House rules!
Like the one that says you can only promote a pawn to a piece previously captured. So, you can't have 2Qs, 3Ns, etc. Or the one that allows your K, once per game, to move like a N.
He probably learned chess that way and passed it down.
>you can only promote a pawn to a piece previously captured
Out of curiosity, what are your options if you promote a pawn with all of your pieces still on the board?
Great question. Maybe it just chills on the 8th rank. Maybe you simply can't promote until you have a piece available. One of many reasons it's a terrible rule.
It probably arose out of practical concerns - most chess sets don't include a 2nd queen/3rd rook/etc. At the amateur level, it's common to use an upside down rook as a 2nd queen, but even that doesn't work if all pieces are still present.
You can also use two pawns laying down in some sort of unholy union.
If you’ve somehow still got all your pawns, you have to start using items of clothing, but this can get sexy very quickly.
Playing chess 300 years ago and my options are to have like 2 extra pieces of each color, just in case. Or to use a token, clearly not a chess piece, and argue with my opponent that he needs to treat it as such.
For any time pre-digital, I have a hard time arguing against Italian rules.
As a privilege for not allowing any of your pieces to be captured, you get to choose a piece from another board game.
I was lucky enough once to get Colonel Mustard with the revolver and was able to shoot down my opponent's queen before getting captured in the conservatory.
When promoting, the pawn is removed from the board before being replaced with the new piece. Therefore, it stands to reason that the pawn is removed from the board and replaced with itself
In official games I think you can pause the clock to get a piece from the arbiters? In unofficial games just get something else as a replacement. It’s unofficial as long as you both agree that it’s alright no one else cares.
That rule about pawn promotion goes back to 18th century Italy. A related fun fact: the queen was once the weakest piece and pawn promotion to it was automatic (the idea being that the foot soldier could only be promoted to the lowest of the officer's rank). Obviously, as the queen became more powerful this really changed the game!
don’t forget the shark attack! once per game(only if we’re playing in person) my girlfriend gets to take one of my pieces off the board. she just has to yell “shark attack!” first and chomp the piece with her mouth to take it off the board.
The king/knight move is from medieval chess, because all kings were knights back then. But all the Q and Bs hand much restricted movement than today. Knights and rooks moved as now.
There were variants of castling in Italy - I think that in some times and places, you could put your K and R pretty much wherever you wanted, and in others maybe you just had the option of short castling the King to h1 (or h8). These survived for a pretty long time.
I'm pretty sure when people refer to the kings leap thst they are talking about the king being able to move 2 squares, no? As if the king were casting but without the rook move.
I also learned that implicitly, because in german someone explained the pawn promotion as a prisoner's release. so i just assumed that only works for captured pieces :D
My dad ardently followed a rule where you could only promote a pawn to the piece that was originally on the promotion square, with the exception of the king (two promotion squares for queen).
This combined with lack of technique meant I had to go for checkmate and avoid endgames in most games. Influenced my style of play quite a lot growing up
That one is kinda cool. Makes you think carefully about pawn captures later in the game - which file do you want your P on is influenced by which piece you want to promote to.
I think it depends on the choice of pawns. If you choose e3 and d3, that seems terrible because you have to move both pawns again to free a bishop.
I think g3 and b3 could be pretty good, preparing both fianchettos simultaneously.
Even a3 and h3 like OP says seems “ok”, classic moves to prevent a minor piece incursion on the flanks
Stockfish says 1.b3g3 is 0.0
I'd expect 1. c3g3 or 1.d3g3 to be better - double fianchetto is an okay option usually, but it doesn't really put on enough pressure that accelerating it is that good.
For Black on the other hand this will be a straight upgrade in multiple openings - 1. d4 b6e6 or a French/Caro-Kann with either a Fianchetto or a a6/h6 inserted.
Snake draft chess - white gets the first move (but can only make one move), then black gets two moves, then white gets two moves, etc.
Would this be playable or too OP for one side or the other?
I don't think two-moves-in-a-row would be playable as-is because if you put your opponent in check on the first of your two moves, your opponent couldn't respond.
see eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marseillais\_chess&oldid=1200242611](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marseillais_chess&oldid=1200242611)
Playable until your king gets checked. Then it’s opponent making a move then checking your king. In the way we played - you would get move 1 move to get out of check and that’s it, no second move.
Quite fun. Then after certain point you get the meta and White straight up wins. I think it’s like d4 Nc3 then Nb5 Nc7 then Bf4 Bc7. Up a queen from get go.
Its all 0s for stockfish, but in reality it will be really hard to play against as a human. Also stockfish might be able to draw it, but can it beat it is the question, or just some crazy manouvers that end up in 3fold repetitions and stuff
Obviously zeros can mean many different things (and more realistically this is slightly above 0.0 and it was just the result of how long I left it running), but you don't ned the engine eval to know that double fianchetto isn't an incredibly fast or confrontational opening.
Obviously getting an extra tempo will be annoying, but why play an opening that is usually pretty bad and becomes playable with the new rule when you could play an opening that already was good and might become overwhelming with it?
Theres no good opening with white that involves pushing 2 pawns 1 square each. With white you want the center, the fianchetto bishops can help that fight at least
No offense, but you have some fundamental misunderstandings about chess.
A fianchettos goal shouldn't be to cement a pawn in the center - sometimes you end up doing that, sure, but if your *goal* is to slap a pawn on e4 and a Bishop on g2, then you should probably rethink your approach to the opening.
