I'm a 2k fide rated player and there's lot wrong with the ideas in "chess, but good" 1. Starting positions that register as the most balanced, 0.00 can and probably often are threefold repetition draws. It's more likely that one side will be down in material but can force a draw than randomly placed pieces happen to be at 0.00 eval. 2. Just because an engine evaluated the position as equal doesn't mean it is equal for humans. There are a ton of positions that register as equal but every GM would rather play one side because that is the only side that can make progress, while the other side can only defend, or one side has only one hard-to-find path that leads to equality, while the other side can play whatever they want. It happens fairly often in chess. 3. Chess openings shouldn't be viewed as a barrier of entry but as a means to get to a middlegame that both players have played into. The opening is just a bus that takes you to an interesting position already. When you run out of opening prep, what you're left with is an interesting position. If you're facing an opponent that's better than you, he might win in the opening by knowing theory, but if he knows that much more theory than you, he probably would have crushed you anyways. Plus, theory is so impossibly diverse that the vast majority of games are different by move 10, and it's vastly diminishing returns to learn a lot of theory. You can get to 2000 by learning virtually no opening theory, as I have done. 4. The position created is so chaotic, it only is fun for tactical players. If you are more positionally minded which is half of all ideas in chess, then it takes some of it out for you. There's no pawn structures, you can have two same colour bishops. Beautiful positional ideas like bishop pairs and minority attacks and backwards pawns and weak squares and forcing outposts are just thrown out the window. 5. The half point advantage is imbalanced, but it dissuades the two sides from behaving similar to each other. Black generally plays aggressive and there can be some great imbalanced positions like Evans gambit, smith morra, najdorf, Marshall gambit, grunfeld, KID etc. It's kind of like Ts vs CTs in CS:GO, unbalanced but still fun to play both sides. I have met people who like playing black more than playing white. Plus, if you play chess anywhere online or over the board, they alternate white and black. Overall, I get the feeling you are not much of a chess player and more a mathematician or coder. I am a CS major myself, so I get the beauty of randomizing the pieces, but it just doesn't work for my chess mind. Maybe it's a fun alternative game for people who have never played chess, but not many chess players would enjoy your variant. Thanks for reading my long ass feedback/criticism, I meant no offence, so please don't take any.

This video is just a trap for chess players that can't take a joke lol, he even trashed the idea on the video

Change “Chess But Good” into “Chess But Terrible”, for the only real reason being changing the acronym into CBT that’s what I feel trying to play this

As someone who enjoys all forms of Random Battles in Pokemon Showdown, I see no way this could possibly go wrong

One chess variant I recently learned about is called fog of war, where you can only see squares that your pieces can move to. It sounds like it would be very drawish with neither players really making any progress without good information about the board, but what I really love is it introduces a whole other layer to the game that is incredibly interesting: bluffs. You could throw one of your minor pieces straight into the heart of an enemy position without being defended in any way, but your opponent has to decide whether or not he believes the piece is defended or if the attack is real.

Those play testers sounded like they were held at gun point, and still couldn't get themselves to approve of this being the superior chess, which I just think is hilarious

You know, a website that does everything for you would be better

The reason why this isn't the greatest innovation to chess in the last hundred years is that someone already made 5D Chess With Multiverse Time Travel (Yes, that is a real thing)

Alternative Idea - Chesstego So named for its resemblance to the game Stratego. Begin with an empty board. Players can place their pieces on the board in any arrangement they like among the back three rows. Play then proceeds as normal, white to move first. There are two variants to explore, and I am curious how each would impact the relative 'fairness' of the opening positions. A) Blind Chesstego - Place an obstruction between the two sides so that neither player can see the other players' board while setting up. Players set up simultaneously. When both are done, the move the obstruction and begin play as normal. In this method, players are likely to have 'favorite arrangements' that they prefer to play from, which will then clash in glorious battle when the board is revealed. B) Active Chesstego - Players can see the pieces being placed. White places first, but do not simple-alternate. Instead, players place pieces in the 'fair share sequence' for reduce advantage: WBBW BWWB BWWB WBBW BWWB WBBW WBBW BWWB Since there are 32 pieces to place, a power of two, the sequence produces a mathematically 'fair' result in dividing up the value associated with the action of placing a piece. Since the players can openly see what the other is doing, it creates a sort of reactive 'pseudo-opening', where players may have their preferred starting arrangements, but can be flexible as they see their opponent's arrangement taking shape against them. In both cases, any advantage in the resulting board state arises purely from the relative skill and experience of the players, rather than from arbitrary factors. Each player has 24!/(8!8!2!2!2!) ~= 47.7 trillion possible starting positions. (24 spaces to arrange, with the 8 open spaces interchangeable, the 8 pawns interchangeable, as well as the 2 rooks, 2 bishops, and 2 knights); thus there are ~2.276x10^27 possible board starts. This is comparable in magnitude to the number of reachable board states after at least 24 total moves - similar to a 12 move opening from both players. If a program could analyze one board per nanosecond, it would take over 2x10^18 seconds (63 billion years) to fully map out the advantage grid, so it will generally come down to skill, experience, and personal preference; the true.

