Exchange Chess
Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:42 pm
There are a lot of strong players on here, so I wondered what you all think of "Exchange" Chess; it may have another name.
Basically, you play as a team of 2, one with white pieces and one with black pieces. Whenever you capture a piece, you pass it to your team-mate, who can then use the piece instead of moving a piece on his board as the move. The rules that the people I know play allow fairly liberal use of these pieces, e.g. you can put pieces on in check, and in checkmate, but pawns can only go on the 2nd-6th ranks (or 3rd-7th if they're black pawns). Then, add the "stalling" rule we use, whereby as soon as you move, you announce "stalling 1, 2..." and should you get to 10, you can take a piece of the lowest value on the board from it. This can go on indefinitely, taking more and more pawns from the board, giving your team-mate the advantage. If it's a forced mate with pieces on the board however, "stalling" becomes "death count", and you again count from 1 to 10, but upon arriving at 10, you win the game. The first player to get a win, wins the game for his team. It's the exact opposite of what you would normally expect chess to be, players frequently counting their opponent down, or asking their team-mate (often so the opponents can hear) questions like "Can you get me a knight?!"
I ask because juniors seem to really enjoy it. Once we showed people at the school club, that was pretty much all they ever wanted to play. They found it far more interesting than "regular" chess. Anything is possible, because of the rather "freestyle" check and checkmate rules, all sorts of tactics come into it, sacking something on f7 for white is often strong if his partner supplies pieces, castling is often really bad, and there's always the potential for a sudden turnaround should your partner get into trouble, or if you leave a mate-in-one for your opponent, but only if he gets a bishop, or something. You can sometimes get to a situation where stalling is bad, i.e. you create an escape square for your opponent. White will often launch a big attack, while black has to frantically defend. It can get very hectic, but young players seem really enthused by it.
Despite all the positives, it seems to hold a very negative stigma. People overseeing things are often annoyed by the noise. I know from experience that it's a good way to get chess sets mixed up when it comes to putting them back in the box at the end of the games. Indeed, some more "adult" players are keen to turn the other way while it's happening, or suggest to them that they should be playing normal chess instead of a variant.
So, should it be embraced, or shuffled under the carpet?
Basically, you play as a team of 2, one with white pieces and one with black pieces. Whenever you capture a piece, you pass it to your team-mate, who can then use the piece instead of moving a piece on his board as the move. The rules that the people I know play allow fairly liberal use of these pieces, e.g. you can put pieces on in check, and in checkmate, but pawns can only go on the 2nd-6th ranks (or 3rd-7th if they're black pawns). Then, add the "stalling" rule we use, whereby as soon as you move, you announce "stalling 1, 2..." and should you get to 10, you can take a piece of the lowest value on the board from it. This can go on indefinitely, taking more and more pawns from the board, giving your team-mate the advantage. If it's a forced mate with pieces on the board however, "stalling" becomes "death count", and you again count from 1 to 10, but upon arriving at 10, you win the game. The first player to get a win, wins the game for his team. It's the exact opposite of what you would normally expect chess to be, players frequently counting their opponent down, or asking their team-mate (often so the opponents can hear) questions like "Can you get me a knight?!"
I ask because juniors seem to really enjoy it. Once we showed people at the school club, that was pretty much all they ever wanted to play. They found it far more interesting than "regular" chess. Anything is possible, because of the rather "freestyle" check and checkmate rules, all sorts of tactics come into it, sacking something on f7 for white is often strong if his partner supplies pieces, castling is often really bad, and there's always the potential for a sudden turnaround should your partner get into trouble, or if you leave a mate-in-one for your opponent, but only if he gets a bishop, or something. You can sometimes get to a situation where stalling is bad, i.e. you create an escape square for your opponent. White will often launch a big attack, while black has to frantically defend. It can get very hectic, but young players seem really enthused by it.
Despite all the positives, it seems to hold a very negative stigma. People overseeing things are often annoyed by the noise. I know from experience that it's a good way to get chess sets mixed up when it comes to putting them back in the box at the end of the games. Indeed, some more "adult" players are keen to turn the other way while it's happening, or suggest to them that they should be playing normal chess instead of a variant.
So, should it be embraced, or shuffled under the carpet?
Orangutans swing through other pieces/pawns of either side, to a square next to one of the pieces, or to capture an enemy piece. So on the starting position an Orangutan on a1 can swing to h3. An orangutan that is next to no pieces can't move (they like lots of jungle!). And after say 1. e4 e6 2. d3, Black can't play d5 as then Jane would be in check by both Orangutans.