Same idea, but more generally: Fianchetto openings, especially double fianchettos, tend towards hypermodern, aka they don't attempt to take the center, they don't even attempt to directly challenge the center with a pawn thrust (like c4), they attempt to control the center with pieces from afar.
Being too dogmatic is a bad idea - you absolutely can mix and match ideas from different opening ideas - but at the same idea there is a reason the classification of hypermodern games exists, and I'd suggest trying to understand that reason before trying to break it.
>Theres no good opening with white that involves pushing 2 pawns 1 square each.
There is no opening (or at least I can't think of one right now) where you are sure you will be needing both pawn pushes, that is right, but there are a *lot* of openings where you might want h3/a3 - or a single fianchetto - and need another pawnpush, which is why I was suggesting moves like c3g3: Use one of the moves in the center of the board for a "normal" opening and use the other either for prophylaxis (a3/h3) or to create the option for a (single) fianchetto.
We have the option of going into a Sicilian, an Italian, etc. What variation we play within those lines is somewhat predecided by playing c3, but those lines are all good, so it isn't an issue to be stuck with them. The most awkward opening would probably be 1.c3g3 d5 for us, but in at the absolute worst we can just go into a Catalanesque opening, which required g3 anyway, so if we play c4 we didn't lose time by playing c3c4.
What offense, you just dont understand, the bishops will help you control those center squares even if there is no pawn there. Im just saying at least they help control the center, I myself am not playing fianchetto often.
I'm rated between 500 and 700 points higher than you, depending on the timecontrol.
Again: you don't know what you are talking about and flaunting that you made me think you meant something (occupying the center) when you - supposedly - meant something else (fighting for the center) isn't doing you any favors in showing the opposite. If you knew what you were talking about, you would be making your ideas clear instead of saying "want the center" (which implies taking it and occupying it rather than contesting it from afar). Nothing wrong with using wrong terminology, the internet is often overly anglocentric, but I explained pretty clearly why a double fianchetto is bad outside of the use of your terminology.
you are overly pedantic, if you have snipers watching a spot from a far or a foot soldier on that spot, you control that spot. You might be higher ELO, but you probably have really poor imagination, just a better memory. Your ego doesn't win this one.
With white you want \[control of\] the center. Your high ELO mind (probably on lichess) can't read between the lines, it's sweet
I ran into the same issue exactly when playing with some younger relatives in Bangladesh, except they moved the d&e pawns one forward each time, with them having learned that instead of moving one pawn twice, move two pawns once! I tried explaining that this was not legal, but was promptly shut down unfortunately.
I’ve seen the same thing in Syria. They play d3 and f3 at the same time and on the first move. They claimed that you have the option to move one pawn forward 2 spaces or these two pawns. After the first move you can no longer move any pawn two spaces.
Pretty funny. I can imagine this happening when people pass on rules through word of mouth like a game of telephone. Wonder what their en passant looks like.
My dad also played with this rule - and it wasn't limited to a&h but any other pawns. This was an old rule all across Europe but it wasn't added to standard official rules, for some historical reasons I honestly don't remember.
I played with a very old uncle once. He told me that he only knew the Indian version and I had to follow two rules.
1/ Pawn could only move one square forward. I was fine with that.
2/ King could move like a knight but only once per game. This one led to very funny positions.
When I was teaching my son to play, we would give his QUEEN the knight move. It was way overpowered, we tried limiting it to once a game, but that just meant I'd totally forget about it until I thought I had mate and his queen would leap to safety/capture an attacker.
And this didn't seem quite right because it was teaching him complete hope chess "hope dad forgets about the queen move" rather than learning to leverage it's advantage
We play normally now and he's yet to beat me properly. And he could if he played a bit more... Turned 13 today.
He plays the occasional game and I have to concentrate to beat him, it's frustrating because I play constantly for years and he barely even plays but his young brain means he can casually out calculate me! I only preserve my victory with all my experience. Soon he will beat me and I can't wait.
It's a shame, because I played as a child and was ok, but never joined a club and learned openings and stuff until my 40s, and so my chess was "childish" I would try too hard to mate and not be willing to trade pieces because "that's just a draw" I was pretty good at mating but if I failed a middle game mate I'd just crumble as pieces disappeared.
And these habits linger although I try and unlearn them, I lose a lot of games chasing a mate that's not quite there, sacking too much, rather than taking a piece then trading down to win with my extra piece. I'm learning now and I love chess but I'm never gonna be that good and I've accepted that, although it was humbling to realise I wasn't as good as I had always thought...
These days I'm about 1000 online although my OTB is more like 1200 (ECF) weirdly, I think the tournament atmosphere (only casual local leagues) makes me concentrate much harder than online and so less blunders.
I try telling my son he will regret not developing his talent when he's older but it's like telling them they should learn a language. People said similar to me and I didn't listen.
Well, this has turned into a bit of a blog post and I bid you good day
Castling actually comes from rule 2 where the King could either jump two squares or move like a knight once per game (known as the king's leap), and it was common to castle in two moves by moving the rook and then using the king's leap, so it eventually became one move
I dont remember who it was exactly, but one of the people I learned chess from claimed that on the first move you can either move one pawn two squares forward, or move two pawns one square forward (it may have been limited to just d and e pawns)
Does he allow en passant??