Introducing, 5 player chess: -Arrange 5 chess boards into a cross -The first 4 teams (White, Black, Red and Blue) start with the standard configuration of pieces each at the far ends of the cross -Team 5 consists of 4 queens occupying the center of the cross, with an alternate lose condition (the loss of all 4 queens). If this is too heavily balanced against team 5, also give them 4 knights which can be arranged in any starting position in which they are adjacent to one of their queens

There's a board game called "combate" here in brazil. (Translates to combat, but I don't know if the game is called that anywhere else) Both players set up their boards and then they gotta capture the enemy flag. Simple enough. But, the thing is that the other player doesn't know what any of your guys are, because they all look exactly the same from 1 side. So, we can adapt this to chess, - everything looks like a pawn, and can move like a pawn (including bishops and knights, yes), - if the piece isn't an actual pawn, at any point you can use it's regular movement instead of a pawn move(the piece will still look like a pawn, but you did give away what it actually is, probably) - all pieces can move sideways one square at a time (because I think that makes it more interesting) - you may castle once, using the pieces in the regular positions of the king and rook, regular castling rules apply, except, the pieces don't have to be the king and rook, just be in the correct positions. - pieces can only capture with their normal moves.(so your knight and rook, can't capture diagonally like a pawn). I think this has potential to be quite fun. Now to test it... hopefully...

How about making a new version of chess called *"Chess: Git Gud"* where you do everything for your variant of chess except choose the board with the largest advantage. Then pit amateurs against masters with that handicap.

I'm also triggered into a reply because it really is so close to a good idea, while also hilariously demonstrating the folly of "getting rid of the opening theory" approach that 960 and others try to accomplish. Many chess enthusiasts would agree that the opening is one of three pillars of chess and can be at least equally exciting as middle and endgame. Your endgame is all about technical precision, but your opening repertoire reflects your personality - it is your signature - it puts a personal touch on an otherwise sterile zero-sum game; having this vast amount legitimate ways to start the game is the very reason why chess is such an captivating game for centuries. At intermediate level, trying to manipulate your opponent playing into an opening that you want also has a strategic depth that is entirely distinct from the other stages in the game. However, studying all this theory can be tedious and at the highest level, when two super GM's are banging out up to 25 moves from memory, it alienates the game from spectators who don't have time or the interest to keep up with the latest GM meta in the QGD. So I think inventing new variants could be a hit in the online chess tournament scene and really benefit the game - but only if we find the middle ground between infinite possibility of totally random positions crap and classic setup. For instance, suppose you had a table of nine starting positions - all of which are designed by a GM/game designer, so they are interesting, balanced and aesthetically pleasing - then, and after each season of the tournament there will be a new set of positions. It would create a competitive space where the best players will try to develop the best theory in the limited time frame before the ladder resets; also would be a incubator for playtesting new positions that are interesting enough to become variants on their own.

This is a very interesting idea, but how about this easier one: have a strong chess engine play itself for, say 15 moves, starting from the standard position. Then turn it over to two human players to take over. The result is an essentially random starting position with black and white roughly equal, and the opening book theory has been removed from the human equation. Voila! I call it "Deep Chess", after my name, and also for the idea that the human players are starting "deep" in a standard game.

Were this for a serious chess player I can see this being terrible. For a game of complete amateurs/non serious players? I feel like this would be freaking hilarious and fun. I play by feel and instinct more than anything. I rarely super deeply consider moves (I enjoy speed chess most for a reason), and this feels like it would take a lot of the tedium I find in chess out of it. Make me parse the board but run on feel.

5:08 rip good chess

0.0 usually means a forced draw exists. Solution? Make it so whoever is the one forcing the draw loses. Too bad if their losing. The lower your rating, the funnier it is.

