Talk:Republican Chess

Would it still be such a politicized game, or might it be popular even in monarchical countries today? Nik 21:22, 22 February 2006 (PST)

Also, is this based on something *here*? Nik 21:22, 22 February 2006 (PST)

I've never heard of it, but this makes plenty of sense to me. Heh heh. I think it might be fun to use this as something that helps identify fiercely Republican factions in countries where chess is popular. Zahir 07:52, 23 February 2006 (PST)

First off, thanks for the help.

Yes, its is based on something (2 actualy):

• a citizen called Guillo suggested something along the background of republican chess so that "good citizens could play this most feudal of game". As far as I know, it didn;t go anywhere.

• A soviet citizen called Yurgelevich came up with a game called "Chess-battle" in 1933 (which is identical to republican chess save for the names). the idea behind its creation seem to have been similar to Guillo's proposal.

as for the political side, I'm sure in these more relaxed and open-minded times, most can probably play it and apart from the odd jokes, no stigma would be attached to playing it.

--Marc Pasquin 17:08, 23 February 2006 (PST)

It sounds awfully complicated to me. --Sikulu 03:46, 24 February 2006 (PST)

Clarifications

• Sacrifice: Can any piece (save the flag) be removed from the board in a sacrifice, or are there further restrictions?
• Dragoon: can move 1 square horizontaly or verticaly then 2 in the other direction, 1 square horizontaly or verticaly then 3 in the other direction or move 2 squares horizontaly or verticaly then 3 in the other direction. It can move over friendly pieces but not those of the adversary. -- Is this an accurate description of its movement, with the X's representing the positions the dragoon can reach?
• Missing squares: Can a piece pass over them?
• Soldier: The way its movement is described, it would seem that the soldiers would find themselves restricted to white squares. As soon as a soldier lands on a white square, it can only move two squares, which would land it on another white square. Also, it would seem to be impossible for it to capture a piece from a white square. Should that read "one or two spaces on a white square"? Nik 20:14, 14 April 2006 (PDT)

Answers:

*Sacrifice: yes they can. I guess the creator's idea was that removing one piece from the adversary had the same basic effect as adding a non-pawn piece to your side. It does mean that you have an extra incentive for preventing opponents' pieces reaching your side. Different strategy.

• Including the cannon, which cannot normally be captured by a soldier? Nik 22:59, 15 April 2006 (PDT)

Good question. I can't find anything that would clarify it one way or another. --Marc Pasquin 06:50, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

*Dragoon: You got it right. I made some movement charts but forgot to upload them. corrected.

*Missing squares: no, their outer sides are like walls.

*Soldier: can do either. I'll clarify it.

--Marc Pasquin 08:26, 15 April 2006 (PDT)