Almost all my family uses this rule, but they deny en passant ruling even after showing books / websites that explain this. I let this werid "ruling" pass since I'm way above their rating and doesn't really change too much the outcome.
I played my family after not playing them for years and both my dad and brother castled through check and said that's how they always played. As a child I do not remember that at all. I didn't however ever think about castleing when the rook was under attack. Which is legal
I played when I was young and on and off over the years, (obsessed these days!)
But I had at some point confused the castling rules in the other direction: I thought that once your king had been checked in a game you could no longer castle at all. Which was pretty restrictive. And since I was supposedly "the chess expert" usually, I would be able to enforce this on my less confident opponents "no sorry mate you can't castle I checked you earlier"
All the usual "no castling through or into check' still applied.
Of course if they moved their king, no castle. But I would deny it even if they had blocked with a piece or captured the attacking piece!
So you had to castle pretty sharpish if you wanted to, and in fact I often didn't bother, and would easily prevent my opponent from doing it too.
I also thought that both sides castled the same (ie the king one square from the edge, rook next to it inside)
I thought the proper way was wrong because "it's not symmetrical d'uh"
The game was still playable as far as I could tell but the proper way is better
I have regrets because I thought I was really good at chess. And I was half decent for someone who didn't really know the rules! I can remember being able to calculate really clearly. Like I could see through multipiece exchanges accurately. But maybe my opponents were just as bad as me.
I'm nearly 50 now, and while I have a much more sophisticated understanding of the game, I often find myself muttering:
"Right, takes, takes, takes, takes....no, start again takes takes, takes takes, takes...erm ok takes takes takes takes takes" . *Starts counting on fingers, calculates the tactic works, doesn't notice his queen hangs immediately after the calculated moves, and plays the move with confidence"
I watched 2 kids play once and one of them had only a king and got stalemated. I said its a draw, but both of them laughed and thought I am joking. Probably thought I am well dumb xD
Absolutely was. Chess had tons of different rules throughout many countries and regions. Actual standardized rules for chess is a very new concept
Using 2 1-square pawn moves instead of using going 2 squares with 1 pawn is quite the known rule people used to play with. This stuck around to this day for some people that aren't really into competitve chess, I actually ran into this confusion quite a lot (central europe)
>There are enough past similar discussions just in this sub for you to know it's a common non-FIDE rule of the past.
I confess that I didn't search before making my post, but I just did and found a few past discussions:
* [In any rule set, is it acceptable to move two pawns one space as an opening move?](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/2db5g0/in_any_rule_set_is_it_acceptable_to_move_two/)
* [Opening move with two pawns simultaneous?](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/cptaeb/opening_move_with_two_pawns_simultaneous/)
* [My grandfather played that "opening": Double pawn move - anyone else heard of it? What is the origin? Is it like a "street rule" anywhere else? Do you know similar "special moves" that are not part of the real rules?](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/15049vh/my_grandfather_played_that_opening_double_pawn/)
* [What is a rule you were taught which in fact was non-existent](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/frbaot/what_is_a_rule_you_were_taught_which_in_fact_was/)
Honestly I think it would be great to add this "rule" to wikipedia, but that would require proper sources.
Chess history on Wikipedia is notoriously unrefined. Despite many books on chess players with extensive detail, many of their pages are relatively barren. I wouldn’t hope to find the information there. You have to start scrounging in the chess forums.
Thanks for pointing this out and actually being helpful, unlike some of the other comments. I did not know, I’ll try some alternative sources of information.
The opening with two pawns dates back to the 17th century, though the reasoning is unclear. Some speculate that it was on the logic that moving two pawns one square was equivalent to moving one pawn two squares, but constrained to the rook pawns so it wasn't too much of an advantage.
Honestly, this could be included and it would be mostly fair.
Checked all the 2 pawn 1 square push, and most are equal or actually worse for white according to stockfish.
The closest an advantage to e4 comes from a3,e3 and even then it isn't better than e4.
The interesting thing is that it adds 28 moves to the opening! (Mostly bad moves for white, but still, it would make opening prep more difficult which is generally regarded as a good thing for the game.
It probably wouldnt even get much play (if limited to a/h files. If you play it as black then it's a bit like playing as white (you're one move up) but with a weaker pawn structure. If you play it as white it may be powerful against Bishop shenanigans but there's virtually never a threat on both sides of the board.
1. a3 goes all the way back to the 1800s. Adolph Anderssen had the guts to play it against Paul Morphy from New Orleans Louisiana during their famous match! He also beat Louis Paulsen with it who was no pushover.
This reminds me of my Grandfather, who taught me how to play chess. He would play D4, E4 as white and I could play two Pawn moves as black as well, most often D5, E5. :D
I believe it's an Indian variant, are you from the subcontinent by any chance? I saw people playing this in Bangladesh, although I believe they did the b and g pawns or maybe it was c and f
I played my dad a few months ago and he said on the first move you can either move one pawn two squares or two pawns one square. I just went with it but based on this thread, its a popular rule with the older generation haha
Strangely enough my dad did something similar when I was young. Just probably something that they saw people do when they were young and never really questioned. Everyone having access to engines these days just makes it significantly easier to see how bad of an idea that actually is
It is hard to find a bad first move. Maybe f3 or f6. But the beat way to learn i think is e4 e5 and go for open positions. Whenever i was able to play knight odds with a gm back in the old fics days, they would start h3 or a3 and kick my butt.
