<EYAL IS BACK>!!

Rings bell

<Dom> your move, mate. I think I understand the "rules."

Our pieces can be anything "legal" and don't have to show themselves, even to us, till push come to shove.

So I could move out a "bishop," which could be either a "bishop" or a "queen," and I wouldn't have to decide until later?

That would make tactics incredibly difficult.

Do our bishops have to be on differnt color squares?

This might be easier if we take <Mack> up on his offer to shuffle the back rank and email us the configurations, and he has kindly offered to referee as well.

<m> Yes, I'm catching on. The inventor doesn't always understand the full potential of the invention. Didn't Edison think that gramophone recordings would mainly be used for recalling the voices of loved ones (not far wrong, either, if your 'loved one' is Elvis... or Neil Diamond)? And Marconi believed radio would find a use in military ship-to-shore applications? And, er, Pythagoras believed that his theorem would lead to internet porn?

Maybe I made that one up.

Anyway, further thoughts on Frog Chess:

It has an easy distinction between Beginner and Expert Mode. In Beginner Mode, once a piece is identified it may be replaced by a standard chess piece of equivalent value -- so after Jess's 1.Fe1-d3 a Knight could replace the Frog on d3. Expert mode keeps the Frogs on the board all the way through.

Handicapping is also a doddle. Instead of cumbersome 'odds games', the stronger player simply reveals the location of his/her king and queen at the start. And so on.

Sidebets are also catered for. "£300 says that's a Queen on d3..."

Strategy. Pieces other than a king can be moved when attacked to give the impression that they are moving 'out of check'. Or a queen can make a series of short one-square moves to convey the same idea. Lots of room for cunning strategy.

Material: one chess board and set, 16 plastic frogs.

So anyway, I was wondering. What's your favorite part of the Kama Sutra?

"There is no such thing as a crappy anagram." (er, me, actually...)

So, <mack> had a <dodgy lasagne> ...

= Dog Day Angels

= Ye Gods, a Gland

Since you have me on IGNORE, here is a good joke for you.

How many five year old sharks does it take to get eaten by their father?

Answer: five.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH GET IT?

Pieces can go anywhere, as long as the bishops are on opposite colours.

Check. Could be a slight problem there, if we're playing it in a way that reserves final decisions as to which piece is which.

How about this: check doesn't exist until the king is identified as such ... so you have to find it before mating it.

Retro-checks -- previous attacks on the piece later proven to be the king -- don't count. Nor do retro-mates. They have to be demonstrated at the time. Optimistically saying 'mate?' every move doesn't count either.

But the King can't be captured. So if you're down to your last two Frogs, and one is taken, it *must* be the non-king. And the last Frog is always a King.

Pawns promote to Frogs: no ID required, although it can be volunteered (eg to say 'check' or 'mate' to a previously identified enemy king).

And let's try the version without a referee -- ie, there is no 'real' arrangement of pieces at the start, hidden or otherwise. But every move played must be consistent with a legal arrangement (eg, you can't exchange both your knights then reveal one of the other frogs as a 3rd knight).

Oh, and any frog captured must have its ID revealed.

2...d5, by the way. The traditional Frog.

click for larger view

...and any of those Frogs -- except the one that's revealed itself as a Knight -- can still be any piece whatsoever.

Great, so this is anarchist chess now, is it. Anarchist frog chess.

Descendez les flics, camarades, descendez les flics.

Hope you are well. Just checking in. Lots on my plate today. Watching this new <Frogspawn> chess developing with a mixture of awe and terror.

How much is that froggie in the window?

<mack> Admit it. You're a thwarted secret policeman type. You want to be the Stasi of the Frogboard, spying on the tadpoles and administering the rules...

Whaddya think, is this the most underrated Dylan composition or what?