We used to call this "transfer chess" back in school, and there were a couple extra things. Mostly around the fact that checkmate/stalemate (especially stalemate) gets weird when your opponent could pass you a piece that lets you get out of it. I think we just had it so that a checkmated player cannot move, with some attendant win condition changes. ...would be very silly if the win condition change was "if the second board is checkmated in the other direction, remove all losing pieces and overlay all winning pieces onto one board; play continues".
I learnt that 'transfer chess' is with a much laxer clock (like 30 minutes each or no clock) and without dropping a piece into check/checkmate, while bughouse is with only a few minutes on the clock with check/checkmate. Moreover, in bughouse pawns can be places rows 2 to 7, in transfer chess only rows 3 to 6. Also, bughouse can only be played with two pairs, but transfer chess can be played with entire rows as long as the row contains an even number of games and people on the ends are willing to run around to pass pieces. In that case, a player may choose to give the piece they obtained to the left or to the right, depending on the situation or whomever they like best. Ideally one uses a circle of games, such that no running is necessary to pass pieces from one end to the other.
@@peperoni_pepino Actually, Bughouse can be played with any number of boards or time restrictions. The only restriction is that both teams must alternate colors, and that you only give pieces to the players next to you. Some extra handicaps come with bughouse, for anyone interested in playing, including letting weaker players play on one board with an easier time fixture, forcing a strong player in a 3+ board game play in the middle and having to immediately decide where captures go while their direct opponent can wait for calls, or playing with move restrictions (one board can't play x turns more than the other) instead of clocks.
When I played this 20 years ago, the win conditions were different: Instead of checkmate, you captured your opponent’s king, and moving into check (or voluntarily failing to get out of check) was legal. When you captured your opponent’s king, you gave it to your teammate to use as a spare. If a player had no kings, play on that board stopped until and unless that player got a king from a teammate. If your team had all four kings, you won.
I had an idea on a chess game. Mastermind Chess. Basically, you take the 'kill the king' part and turn it into 'get the mastermind' but the mastermind is a secret, specific piece. The rules of the game are the same, with the following changes. At the start of the game, write down your mastermind piece. This piece can still be the King. This piece must be specific. For example, if you make your mastermind a Rook, you have to specify and track which Rook it is. Thus, you cannot do something like making your mastermind a Pawn, and only lose when all of your pawns are captured. The Kings role of being the target piece is relegated to your mastermind piece. Checkmate can be achieved against the mastermind piece, but does not automatically win the game. The King only serves as a piece that can move one space in any direction. Your king can be captured, and matters as much as a pawn. If you made your King the Mastermind, you're effectively playing normal chess on your end, but you only lose when your King is actively captured. Neither player knows the other players mastermind. If your mastermind is captured, you lose the game. If checkmate is achieved against your mastermind, it is not necessarily the end - your opponent may not know they have a winning position, and thus you can play accordingly to save your mastermind.
Imagine making your Queen the Mastermind You can escape every danger all the time unless you blunder, and no one bats an eye if you don't want your Queen to die
@@dsargus3 Exactly what I was gonna say. Literally everyone would just do king, queen or rook because of the movement options. The whole point the king is limited is so he can still be captured when you only have a few pieces left. This "idea" is completely flawed and clearly has never been tested outside of your brain.