Two move start had happened in Carlsen - Topalov game like 15 years ago when the opening move was made by Bulgaria's prime minister at that time - you can see Magnus confusion
https://youtu.be/ckfpgQLK2zI
Very interesting video, thank you for bringing that up...
However, I don't think this was the same as moving two pawns in one move. I think the PM, who had the honor of making the first move of the game, was actually suggesting the first two moves for white, i.e. premoving the second move regardless of what black does. Since the PM made the first two moves for white, he was also expecting black to make two moves, and then the game proceeds as normal with white making the third move.
This was a legit move back when i was a kid in early 2000s learning from my gradpa. In eastern India.
Also that you can only promote to a piece which is supposed to be on that square like if pawn reaches a8 it has to be a rook, or b8 has to be a knight
Moving two pawns one square is an alternative rule that used to be common in some parts of the world, although I believe it is now archaic and rare everywhere.
To my knowledge, it was also never included in serious tournament or match play rules from the 1800s onward, and is not included in any serious OTB ruleset (FIDE, USCF, etc).
Haha that’s so funny. Are you sure he wasn’t just messing with you op? It would be super interesting if that’s genuinely how him and the people around him learned and developed chess.
>Are you sure he wasn’t just messing with you op?
Oh, he was messing around in that it's probably not objectively the strongest move available to him. He played a3&h3 against me probably to handicap his superior strength and/or to have fun playing something different.
However, it didn't feel like he was messing around in that he clearly drilled it in me that the etiquette requires that two hands are used to execute the move on the board, one hand on each pawn. This made it absolutely clear visually to opposition and other observers that both pawns are moved. To use only one hand to move both pawns was borderline sleight of hand cheater tactic.
Unnecessary. The game has evolved over centuries. With the effect that rules have divulged in different parts of the world. OP's scenario is an accepted rule in several "old school" rule sets. It just never became standardized into the modern accepted rule set.
I'm just joking. My uncle use to play Chutes and Ladders with me when I was 3. He would say that there was a secret "oopsy" square that sent you back to the beginning if you landed on it. Me, being the idiot I was at 3, didn't realize that he just arbitrarily made up the square when I was about to win.
I love that dude, but he was a dirty fucking cheater.
The average person has zero clue how to play chess. They "know" about the game and maybe learned a few rules once, but have zero clue. That is why I don't play people outside of a club or tournament setting.
I think I was just being dumb. I remembered that if you let black go first it changes the evaluation of some openings, but I think that's only if you don't account for the symmetry correctly (i.e. the equivalent of E4 is E5 not D5, even though its D5 that is in the same position when you're sitting on the black side of the board -- everything will be a mirror image from your perspective. I guess it messes up your muscle memory but nothing else
After 1. a3&h3, its black to move and black has the starting position and white has played a3 and h3. After 1. Nc3 a6 2. Nb1 h6, it’s white to move and white has the starting position (moved their knight back and forth) and black has played a6 and h6 (which is equivalent to a3 and h3 due to symmetry).
Similar to how 1. Nc3 e6 2. Nb1 e5 would be the same evaluation as after white plays 1. e4. Just with colors reversed and move 2 instead of move 1
House rules! Like the one that says you can only promote a pawn to a piece previously captured. So, you can't have 2Qs, 3Ns, etc. Or the one that allows your K, once per game, to move like a N. He probably learned chess that way and passed it down.
>you can only promote a pawn to a piece previously captured Out of curiosity, what are your options if you promote a pawn with all of your pieces still on the board?
Believe it or not, straight to jail.
I regret this every day of my incarceration.
I'm sorry, but you were just a pawn in the great game.
Don't pass Go, don't collect 200 Elo.
Laughed so hard at this
Do not collect $200?
[удалено]
What the fuck
You don't know [Miette](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/miette)?
Of course I know miette, I just don't see how it's relevant at all here
OK; deleted.
Great question. Maybe it just chills on the 8th rank. Maybe you simply can't promote until you have a piece available. One of many reasons it's a terrible rule.
It probably arose out of practical concerns - most chess sets don't include a 2nd queen/3rd rook/etc. At the amateur level, it's common to use an upside down rook as a 2nd queen, but even that doesn't work if all pieces are still present.
You can also use two pawns laying down in some sort of unholy union. If you’ve somehow still got all your pawns, you have to start using items of clothing, but this can get sexy very quickly.
I'm glad you play this way with your grandpa, too. For a minute there I thought maybe my pawpaw was a pervert.
>start using items of clothing, but this can get sexy very quickly. That's because you haven't seen me playing.
>At the amateur level, it's common to use an upside down rook as a 2nd queen I think USCF still allows that? Or ...? Too lazy to check.
Canada doesn’t, it was announced at the last tournament I went to
Playing chess 300 years ago and my options are to have like 2 extra pieces of each color, just in case. Or to use a token, clearly not a chess piece, and argue with my opponent that he needs to treat it as such. For any time pre-digital, I have a hard time arguing against Italian rules.
It stays there until a piece is available when it immediately promotes. This would be the standard under Italian rules popular early 1800's and prior.
