If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

IM Jack Rudd · Post by **IM Jack Rudd** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:13 am

You can certainly drive a king to the corner with just king and knight, so it shouldn't be too difficult to do with king and bishopknight.

MartinCarpenter · Post by **MartinCarpenter** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:47 am

Ok, not trivial but definitely possible. Maybe I was half remembering trying to mate with a knight + (3,1) leaper but that seems as if it should be quite easy.

If anyone is wondering what I'm talking about with this - its all the squares with rooks on here. (Ignore the kings - need them to get it accepted!).

Utterly terrifying reach but major limitations too which makes it quite fun, although 3,1 leapers are right at (over?) the limit of what makes potential sense on a 8 x 8 board.

NickFaulks · Post by **NickFaulks** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:12 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:You can certainly drive a king to the corner with just king and knight

Can you? I've just spent five minutes shunting pieces around the board and I can't. May not count for much.

John Hickman · Post by **John Hickman** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:37 pm

Combine a Knight with a Pawn. The Knawn gets all the pawn powers, including promotion when it gets to the 8th rank!

Or should it be called a Pnight

Kevin O'Rourke · Post by **Kevin O'Rourke** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 1:13 pm

John Hickman wrote:Combine a Knight with a Pawn. The Knawn gets all the pawn powers, including promotion when it gets to the 8th rank!

Or should it be called a Pnight

haha not the promotion part remember. I meant just how the entity moves! so L shape, forward one square, capture digonally forward. Also can move 2 squares if on 2nd rank. I'd ignore En Passent too because that applies to a pawn and this is not a pawn.

Nick Burrows · Post by **Nick Burrows** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:18 pm

MSoszynski wrote:Rook & bishop.

= Q !

Kevin O'Rourke · Post by **Kevin O'Rourke** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:22 pm

Knight + King would be stronger than you’d think. Can gallop around like the Knight normally does but also spread itself well

John Upham · Post by **John Upham** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:29 pm

Nick Burrows wrote:
MSoszynski wrote:Rook & bishop.
= Q !

It would be a weird type of queen that could only operate on one colour of diagonals.

Reg Clucas · Post by **Reg Clucas** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:47 pm

NickFaulks wrote:
IM Jack Rudd wrote:You can certainly drive a king to the corner with just king and knight
Can you? I've just spent five minutes shunting pieces around the board and I can't. May not count for much.

Yes you can, but it's not easy. The mate with 2 knights against a pawn depends on it, as one of the knights is immobilised by having to blockade the pawn.

NickFaulks · Post by **NickFaulks** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:01 pm

Reg Clucas wrote: Yes you can, but it's not easy. The mate with 2 knights against a pawn depends on it, as one of the knights is immobilised by having to blockade the pawn.

I'm not sure that's true. With KN v K I can chase the king all the way around the board but I can't catch it. The second knight may be immobilised, but it still helps to block off an escape route.

Christopher Kreuzer · Post by **Christopher Kreuzer** » Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:10 pm

John Upham wrote:
Nick Burrows wrote:
MSoszynski wrote:Rook & bishop.
= Q !

It would be a weird type of queen that could only operate on one colour of diagonals.

That would be interesting. The assumption may have been that if a rook can move like a bishop, then it can jump to different diagonals (next move) by moving like a rook. But add the condition that it can only operate on diagonals of one colour, so if you move it like a rook, you have to work out what colour square to put it on if you want it to be able to move like a bishop...

Also, imagine a rook that can move horizontally and vertically, but only land on square of the same colour (i.e. like a bishop).

Now imagine a piece that can move like a bishop on light squares and like a rook on dark squares... Call it a bishook.
Obviously you would have another bishook that can move like a bishop on dark squares and like a rook on light squares.

Oh. I've just worked out a problem with this...

Robert Stokes · Post by **Robert Stokes** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:38 pm

I've only just found this thread. It is of particular interest to me because a few years ago I wrote an article for a chess magazine, which they didn't publish. The basic theme of the article was the idea that it may not be too long before super computers have chess completely solved, i.e. they could prove that white must win against any defence, or that black with the right defence can always get a draw. (I discounted the idea that black can force a win due to white's first move advantage.)

I then suggested that the game could be revived by playing it on a 10 by 10 board with the addition of two pawns on the 2nd and 9th ranks and two new pieces on the 1st and 10th ramks. These pieces I called archers to go with the theme that chess pieces are a medieval army. My idea was that an archer would move as a bishop and a rook alternately. Furthermore, to make things even more interesting, the piece would have a bow and arrow and could only move forwards in the direction of the arrow. At the end of its move it would turn 45 degrees to achieve the alternating moves mentioned above.

Robert

MartinCarpenter · Post by **MartinCarpenter** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:00 pm

There's a very long tradition of such ideas

iirc back to Capablanca even.

That one would I think only truly work on a computerised board where you could keep track of the changing piece.

IM Jack Rudd · Post by **IM Jack Rudd** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:03 pm

Or you could have a double-sided counter.

Michael Farthing · Post by **Michael Farthing** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:14 am

IM Jack Rudd wrote:Or you could have a double-sided counter.

But Jack, for it to be any fun it would have to look like an archer! Would the poor piece have to stand on its head? {and some unknowledgeable beginners night thinki it was a second queen].

English Chess Forum

If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?

Re: If you could invent a new piece with the combinational moves of 2 other pieces, what would you choose?