This is already a old variant called Madness chess. its even a level in the game Chess Kingdoms on steam

I say get rid of the middle-men. I present to you Laissez-Chess: both players use their life savings to buy a chess supercomputer that will play for them. GMs will likely find it more productive to outsource the choosing and maintaining of their computers to independent contractors, and focus on their careers instead to be able to fund more chess matches. But to be a serious contender for a title, you should probably consider bankrolling a top team of hackers to disable the energy grid supporting the other player's servers, while also fielding a couple hundred cybersoldiers to defend your chess compound from direct attacks. Then again, if the opponent simply lobbies the government to ban your crypto coin so that you can't collect farming rent from your digiserfs, you're screwed, there's no way you'll be able to fund the chess effort.

Ah yes, I see white's done the 'reverse pawn into upside-down rook' maneuver. Haven't seen that one in a while.

Me before: Stereotypes are wrong, so it’s not true that chess nerds don’t understand irony and humour, and are patronising dillweeds. Me reading this comment section just looking for more goofy chess variants: Oh. Gonna rethink my position on stereotyping people I guess.

My chess variant: Chess Uno Each player makes a chess move and playing a Uno card in their turn. Game ends when any condition of victory in any of the sub games is reached.

I forgot why I was subscribed to you, but now I'm glad I am.

I'm no expert, and maybe this is nothing new - but I think it could be interesting if players make their moves at the same time, say, by writing it down in secret and committing to it once both plays are revealed. The strategy would be to anticipate what play the other player is going to make based on the board state, and to hopefully counter their move with your own - but knowing that they may anticipate your counter and therefore counter your counter, meaning you should make a different play entirely that counters their counter to your counter....you get the idea. The more I think about it, the more I feel like it's not even really all that different from a normal game of chess. Under ordinary chess rules, you're making your move just after your opponent has made a move - and with the simultaneous plays, you are doing exactly the same thing. They previously made a move, and you are making a move which follows that move. It's just, they are also doing the same thing at the same time. I feel like what it will mostly result in is people making plays they would NOT have made if they saw their opponent's "next" move (in this case, the simultaneous move) first, because knowing their plans with absolute certainty would change their own plans. So someone who might have had more of an advantage by knowing their opponent's next play, might find themselves at a disadvantage depending on the plays made, and someone who would have been at a disadvantage if they had to make their play before their opponent, may get the opportunity to catch them off guard and come out ahead. It would play out more like real-time strategy than turn based. I'm not saying Chess is flawed for being turn-based, that's its own kind of strategy game and completely valid. I just think the simultaneous element would make for an interesting spin on things. After writing this, I did a search, and it has been proposed as "Synchronous Chess", with rules laid out for the unusual circumstances and board states unique to simultaneous play that can't be statisfied with normal rulings. Definitely seems interesting.

Okay but this sounds like a lot of fun. I will be playing Good Chess™ at the next opportunity I have.

What an engaging idea, sadly I don't have anyone to ~~inflict this this on~~ play with right now.

this reminds me of when I worked in a daycare and I'd play "Really Terrible Chess" with the kids, where each side would still have the same starting position in the closest 2 rows but the pieces completely randomized. when playing with kids who often need to ask how the different pieces work, it's perfect for just doing something dumb and seeing how it goes

this comments section has lowered my opinion of serious chess players more than anything else lmao

This should be called "Chess Randomizer: How to fry a chess engine"

i dont think he understood that 'mating eachother' would trigger my terrible humor

What's wrong with the king's mating each other! HOw dareeeee you trash my beloved variant, Gay chess!

In college, I created "Gambler's" chess. Rules: 1. Each turn, starting with the white pieces, roll a d6 to determine how many moves can be made consecutively. 2. A player may stop before they've completed the allowed number of moves (a player must make at least one move per turn, or forfeit the game, there is no stalemate from inability to move). 3. Unused moves are "checked". Every two turns, all "checked" moves become "banked", and may be "spent" to reduce an opponent's roll (to a minimum of 1). Every five turns, "banked" moves become "invested" and may be "sold" to increase a roll (to a maximum of 6). 4. A player may only move one piece each turn. 5. If the opposing king enters check, the current turn ends, no matter how many moves remained (extra moves are "checked"). 6. At the end of the game, the winner claims an agreed currency amount (usually $1-2) per "invested" point they had when the game ended. 7. All other rules as normal. Invented at a party, so it's pretty incomplete. Give it a go, I'm sure you'll have a blast, even if you aren't super into chess.