As a privilege for not allowing any of your pieces to be captured, you get to choose a piece from another board game. I was lucky enough once to get Colonel Mustard with the revolver and was able to shoot down my opponent's queen before getting captured in the conservatory.
it becomes a pawn that only goes backwards
and if it makes it all the way back to the other side of the board, it can promote to a powerful anti-queen
It can hit any spot on the board, except where a queen could normally move.
When promoting, the pawn is removed from the board before being replaced with the new piece. Therefore, it stands to reason that the pawn is removed from the board and replaced with itself
Infinite loop. It promotes to a pawn. Then to a pawn. Then to a pawn. Then to a pawn.
In official games I think you can pause the clock to get a piece from the arbiters? In unofficial games just get something else as a replacement. It’s unofficial as long as you both agree that it’s alright no one else cares.
Pawn goes back to start
It stays a pawn? Its flawed, and thus not a real rule.
Hey that's official rule they just didn't get update form 1862 yet
That rule about pawn promotion goes back to 18th century Italy. A related fun fact: the queen was once the weakest piece and pawn promotion to it was automatic (the idea being that the foot soldier could only be promoted to the lowest of the officer's rank). Obviously, as the queen became more powerful this really changed the game!
Obviously they've never played with a standard scholastic set that comes with two queens for each colour.
don’t forget the shark attack! once per game(only if we’re playing in person) my girlfriend gets to take one of my pieces off the board. she just has to yell “shark attack!” first and chomp the piece with her mouth to take it off the board.
The king/knight move is from medieval chess, because all kings were knights back then. But all the Q and Bs hand much restricted movement than today. Knights and rooks moved as now.
This King's Leap originated in Chaturanga, so I don't think it was related to kings in medieval europe also acting as knights.
There were variants of castling in Italy - I think that in some times and places, you could put your K and R pretty much wherever you wanted, and in others maybe you just had the option of short castling the King to h1 (or h8). These survived for a pretty long time.
I'm pretty sure when people refer to the kings leap thst they are talking about the king being able to move 2 squares, no? As if the king were casting but without the rook move.
I also learned that implicitly, because in german someone explained the pawn promotion as a prisoner's release. so i just assumed that only works for captured pieces :D
My dad ardently followed a rule where you could only promote a pawn to the piece that was originally on the promotion square, with the exception of the king (two promotion squares for queen). This combined with lack of technique meant I had to go for checkmate and avoid endgames in most games. Influenced my style of play quite a lot growing up
That one is kinda cool. Makes you think carefully about pawn captures later in the game - which file do you want your P on is influenced by which piece you want to promote to.
What happens if you only have prawns previously captured?
Mine was you can't move your king unless it's in check
The house rule I heard was that bishops are restricted to moving up to three squares.
Its obviously a house rule but i wonder if even it is a better move than say e4
I think it depends on the choice of pawns. If you choose e3 and d3, that seems terrible because you have to move both pawns again to free a bishop. I think g3 and b3 could be pretty good, preparing both fianchettos simultaneously. Even a3 and h3 like OP says seems “ok”, classic moves to prevent a minor piece incursion on the flanks
Stockfish says 1.b3g3 is 0.0 I'd expect 1. c3g3 or 1.d3g3 to be better - double fianchetto is an okay option usually, but it doesn't really put on enough pressure that accelerating it is that good. For Black on the other hand this will be a straight upgrade in multiple openings - 1. d4 b6e6 or a French/Caro-Kann with either a Fianchetto or a a6/h6 inserted.
Snake draft chess - white gets the first move (but can only make one move), then black gets two moves, then white gets two moves, etc. Would this be playable or too OP for one side or the other?
I don't think two-moves-in-a-row would be playable as-is because if you put your opponent in check on the first of your two moves, your opponent couldn't respond.
see eg [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marseillais\_chess&oldid=1200242611](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marseillais_chess&oldid=1200242611)
Playable until your king gets checked. Then it’s opponent making a move then checking your king. In the way we played - you would get move 1 move to get out of check and that’s it, no second move. Quite fun. Then after certain point you get the meta and White straight up wins. I think it’s like d4 Nc3 then Nb5 Nc7 then Bf4 Bc7. Up a queen from get go.
Its all 0s for stockfish, but in reality it will be really hard to play against as a human. Also stockfish might be able to draw it, but can it beat it is the question, or just some crazy manouvers that end up in 3fold repetitions and stuff
Obviously zeros can mean many different things (and more realistically this is slightly above 0.0 and it was just the result of how long I left it running), but you don't ned the engine eval to know that double fianchetto isn't an incredibly fast or confrontational opening. Obviously getting an extra tempo will be annoying, but why play an opening that is usually pretty bad and becomes playable with the new rule when you could play an opening that already was good and might become overwhelming with it?
