Hey Doc Pop, extremely interesting and insightful video. As a chess enjoyer and a programmer myself, I would like to know if you have had the idea of 'solving' this chess as in finding objectively best move in any possible position. If not, I would love to dive deeper into the intricacies of this chess and maybe develop an engine or a database if it is in-fact solvable in a reasonable amount of time. Again, really cool concept, Thank you for sharing it with us
Howdy! If you'd like to run with that, I'd totally be cool with that. I know there are some fools mates that are easy to avoid, but I'm also sure there has to be some total solution for 1D Chess too. It's not common enough that I've been able to find it, but I'm sure there's a way that white would always be able to win.
The other 1d Chess with just a King, Knight, Rook, and Pawn was a solvable game. I wonder what the solution to this game is? Probably much easier to find than 2d Chess.
Yeah, I believe this game might be solvable, but I haven't found the total solution yet. I have found a fools mate, but players usually only fall for it once.
Why not have it so the king can go "diagonal" by 1 like usual? That bishop endgame seems weird and could be more of a chasedown if white could move king to the next white square
I playtested many versions of this game, and found that having the king only move one square provided the best experience. When I tried other versions it became too hard to get the king in check, so games would drag on. If you are talking about the stalemate in this demo, that was sort of a fluke. Most games end in checkmate, so stalemates aren't a big issue.
Hey, nice video, the only thing i spotted is that you put the knight back on the wrong space at 3:20, which means that the bishop check was going to end in a forced mate, maybe the solution is switching knight and bishop at the start so queen and bishop are at different coloured tiles?
That all came with playtesting. This is what I thought felt the most fun. In the beginning, I thought of the knights and the pawns as if they were moving their normal paths onto tiles that were off the board, but then I "flattened" them back onto their board. This ended up being equal to having a knight move one or two squares. That didn't feel jumpy enough. I'll admit I never tested something that always had them land on an opposite tile, but if I did, I'd define that movement as "knights can jump 1 or 3 tiles from their current position. They may move forward or backward and can jump over any pieces in their way." That might be worth trying if someone wants to.
Hello, where did you get your chess pieces? I have the exact same ones and got them from this family game set from an old collection my parents had lol. I've never seen the chess pieces anywhere else.
I can't remember. I think I picked this set up from Walgreens to be honest. It was a cardboard box and the same cardboard board that I chopped up for this video. I imagine there's a factory that makes tons of these pieces, so you can find the exact same pieces in different packages.
For the king in particular, I found that giving it more options than it currently has made it harder for games to end. The king became to squirelly, so I'm happiest with it moving one square. For the pawn, I did try more squares, but not in the sense of a bishop (ie hoping to the next square on the same color it started with). That could be fun.