To simplify the process, two boards could be created, Player 1 plays white at board 1 and black at board 2, player 2 plays black at board 1 and white at board two, they must make a move at the two boards at the same time (if its their turn at both boards). Then they play the same thing again but now player 1 is black at board 1 and white at board 2 and vice versa. If someone wins is bigger than his loses + draws he is the winner, if no one is the winner, you generate more 2 boards and do the thing again. The two boards being played at the same time with that being done two times (instead of just one board being played two times at the same time) means you can't mirror the guy, because the second board is a different one.

After two weeks of work setting up the 100 boards for the analysis, I noticed I had worn the finish off all my pieces.

alright hear me out... the board setup is normal HOWEVER: -pawns move diagonally and take up to 2 spaces forward. (first move can move 2 spaces) -king moves any number of spaces in any direction (like a queen) -rook moves up to 3 spaces diagonally -bishop moves up to 3 spaces orthogonally -knight can move to any empty space on the board, but cannot capture any pieces -the queen can move orthogonally one space at a time, up to the number of your pawns that have been captured. (example: opponent has taken 4 of your pawns, your queen can move up,left,up,up or down,right,up,right etc.) how to win: capture all your opponents pawns. (a pawn promotion counts as a pawn loss) my friend and I came up with this with the goal of making the worst variant imaginable... but it actually ended up being pretty balanced and actually fun to play.

"Wanna play chess?" "Sure." "Great! Let me arrange the board and call you in a month."

I absolutely adore the style of humor in this video. So dry it's nearly stale. Just like me!

Finally a new chess update I've been waiting for 200 years

Hey I just stumbled upon your video, but I actually play a similar variation with friends. But we only use random equal positions (-2 to +2) from Master games which ended decisively. This avoids the opening theory issue without losing the general structures of normal chess. We call it Master Chess, and it's seriously a lot of fun.

A way to actually make chess more equal: only give each player 1 king and no other pieces

Rocket rollerskate chess: the board is twice as large and every piece but the King goes forward 5 spaces before doing its regular movement.

When you busted out the engine, I thought you were going to suggest making whichever player has the advantage play whatever (bad) move creates the most equal position for both players. Might be interesting!

“If they end up on the same square, or in a place where they’re mating each other” I think that’s a bit too hot for youtube

I tried playing this with friends but they all attempted to hang, strangle, poison and/or stab me which is odd since I’d never met any of them before and they showed up a day after a large scale asylum break out in my area.

There was one time I was in college and we were playing chess a lot. And we decided to do something kind of like this. We made two people who didn’t know how to play chess to randomly place the pieces on the board. The only rules were they you could not place someone in check at the start of the game and couldn’t have bishops on the same color of square. There was no planning and wow! It was awesome!

One of my favorite chess variants is Loka, but it requires 4 players and I don’t have any friends. Before the game starts, players choose teams for a 2v2 game on a specialized board. (A 6x6 grid in the middle with 3x6 rectangles coming off each side). Players begin before the game by discussing strategy (they can’t later) and “buying” their pieces. Players get 27 points worth of pieces to buy and you can’t know your enemies’ pieces before hand (pawns=1, bishop/knight=3, rook=5, queen=9, and king=0). Players sit opposite their teammates, then to start the game each player takes a random tile from a bag of special spaces and places it randomly on the board by rolling 2d6’s to determine the placement. (Each tile does different things like a mountain pass that can only be passed in one direction but not the other for example) Then players take turns placing their pieces, starting with their lowest cost piece(I think, it might be highest it’s been a while) and placing it in their 3x6 starting area. Going around until everyone has finished placing all their pieces. There is one special move you can make which is if your pawn and your teammate’s pawn are blocking each other you can swap their spaces as a pawn move. Next players start playing like normal chess but with customized setups and piece counts and a board that has special spaces on it, with one major exception: capturing pieces is literally a roll of the dice. In order to capture a piece you first need to “calculate” the advantage/disadvantage of your capturing piece. The defender has +1 for defending, then whichever piece is worth more points also gets +1, then for each piece the attacker has that could capture the piece, the attacker gets +1(this includes your teammate’s pieces) and the defender gets +1 for each piece they or their teammate has that could take your piece if you capture. Then based on your advantage/disadvantage you roll dice of varying sizes and the higher number wins (0=D4, 1=D6, 2=D8, 3=D12, 4+=D20, yes they skip D10) with the defender winning in a tie. If the attacker wins, the defending piece is captured and they move their piece to the space, if they lose their own piece is removed and the defender stays where it was. So capturing involves risk of failure and incorporates the piece’s rank and the board state. Checkmate doesn’t exist, you have to actually capture the kings which removes the player from the game. When one team is left they win

Maybe if the top 2 or 3 moves for each side also evaluate close to 0.0, it's more playable? If the goal is to get away from theory though, you can keep a lot more chess ideas intact with a variant like 3-bans, where you can ban a specific move for your opponent at the end of your turn, up to 3 times per game. Now you can reach positions that GMs would never play into willingly.