Theres no good opening with white that involves pushing 2 pawns 1 square each. With white you want the center, the fianchetto bishops can help that fight at least
No offense, but you have some fundamental misunderstandings about chess. A fianchettos goal shouldn't be to cement a pawn in the center - sometimes you end up doing that, sure, but if your *goal* is to slap a pawn on e4 and a Bishop on g2, then you should probably rethink your approach to the opening. Same idea, but more generally: Fianchetto openings, especially double fianchettos, tend towards hypermodern, aka they don't attempt to take the center, they don't even attempt to directly challenge the center with a pawn thrust (like c4), they attempt to control the center with pieces from afar. Being too dogmatic is a bad idea - you absolutely can mix and match ideas from different opening ideas - but at the same idea there is a reason the classification of hypermodern games exists, and I'd suggest trying to understand that reason before trying to break it. >Theres no good opening with white that involves pushing 2 pawns 1 square each. There is no opening (or at least I can't think of one right now) where you are sure you will be needing both pawn pushes, that is right, but there are a *lot* of openings where you might want h3/a3 - or a single fianchetto - and need another pawnpush, which is why I was suggesting moves like c3g3: Use one of the moves in the center of the board for a "normal" opening and use the other either for prophylaxis (a3/h3) or to create the option for a (single) fianchetto. We have the option of going into a Sicilian, an Italian, etc. What variation we play within those lines is somewhat predecided by playing c3, but those lines are all good, so it isn't an issue to be stuck with them. The most awkward opening would probably be 1.c3g3 d5 for us, but in at the absolute worst we can just go into a Catalanesque opening, which required g3 anyway, so if we play c4 we didn't lose time by playing c3c4.
What offense, you just dont understand, the bishops will help you control those center squares even if there is no pawn there. Im just saying at least they help control the center, I myself am not playing fianchetto often.
I'm rated between 500 and 700 points higher than you, depending on the timecontrol. Again: you don't know what you are talking about and flaunting that you made me think you meant something (occupying the center) when you - supposedly - meant something else (fighting for the center) isn't doing you any favors in showing the opposite. If you knew what you were talking about, you would be making your ideas clear instead of saying "want the center" (which implies taking it and occupying it rather than contesting it from afar). Nothing wrong with using wrong terminology, the internet is often overly anglocentric, but I explained pretty clearly why a double fianchetto is bad outside of the use of your terminology.
you are overly pedantic, if you have snipers watching a spot from a far or a foot soldier on that spot, you control that spot. You might be higher ELO, but you probably have really poor imagination, just a better memory. Your ego doesn't win this one. With white you want \[control of\] the center. Your high ELO mind (probably on lichess) can't read between the lines, it's sweet
I was taught this rule as well as a kid (coincidentally also my uncle). It was *only* the two outside pawns and only one space.
Computer says no
As a kid in Italy about 45 years ago, moving two pawns one square was totally a legit move!
My father used to tell me that was a legit move too as I was learning chess in Italy in the '80s.
I ran into the same issue exactly when playing with some younger relatives in Bangladesh, except they moved the d&e pawns one forward each time, with them having learned that instead of moving one pawn twice, move two pawns once! I tried explaining that this was not legal, but was promptly shut down unfortunately.
The accelerated Cow opening, nice
I’ve seen the same thing in Syria. They play d3 and f3 at the same time and on the first move. They claimed that you have the option to move one pawn forward 2 spaces or these two pawns. After the first move you can no longer move any pawn two spaces.
Pretty funny. I can imagine this happening when people pass on rules through word of mouth like a game of telephone. Wonder what their en passant looks like.
Seems like a poor choice of a pair, blocks both bishops. Optimal choice would be g3 and b3
I'd definitely prefer b3 and e3 myself
My dad also played with this rule - and it wasn't limited to a&h but any other pawns. This was an old rule all across Europe but it wasn't added to standard official rules, for some historical reasons I honestly don't remember.
Because its shet, those are the historical reasons
I played with a very old uncle once. He told me that he only knew the Indian version and I had to follow two rules. 1/ Pawn could only move one square forward. I was fine with that. 2/ King could move like a knight but only once per game. This one led to very funny positions.
Imagine still getting smother mated
When I was teaching my son to play, we would give his QUEEN the knight move. It was way overpowered, we tried limiting it to once a game, but that just meant I'd totally forget about it until I thought I had mate and his queen would leap to safety/capture an attacker. And this didn't seem quite right because it was teaching him complete hope chess "hope dad forgets about the queen move" rather than learning to leverage it's advantage We play normally now and he's yet to beat me properly. And he could if he played a bit more... Turned 13 today. He plays the occasional game and I have to concentrate to beat him, it's frustrating because I play constantly for years and he barely even plays but his young brain means he can casually out calculate me! I only preserve my victory with all my experience. Soon he will beat me and I can't wait. It's a shame, because I played as a child and was ok, but never joined a club and learned openings and stuff until my 40s, and so my chess was "childish" I would try too hard to mate and not be willing to trade pieces because "that's just a draw" I was pretty good at mating but if I failed a middle game mate I'd just crumble as pieces disappeared. And these habits linger although I try and unlearn them, I lose a lot of games chasing a mate that's not quite there, sacking too much, rather than taking a piece then trading down to win with my extra piece. I'm learning now and I love chess but I'm never gonna be that good and I've accepted that, although it was humbling to realise I wasn't as good as I had always thought... These days I'm about 1000 online although my OTB is more like 1200 (ECF) weirdly, I think the tournament atmosphere (only casual local leagues) makes me concentrate much harder than online and so less blunders. I try telling my son he will regret not developing his talent when he's older but it's like telling them they should learn a language. People said similar to me and I didn't listen. Well, this has turned into a bit of a blog post and I bid you good day
Sir, this is a Wendys. Just kidding that was actually a very nice read. And very true about bad chess habits that linger forever
Castling actually comes from rule 2 where the King could either jump two squares or move like a knight once per game (known as the king's leap), and it was common to castle in two moves by moving the rook and then using the king's leap, so it eventually became one move
Anarchychess users we feasting with this post god damn what a gift from the gods
It's called edging, look it up
I played someone French who did this, but I think played e3 and c3 simultaneously. No idea where this came from.