Oh wow, I used to play this back in middle school, it was always a massive fustercluck because the two players on each team would play as fast as possible to capture as many opposing pieces as possible, pawns and knights and bishops would fly between them and it was so chaotic, nobody really cared about strategy it was just "play faster than your opponent and overcome the board with sheer numbers." Very silly, kids would actually get angry if their team mate hesitated to consider their next move, and you'd see them with their hand held out ready to receive a piece immediately as soon as their team mate took it. We did have a variation on the rules though, which I'm surprised weren't mentioned here. In my school the extra rules were 1. You cannot place a piece so that it puts your opponent in check. 2. You had to place your pieces within your two back rows. This ironically required more strategy and foresight, two things that couldn't be further from anyone's mind. There was also a third rule: Promoted queens stay promoted when captured. This meant a team could theoretically have 9 queens on the board, although most games ended once someone amassed 3 or 4. Allowing your opponent to promote queens just so you could take them 2 turns later was a common tactic, and led to much schoolyard rage when your buddy is suddenly fighting 3 queens you allowed your opponent to take. At some point my school banned this rule set, too many kids were getting butthurt over it and the adults just didn't want to deal with it, told us to just play by the rules. Also the "captured queens stay promoted" mechanic meant we often took queens from other chess sets and lined them up beside the game just in case, which could be a problem if there were lots of kids wanting to play chess. Ah, memories....
We had a ton of strategy when we played, but my team was a national championship contending team for normal chess. We used a bughouse variant (placed pawns can't promote [we used a little collar to designate original pawns, it got removed when the pawn was first captured] and victory was achieved when either opposing king was captured [instead of checkmate] to focus on attack and defense patterns and board awareness. Teams would often call out pieces they want, and partners that played often together developed codes so that communications were kept more secret. I played a vary aggressive gambit style that resulted in an open position and a lot of pieces traded to the other board. My partner played a very tactical closed game that maximized the strength of pieces that were placed in positions they would normally never be able to get to. It created some weird dynamics to how we valued pieces. I had a high value on bishops and rooks, while for my partner, bishops were rarely more useful than pawns, and rooks only marginally better. To him the bigger threat to losing a bishop wasn't how it affected his board, but how it could affect my board.
My school call that a "double" And.... Using this logic, there "is" a "triple""fourble""fivble""sixble" I remember last time we play sixble at the chess club. Soo hilarious
It's been so long since i played this version of chess, i had forgotten the rules. We use to play it during chess tournaments. Kids especially loved this form. Often played at blitz time controls or quicker.
hi, im back. I am officially an school double (two player bughouse) master, title given by other friends in school. The meta of this game is: the weaker player of the team stalls his game and exchange as many pieces as possible, while the other player destroys his opponent by dropping tons of pieces and lure the opponent king. The knight is best for attacking. The queen is best for fininshing your opponent for checkmate. The pawn is best for utilities such has setting anchor points in opponent's camp or defending via building a castle.
You could actually do this, and it's usually a good method if it's just you and one other person. It does make it significantly more challenging though.
Whenever I was taught by my chess teacher the rules were different, mainly just that you couldn't drop a pice to put the opponent in checkmate or check and that you couldn't drop a piece in the opponents kast three rows.
My school had varient which we called boghouse of this where you had to put a peice on the place the would start in instead of anywhere and if a promoted pawn was captured it stayed as the promoted piece amout of queens on a board got crazy in the endgame
We called that one "four players blitz", since we played on a 5 minutes timer. The only difference there is that you didn't have to call checks, and the game ended when you TOOK the opponent's king.
additional rules for advanced level bughouse(double chess): 1. You cannot place any piece in your opponents backrank 2. You cannot place a pawn in your backrank 3. You cannot place a piece to checkmate (you can check) 4. an obvious forced checkmate on board immediately ends the game. 5. You may not stall the game by not moving. If a 3+2 clock is used, This rule is removed.
I Recommend do this on a similar or equal chess sets because, imagine a OCD players looking at you playing a nice wooden chess with you friend on a microscopic plastic board
You can play this two-handed, but player 1 makes their white move before player 2 makes their black move & white move, then player 1 makes their black move, and the process repeats until the game ends.
Pretty sure there is no stalemate because of the possibility of dropping pieces, if you have no pieces to drop, you have to wait until your partner gives you one. Also, you are not considered checkmated if an interposition is possible, for the same reason.
We used to call this "transfer chess" back in school, and there were a couple extra things. Mostly around the fact that checkmate/stalemate (especially stalemate) gets weird when your opponent could pass you a piece that lets you get out of it. I think we just had it so that a checkmated player cannot move, with some attendant win condition changes.