"Here's what you'll need: a chess set" Uh huh, okay "A bag" ... for the pieces, right "2D8s" Wait what?

Late April fool joke?

If this is a joke it's hilarious, but if you're actually serious about this then you're kinda crazy

Missed an opportunity to call it > In Media Chess

"Chess, but good", "good chess" for short, also known as "holy SHIT! Why do i keep rolling an occupied spot?!?", "setup the board: the game" and "god damnit...it's 3 am already? We just started!..."

Hey, nice work man. This looks like it was a really cool project!

Real talk, why not just do Paper Rock Scissors at the start of chess for who goes first? That plus randomized pieces behind pawns.

Here's an idea for a chess variant. To eliminate the advantage white has, you both write down your move on a Yu-Gi-Oh card. Both of you then flip the card up while exclaiming, "I ACTIVATE MY TRAP CARD." You may choose not to move, thereby saving your trap card for a later turn; as long as you have enough trap cards saved up, you may play as many of them as you want per turn. Winner gets the loser's yugioh cards and chess pieces.

Cool idea, but fatal flaw: "The most balanced position according to an engine" has a high chance of actually being a terrible position to play. It could have an immediate forced draw, and, even if it doesn't the engine assumes best play from both sides and gives no consideration to the difficulty of finding said best moves. Also, on rare occasion, engines are just wrong. You are not the only person considering variants for improving chess at all. This is something the whole world is working on. Thanks for your contribution, though.

Liked and commented just for the outro Well played

This video feels as if Michael Reeves suddenly started liking chess.

you can create your own chess variants in chesscraft. its a mobile game. Chess variants in chesscraft can have custom board shape, promotions in any square or even custom pieces with custom movements.

Bollwerk 178 is a very fascinating and complex chess variant.

thx, you just made my evening !!

I tried to do something like this with a friend when I was little but we realized that the black king started in check so we gave up on the idea

The flaw in your plan is that White's first move advantage is not because of an open board state. The first movie vintage is the fact that white is always one piece ahead of black unless he loses 2 to 3 pieces. White is always able to think one move ahead of black and is usually one piece ahead throughout the entire game. This is what we mean by first movie advantage Stopping when you hit a zero on the d10 when one side has more pieces than another still exacerbates the problem even more. As one side will usually get more pieces the more pieces do equal more strength on the board

First, but I manually set up the board, calculated the fairest advantage/disadvantage positions and played the game. It was real fun.

So it's chess but the board looks like a level from a Strategy RPG

I love how the first board generated puts both kings into check. Auto-lose condition ftw.

This appeals to me. A chaotic starting point, two players that aren't proficient in chess, trying to figure out which aggressive play is least likely to backfire horribly... this could be my new party game with friends, especially after a beer or two. It's like Smash Bros with the worst items set to high. I love it.

You don’t always have to stick to a set opening. They’re just known ways to open that are good. More can be developed.

This is stupid, everyone knows the _real_ good chess is FE Fates PvP.

In response to this video, I created my own stupid form of chess that I call: RNG Chess You do normal chess with a D20 that determines whether you get to move. The only numbers that matter are 1 and 20. 1 means you lose a turn, 20 gets you an extra turn. Everything in between just means you move as normal. Now unfortunately, that's not balanced or complicated enough, so here's some extra rules: If you roll a 20, you do your first move as normal, but your second move **has** to be your king. Also, if you roll a 1 or a 20, you don't roll for two turns after that. What do you think?