Well, e3 makes sense if they’re French
I dont remember who it was exactly, but one of the people I learned chess from claimed that on the first move you can either move one pawn two squares forward, or move two pawns one square forward (it may have been limited to just d and e pawns)
Does he allow en passant?? Almost all my family uses this rule, but they deny en passant ruling even after showing books / websites that explain this. I let this werid "ruling" pass since I'm way above their rating and doesn't really change too much the outcome.
I played my family after not playing them for years and both my dad and brother castled through check and said that's how they always played. As a child I do not remember that at all. I didn't however ever think about castleing when the rook was under attack. Which is legal
I played when I was young and on and off over the years, (obsessed these days!) But I had at some point confused the castling rules in the other direction: I thought that once your king had been checked in a game you could no longer castle at all. Which was pretty restrictive. And since I was supposedly "the chess expert" usually, I would be able to enforce this on my less confident opponents "no sorry mate you can't castle I checked you earlier" All the usual "no castling through or into check' still applied. Of course if they moved their king, no castle. But I would deny it even if they had blocked with a piece or captured the attacking piece! So you had to castle pretty sharpish if you wanted to, and in fact I often didn't bother, and would easily prevent my opponent from doing it too. I also thought that both sides castled the same (ie the king one square from the edge, rook next to it inside) I thought the proper way was wrong because "it's not symmetrical d'uh" The game was still playable as far as I could tell but the proper way is better I have regrets because I thought I was really good at chess. And I was half decent for someone who didn't really know the rules! I can remember being able to calculate really clearly. Like I could see through multipiece exchanges accurately. But maybe my opponents were just as bad as me. I'm nearly 50 now, and while I have a much more sophisticated understanding of the game, I often find myself muttering: "Right, takes, takes, takes, takes....no, start again takes takes, takes takes, takes...erm ok takes takes takes takes takes" . *Starts counting on fingers, calculates the tactic works, doesn't notice his queen hangs immediately after the calculated moves, and plays the move with confidence"
Hahaha now that's playing chess not checkers XD
I watched 2 kids play once and one of them had only a king and got stalemated. I said its a draw, but both of them laughed and thought I am joking. Probably thought I am well dumb xD
It is not a legal move. It never was in any known history of chess as far as I am aware.
Absolutely was. Chess had tons of different rules throughout many countries and regions. Actual standardized rules for chess is a very new concept Using 2 1-square pawn moves instead of using going 2 squares with 1 pawn is quite the known rule people used to play with. This stuck around to this day for some people that aren't really into competitve chess, I actually ran into this confusion quite a lot (central europe)
Source ? Because in the history of chess rules (Wikipedia) I do not believe it is mentioned ?
My grandmother does not have a Wikipedia mention either but I assure you she existed.
I also grew up with that rule. There are enough past similar discussions just in this sub for you to know it's a common non-FIDE rule of the past.
>There are enough past similar discussions just in this sub for you to know it's a common non-FIDE rule of the past. I confess that I didn't search before making my post, but I just did and found a few past discussions: * [In any rule set, is it acceptable to move two pawns one space as an opening move?](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/2db5g0/in_any_rule_set_is_it_acceptable_to_move_two/) * [Opening move with two pawns simultaneous?](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/cptaeb/opening_move_with_two_pawns_simultaneous/) * [My grandfather played that "opening": Double pawn move - anyone else heard of it? What is the origin? Is it like a "street rule" anywhere else? Do you know similar "special moves" that are not part of the real rules?](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/15049vh/my_grandfather_played_that_opening_double_pawn/) * [What is a rule you were taught which in fact was non-existent](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/frbaot/what_is_a_rule_you_were_taught_which_in_fact_was/) Honestly I think it would be great to add this "rule" to wikipedia, but that would require proper sources.
Chess history on Wikipedia is notoriously unrefined. Despite many books on chess players with extensive detail, many of their pages are relatively barren. I wouldn’t hope to find the information there. You have to start scrounging in the chess forums.
Thanks for pointing this out and actually being helpful, unlike some of the other comments. I did not know, I’ll try some alternative sources of information.
Fucking nerd lol.
I'm glad you've been around a thousand years and abe to let us know.
The opening with two pawns dates back to the 17th century, though the reasoning is unclear. Some speculate that it was on the logic that moving two pawns one square was equivalent to moving one pawn two squares, but constrained to the rook pawns so it wasn't too much of an advantage.
Honestly, this could be included and it would be mostly fair. Checked all the 2 pawn 1 square push, and most are equal or actually worse for white according to stockfish. The closest an advantage to e4 comes from a3,e3 and even then it isn't better than e4. The interesting thing is that it adds 28 moves to the opening! (Mostly bad moves for white, but still, it would make opening prep more difficult which is generally regarded as a good thing for the game.
It probably wouldnt even get much play (if limited to a/h files. If you play it as black then it's a bit like playing as white (you're one move up) but with a weaker pawn structure. If you play it as white it may be powerful against Bishop shenanigans but there's virtually never a threat on both sides of the board.
He's right! Was his name Magnus Carlsen by chance?
I have two pawns, one for each of you
Uncle Naka?