...would be very silly if the win condition change was "if the second board is checkmated in the other direction, remove all losing pieces and overlay all winning pieces onto one board; play continues".
I learnt that 'transfer chess' is with a much laxer clock (like 30 minutes each or no clock) and without dropping a piece into check/checkmate, while bughouse is with only a few minutes on the clock with check/checkmate. Moreover, in bughouse pawns can be places rows 2 to 7, in transfer chess only rows 3 to 6.
Also, bughouse can only be played with two pairs, but transfer chess can be played with entire rows as long as the row contains an even number of games and people on the ends are willing to run around to pass pieces. In that case, a player may choose to give the piece they obtained to the left or to the right, depending on the situation or whomever they like best. Ideally one uses a circle of games, such that no running is necessary to pass pieces from one end to the other.
@@peperoni_pepino Huh! So they're similar but distinct games. I had no idea; very interesting.
@@peperoni_pepino Actually, Bughouse can be played with any number of boards or time restrictions. The only restriction is that both teams must alternate colors, and that you only give pieces to the players next to you.
Some extra handicaps come with bughouse, for anyone interested in playing, including letting weaker players play on one board with an easier time fixture, forcing a strong player in a 3+ board game play in the middle and having to immediately decide where captures go while their direct opponent can wait for calls, or playing with move restrictions (one board can't play x turns more than the other) instead of clocks.
In transfer, we couldn’t drop a piece into check or checkmate.
seeing a smol queen on the big board is funny to me somehow
"size queen"
Don't be fooled by his appearance, its a Queen not a pawn
She's a shortstack
Tiny, but mighty
qeen
When I played this 20 years ago, the win conditions were different: Instead of checkmate, you captured your opponent’s king, and moving into check (or voluntarily failing to get out of check) was legal. When you captured your opponent’s king, you gave it to your teammate to use as a spare. If a player had no kings, play on that board stopped until and unless that player got a king from a teammate. If your team had all four kings, you won.
Interesting, was the clock paused on the stopped board? We played similarly, but a game was won as soon as the first king was captured.
I had an idea on a chess game.
Mastermind Chess. Basically, you take the 'kill the king' part and turn it into 'get the mastermind'
but the mastermind is a secret, specific piece.
The rules of the game are the same, with the following changes.
At the start of the game, write down your mastermind piece. This piece can still be the King. This piece must be specific. For example, if you make your mastermind a Rook, you have to specify and track which Rook it is. Thus, you cannot do something like making your mastermind a Pawn, and only lose when all of your pawns are captured.
The Kings role of being the target piece is relegated to your mastermind piece. Checkmate can be achieved against the mastermind piece, but does not automatically win the game. The King only serves as a piece that can move one space in any direction. Your king can be captured, and matters as much as a pawn.
If you made your King the Mastermind, you're effectively playing normal chess on your end, but you only lose when your King is actively captured.
Neither player knows the other players mastermind. If your mastermind is captured, you lose the game. If checkmate is achieved against your mastermind, it is not necessarily the end - your opponent may not know they have a winning position, and thus you can play accordingly to save your mastermind.
Imagine making your Queen the Mastermind
You can escape every danger all the time unless you blunder, and no one bats an eye if you don't want your Queen to die
@@dsargus3 Exactly what I was gonna say. Literally everyone would just do king, queen or rook because of the movement options. The whole point the king is limited is so he can still be captured when you only have a few pieces left. This "idea" is completely flawed and clearly has never been tested outside of your brain.
@@Terrabyte13 thats why its just an idea and not a real chess variant mate
@@Terrabyte13 bishops got good movement options two! It's just like a rook but it goes diagonal.