I really like the simple option of just letting everyone move at the same time. It's a bit hard to do in person but it eliminates 1st turn advantage, and even creates opportunities for interesting plays since you can potentially 'dodge' a piece getting taken if you predict your opponent's move

Some ideas to make it more gooder: 1. No piece can be threatening or threatened by an enemy piece at start. (So games don't start with a set of boring, obligatory captures) 2. Pawns cannot start in the last 3 rows. (So they don't promote too fast) OR All pieces must start on their half of the board. (Mostly so the position isn't too complex to read) 3. Kings must start in the backmost row. (So games less often have a series of checks early on)

Can't wait to play this

Our computers are still not good enough to be completely fair with the position, but man, good chess looks fun af

Next step is to climb Mt Everest and play a game of conventional chess to warm up

Wait this actually seems really cool. Unfortunately a tied position could just be one mistake away from a very lopsided position, humans can't see the move that keeps you tied

Fun for two of my friends, my girlfriend and three other hated it. Too much chaos to them and no structure.

Can we all just appreciate the #0 starting position at 3:18

Finally, a chess variant for Nate Silver stans

Repeat this process one hundred ti- Me: *Three, take it or leave it*

1:28 man I hate it when the kings are mating with each other

Is it possible to run every chess 960 variation in an engine and determine the most balanced dozen or two variations?

2:40 and 2:50 really confused me how white was winning while down 14 points of material and about to get mated, then I realised at 2:50 black has a pawn instead of the queen that had the white king in check

You are a genius. This is an awesome variant ❤️👍

I don't have anything of note to say, but I appreciate the push towards those engagement metrics. Even hate comments are good to the all-knowing algorithm.

I can tell this is a joke video and a very fun one at that! But I can share some insight with my limited chess skill/knowledge which you may find interesting as I'm starting to get back into the game, lol! White's first turn advantage is so slight it's negligible to humans. In fact, I have a strong hunch that if computers ever solved Chess ("Solved" is a term of knowing what the best move for every scenario is so you can know the outcome of any game), it would likely be a draw. The reason is because even if you trade pieces equally, the advantage keeps narrowing more and more as the board opens up. A lot of computer chess matches (AI vs AI) end up drawing actually. That advantage number is even called "centipawn" or measured by 1/100 of a pawn but there's really no such thing in-game. It's more of a positional advantage. White's starting position is often evaluated by chess AI at the 0.33 to 0.77 range so that is not even a full pawn. Centipawn measurements are only really useful for CPUs as no human can outperform the best chess AIs and even the best AIs will lose as white when playing themselves. Another thing about that slight difference in advantage is it has a way of making players play differently. For instance, if you were black and mirroring the opponent's moves, they'd eventually be able to strike because of the predictability. But playing counters to their moves and looking for opportunity would yield a much more favorable result. A computer analysis of a position listed as equal isn't necessarily an equal game. Sometimes in order to stay equal, you have to play a certain (and maybe exact) way and it's much more of a puzzle to a human than it is to a Chess AI. It could be argued that it's still player fault, but some positions are just simply clearer than others to visualize for a side. Example: If black could simply take a queen from turn 1 with a pawn but white had to play a specific series of moves to trap black's queen from the starting position. Same piece advantage, but a MUCH lower chance of white seeing the moves. I know little about openings and I noticed it doesn't seem to matter. They seem to be more of a teaching tool to explain why players figured out why they do this or that in certain scenarios. What openings are considered "optimal" still have counters or unexpected moves to change your plan for. This could also be said about a lot of things in chess as there's not just one solution to every problem. In fact, your opening could go off-kilter by your opponent simply recognizing your book opening and putting something at a key square ahead of time. Even if you could follow a book opening to a tee, after you reach a certain point it's all on you to figure out the rest anyway.

Make it so that the two players play at the same time, like they write their move on a paper, and there you have your balanced chess

thank you devs for adding mod support

love the solution that doesn't have a problem, really good april fools level content. keep up the good work!

Chess but godlike. Chess but theres no turn order. Everyone goes at once.

3:42 please explain this move sequence

Introducing Chess: Oops all Pawns, Oops all Queens, and w/ Checkers. And coming this holiday season: nondenominational holiday marshmallows

"i'm going to make chess better" *adds rng*

When I was a kid my friends and I came up with GoChess, basically it worked like backwards crazy house: both players start with just a king, you can place a piece or move a piece on your turn anywhere on your first 4 ranks, or anywhere in the 7 ranks closest to you once you placed all of your pawns.

This plus nightmare chess bundle is perfect.

I have no idea why I am subbed but I'm glad I have

The entire tone of this video makes it feel like it should have been made on April 1st to be totally honest.

I think if you called it Battlefield Chess, it would have gained more of a chaotic vibe that people could accept.

Uh oh. Here comes the big brain men.

What if you got to move two pieces on your starting move and modified their move sets.