. Spaces are diagonally connected if they share a vertex but don't share an edge. It uses the red lines and blue dots to make the distinction clear (since three spaces around one vertex will make it so that there is no diagonal movement through it, and five or more will make it so that there's more than one potential space to travel diagonally to from a given space). Continuous movement through a space always continues through the opposite edge or vertex. (I'd be intrigued to see how this would be handled if the spaces weren't always quadrilaterals). Knight movement is only ever considered to be two orthogonal moves in one direction and then one in another, as opposed to one and then two, or one orthogonal move and one diagonal move (or vice versa). This cuts down on a potentially huge number of squares it might have been able to travel to from certain spaces, and limits it to a maximum of eight, like in regular Chess. And as far as I'm aware I don't think there's a consistent rule as to what's considered the "forwards" direction for pawn movement. It seems to just be on a per pawn basis and treats the last direction it moved as being "forwards" for it (and they probably have a distinction between diagonal left and diagonal right for when it captures), unless it hits the edge of the board in which case it turns. All in all a pretty unique variant. Different layouts would give this a lot of variety, and perhaps some might even have competitive integrity. (Shame on the developer for forgetting En Passant though.)
I just want to add to your correct comment that "5 squares meeting at a vertex" isn't the only way to tile hyperbolic space. You can do anything that's more than the regular flat Euclidean plane can do: "4 pentagons", "6 squares", "4 hexagons", etc. If you search the internet for "andrea hawksley non euclidean chess" or similar you'll find some discussion and pictures.
I have the feeling Knights are missing some possibilities. Here the knight is programmed to move two tiles then 1 tile orthogonally. But it can also move 1 tile then 2 orthogonally. Which would allow more moves (in this game only, on a normal chess board it's the same to do 1-2 or 2-1)
No, the bishop is blocked by one of the two red barriers - depending on which use of the blue corner it chooses. It simply seems that the game-maker didn't code in en-passant, to the horror of the r/anarchychess community.
I'm sitting down in a chair, in a room in a house on dry land. I've not had anything alcoholic to drink. Yet watching this twisted chessboard makes me seasick and dizzy...
8:13 Tyler, the purple indicates diagonal adjacent for the pawn. The area you were trying to move was the area the pawn can attack, not the direction the pawn can move.
The knight move is asymmetric in this variant: for some moves in its rule, swapping the starting and ending squares* results in an invalid move. It would be if it was like this instead: it moves one square in an orthogonal direction, then turns at a right angle, then moves one more square, then turns the opposite direction, and moves one more square. The resulting move would be the same on a normal board
How about a variant of blitz chess, where the chess board constantly morphs in this fashion in realtime? Vertexes could be constantly splitting apart. Triangles that appear would not count as "squares," but they would usually quickly become 4 sided. 5 sided cells would count as "squares" but the shortest side wouldn't count as an edge?
I thought En Passant- yeah, found it, it's only valid in narrow circumstances: > There are a few requirements for the move to be legal: The capturing pawn must have advanced exactly three ranks to perform this move. The captured pawn must have moved two squares in one move, landing right next to the capturing pawn. The en passant capture must be performed on the turn immediately after the pawn being captured moves. If the player does not capture en passant on that turn, they no longer can do it later.
This format seems like it has a lot of potential as a way to represent three-dimensional geometries. I would be fascinated to see other forms for this type of board
Marry this with 5D Chess with multiverse time travel and then finally we have a game that we can play against the 4 dimensional aliens that live in my walls.
8:31 the pawn cant go there bc it can only move forewards, which is determined by the edges of the squares not the actual orientation of the larger board
I have an idea for a chess variant with a gimmick that I find a bit similar. But it would be even crasier. The idea is that every piece can carries a conic singularity, although only with an angle divisible by 360°
My brain hurts from just trying to follow each moves, thankfully not as much as the 5d chess one. On the sidenote, writing the chess moves in chess notation is definitely as equally cursed as the board itself.
8:02 - en passant is in this case not possible for the pawn because it is pinned down by the Bishop. Follow its line and you can see a check, only blocked by this pawn.
No, the pawn could attack the tile that the black pawn skipped over. It simply seems that the game-maker didn't code in en-passant, to the horror of the r/anarchychess community.
It's interesting you mentioned that bishops seem to be more powerful in this game than rooks. In chess theory, rooks are considered more powerful because a bishop can't move to a square of the opposite color. A rook can move to any square though. That is why it is wildly agreed that rooks are more important, The bishop can only move on half of the squares on the board, either black squares or white, but in this game the bishop can reach squares it couldn't reach before making it more like a knight where it can alternate between black and white squares. It seems the bishop is more powerful in cursed chess.
Whats more disturbing is that this board isnt symmetrical on any axis, meaning one color has an inherent advantage over the other not based on turn order. Maybe these advantages cancel each other out but it is indefinite at this time.
should have some sort of system set up to where it randomly generations a new twisty turny chess board every time you create a new game. each game will be much more unique and interesting from the last.
No. That pawns "forward" direction was to the left, so up is a valid diagonal to attack on, you can see the direction marked when he hovers over to confirm it.
this is not even "wormhole chess" where 2 chessboards (4 factions) are back-2-back and the board-centers are connected by a wormhole that chess pieces can easily traverse. This is not even laser-chess, where every piece has 1 (or more) reflective surfaces, and the queen can fire a laser instead of moving, and 1 piece splits the laser in 2, and bigger pieces are easier destroyed by lasers, so smaller pieces can never defeat bigger pieces.
My immediate first thought is: How do we notate the the board spaces now? "Bishop to e4" doesn't make sense any more. My second thought is: How's castling work?
So what I see is that the knight is a spider, the queen is Omnipresent, the rook and bishop is drunk and you can lose without even knowing you wore ever under attack😂