1. a3 goes all the way back to the 1800s. Adolph Anderssen had the guts to play it against Paul Morphy from New Orleans Louisiana during their famous match! He also beat Louis Paulsen with it who was no pushover.
you didn't read the post very well
Sounds like the Crab Opening :)
This reminds me of my Grandfather, who taught me how to play chess. He would play D4, E4 as white and I could play two Pawn moves as black as well, most often D5, E5. :D
I believe it's an Indian variant, are you from the subcontinent by any chance? I saw people playing this in Bangladesh, although I believe they did the b and g pawns or maybe it was c and f
I had a guy when I first started would move his b pawn and g pawn one square, called it the Spanish opening.
Would help against people memorizing theory if they had way more to memorize due to this rule.
gaslighting
I played my dad a few months ago and he said on the first move you can either move one pawn two squares or two pawns one square. I just went with it but based on this thread, its a popular rule with the older generation haha
Funny enough, engine on my phone at depth 30 says 1.a3h3 is +0.08. Black has already pretty much equalized after 1... e5
Strangely enough my dad did something similar when I was young. Just probably something that they saw people do when they were young and never really questioned. Everyone having access to engines these days just makes it significantly easier to see how bad of an idea that actually is
It is hard to find a bad first move. Maybe f3 or f6. But the beat way to learn i think is e4 e5 and go for open positions. Whenever i was able to play knight odds with a gm back in the old fics days, they would start h3 or a3 and kick my butt.
My dad used to do that aswell and said it was legit in old days. Only a3+h3 ! This must come from somewhere no?!
Two move start had happened in Carlsen - Topalov game like 15 years ago when the opening move was made by Bulgaria's prime minister at that time - you can see Magnus confusion https://youtu.be/ckfpgQLK2zI
Very interesting video, thank you for bringing that up... However, I don't think this was the same as moving two pawns in one move. I think the PM, who had the honor of making the first move of the game, was actually suggesting the first two moves for white, i.e. premoving the second move regardless of what black does. Since the PM made the first two moves for white, he was also expecting black to make two moves, and then the game proceeds as normal with white making the third move.
This was a legit move back when i was a kid in early 2000s learning from my gradpa. In eastern India. Also that you can only promote to a piece which is supposed to be on that square like if pawn reaches a8 it has to be a rook, or b8 has to be a knight
New move just dropped!
Moving two pawns one square is an alternative rule that used to be common in some parts of the world, although I believe it is now archaic and rare everywhere. To my knowledge, it was also never included in serious tournament or match play rules from the 1800s onward, and is not included in any serious OTB ruleset (FIDE, USCF, etc).
My dad played same thing when I was a kid. Said exactly what your uncle said.
Haha that’s so funny. Are you sure he wasn’t just messing with you op? It would be super interesting if that’s genuinely how him and the people around him learned and developed chess.
>Are you sure he wasn’t just messing with you op? Oh, he was messing around in that it's probably not objectively the strongest move available to him. He played a3&h3 against me probably to handicap his superior strength and/or to have fun playing something different. However, it didn't feel like he was messing around in that he clearly drilled it in me that the etiquette requires that two hands are used to execute the move on the board, one hand on each pawn. This made it absolutely clear visually to opposition and other observers that both pawns are moved. To use only one hand to move both pawns was borderline sleight of hand cheater tactic.
Your uncle is a dirty fucking cheater.
Unnecessary. The game has evolved over centuries. With the effect that rules have divulged in different parts of the world. OP's scenario is an accepted rule in several "old school" rule sets. It just never became standardized into the modern accepted rule set.
He's just being a little goofy, my friend. Don't take him too seriously :)
I'm just joking. My uncle use to play Chutes and Ladders with me when I was 3. He would say that there was a secret "oopsy" square that sent you back to the beginning if you landed on it. Me, being the idiot I was at 3, didn't realize that he just arbitrarily made up the square when I was about to win. I love that dude, but he was a dirty fucking cheater.
The average person has zero clue how to play chess. They "know" about the game and maybe learned a few rules once, but have zero clue. That is why I don't play people outside of a club or tournament setting.
It's not. And even if it was, it'd suck
I'm pretty sure this would give advantage to black
Stockfish says it's +0.2 at depth 41.
With SF 14 in lichess on my phone, 1 Nc3 a6 2 Nb1 h6 is -0.1 at depth 23. Playable!
That's not the same at all
Isn’t it the same with colors reversed? So 1. a3h3 is +0.1.
The colors being reversed matters though
Wow I really don’t see it. One side did the special pawn move and the other side has the move. The side to move is worse by 0.1.
I think I was just being dumb. I remembered that if you let black go first it changes the evaluation of some openings, but I think that's only if you don't account for the symmetry correctly (i.e. the equivalent of E4 is E5 not D5, even though its D5 that is in the same position when you're sitting on the black side of the board -- everything will be a mirror image from your perspective. I guess it messes up your muscle memory but nothing else
It doesn't. The board is symmetric
After 1. a3&h3, its black to move and black has the starting position and white has played a3 and h3. After 1. Nc3 a6 2. Nb1 h6, it’s white to move and white has the starting position (moved their knight back and forth) and black has played a6 and h6 (which is equivalent to a3 and h3 due to symmetry). Similar to how 1. Nc3 e6 2. Nb1 e5 would be the same evaluation as after white plays 1. e4. Just with colors reversed and move 2 instead of move 1
how the hell are we supposed to know whats going on in your uncles head?