@@caseyhust6186 They are limited by the color they start on
This channel deserves more views
true
high quality content should deserve more views
Like, share, comment, subscribe to feed the YT algorithm, and it will have more views
Oh wow, I used to play this back in middle school, it was always a massive fustercluck because the two players on each team would play as fast as possible to capture as many opposing pieces as possible, pawns and knights and bishops would fly between them and it was so chaotic, nobody really cared about strategy it was just "play faster than your opponent and overcome the board with sheer numbers." Very silly, kids would actually get angry if their team mate hesitated to consider their next move, and you'd see them with their hand held out ready to receive a piece immediately as soon as their team mate took it.
We did have a variation on the rules though, which I'm surprised weren't mentioned here. In my school the extra rules were 1. You cannot place a piece so that it puts your opponent in check. 2. You had to place your pieces within your two back rows. This ironically required more strategy and foresight, two things that couldn't be further from anyone's mind. There was also a third rule: Promoted queens stay promoted when captured. This meant a team could theoretically have 9 queens on the board, although most games ended once someone amassed 3 or 4. Allowing your opponent to promote queens just so you could take them 2 turns later was a common tactic, and led to much schoolyard rage when your buddy is suddenly fighting 3 queens you allowed your opponent to take.
At some point my school banned this rule set, too many kids were getting butthurt over it and the adults just didn't want to deal with it, told us to just play by the rules. Also the "captured queens stay promoted" mechanic meant we often took queens from other chess sets and lined them up beside the game just in case, which could be a problem if there were lots of kids wanting to play chess.
Ah, memories....
Though you can play your designated rules set if you just play outside of school.
We had a ton of strategy when we played, but my team was a national championship contending team for normal chess. We used a bughouse variant (placed pawns can't promote [we used a little collar to designate original pawns, it got removed when the pawn was first captured] and victory was achieved when either opposing king was captured [instead of checkmate] to focus on attack and defense patterns and board awareness. Teams would often call out pieces they want, and partners that played often together developed codes so that communications were kept more secret. I played a vary aggressive gambit style that resulted in an open position and a lot of pieces traded to the other board. My partner played a very tactical closed game that maximized the strength of pieces that were placed in positions they would normally never be able to get to. It created some weird dynamics to how we valued pieces. I had a high value on bishops and rooks, while for my partner, bishops were rarely more useful than pawns, and rooks only marginally better. To him the bigger threat to losing a bishop wasn't how it affected his board, but how it could affect my board.
My school call that a "double"
And....
Using this logic, there "is" a "triple""fourble""fivble""sixble"
I remember last time we play sixble at the chess club. Soo hilarious
you mean a quadruple, quintuple, sextuple?
@@martynswan6431 no, we call it like that at school
@Zero chess I live in kluang (malaysia), where English and Chinese are outright crap, totally broken
@@teajayao7262 Well for us (penang btw), we just straight up saying the name in chinese lol
imagine a cycle of 3 3 player boards
Me: How many types of chess are there?
Triple S Games:
I'll take chess over uno anyday
@@honeyjuice219 Funny you say that, I am currently making a Chess variant where you can essentially play uno cards.
@@11clocky you wouldn't dare
@@honeyjuice219 uno reverse
@@11clocky
Is there one that combines chess with traditional playing cards.
It's been so long since i played this version of chess, i had forgotten the rules. We use to play it during chess tournaments. Kids especially loved this form. Often played at blitz time controls or quicker.
hi, im back. I am officially an school double (two player bughouse) master, title given by other friends in school. The meta of this game is: the weaker player of the team stalls his game and exchange as many pieces as possible, while the other player destroys his opponent by dropping tons of pieces and lure the opponent king. The knight is best for attacking. The queen is best for fininshing your opponent for checkmate. The pawn is best for utilities such has setting anchor points in opponent's camp or defending via building a castle.
Absolutely awesome game! We used to call it "swiss chess" back at school (I don't know why), played it a lot during breaks between classes
we also called it swiss chess
I don’t know why I find this channel so interesting, I’m not even gonna play most of the games here
Gulliver Chess: Same as Bughouse Chess but the big board pieces are 2x2 on the smaller board, and move in multiples of 2 as such.
Me: How many varities of chess are there
Triple S Games: *Inhales*
This version of chess is similar to shogi in some aspect.
Instead of clocks, why don't you alternate between moves from one board to the other?
Yes. I think the correct order is A-W A-Bl B-W B-Bl in rotation.
You could actually do this, and it's usually a good method if it's just you and one other person. It does make it significantly more challenging though.
Great explanation, thanks!
Whenever I was taught by my chess teacher the rules were different, mainly just that you couldn't drop a pice to put the opponent in checkmate or check and that you couldn't drop a piece in the opponents kast three rows.
My school had varient which we called boghouse of this where you had to put a peice on the place the would start in instead of anywhere and if a promoted pawn was captured it stayed as the promoted piece amout of queens on a board got crazy in the endgame
Ive been playing bug house for like 5 months now and im still addictef
We called that one "four players blitz", since we played on a 5 minutes timer.
The only difference there is that you didn't have to call checks, and the game ended when you TOOK the opponent's king.
additional rules for advanced level bughouse(double chess):
1. You cannot place any piece in your opponents backrank
2. You cannot place a pawn in your backrank
3. You cannot place a piece to checkmate (you can check)
4. an obvious forced checkmate on board immediately ends the game.
5. You may not stall the game by not moving. If a 3+2 clock is used, This rule is removed.
In Greece we call that φυτευτό, "plant game", and dropping a piece is called "planting"
I got the Chess board on the right for Christmas this year. *How funny*
When I played this, we didn't allow for a drop piece checkmate. It was massively fun, really.
Yea same I was confused when he said that you can drop into checkmate, that would just be too op
i remember playing this a long time ago on chess class
I Recommend do this on a similar or equal chess sets because, imagine a OCD players looking at you playing a nice wooden chess with you friend on a microscopic plastic board
Lets add 3 man CHess . With the extra player a judge . Or 3 d chess Where thoose picses can go Down to any Of the regular boards
Can we capture by dropping a piece?
Of course not like in crazy house chess
No, you are only allowed to drop to an empty space
That would result in an instant checkmate as soon as you capture a piece
This is my favorite way to play chess yet I often use the normal way since most don't use this.
Galaxy Brain variant: it's a 1v1 bughouse game. You must achieve checkmate on both boards to win -- preferably at the same time.
That's just a two player simul.
I like how you can skip first 10s in every "How to play ... chess" video =D
So basically two-board team crazyhouse
2:03 Also the other teammate: wait for the opponent to resign
0:09 idk if that pun was intended but I laughed to it anyway
This feels like a chess version that me and the bois would invent during recess
I played this back in my elemelementary school chess club, i did noy think it was a real thing!
Wait, how does stalemate happen? Couldnt you just drop a piece to make it not a stalemate?
repetitive move probably.
When you have nothing to move or drop but your opponent ran out of the three-move limit so you have to move
Thank you.
I wonder if all 4 players taking turns playing would make the game more fair or less chaotic.
Magnus Carlsen and Anna Cramling vs Hikaru Nakamura and Alexandra Botez who would win in bughouse chess?
Nice.
You can play this two-handed, but player 1 makes their white move before player 2 makes their black move & white move, then player 1 makes their black move, and the process repeats until the game ends.
Pretty sure there is no stalemate because of the possibility of dropping pieces, if you have no pieces to drop, you have to wait until your partner gives you one. Also, you are not considered checkmated if an interposition is possible, for the same reason.
Can someone get out of check by dropping a piece?
Yes
At my school you have to capture the king like a normal piece to win in bughouse
I would love your explanación of chess with multiverse and time travel
I’ll look into it
So... long story short, it's 4 players shogi
Yeah I think so. But chess units are stronger than Shogi units. So I think it can get messy.
That's very hard
My chess team in highschool used to call this siemese chess- never heard the term "bug house" before
The drop rules are interesting; remind me of shogi
In 1:11, the pawn looks so big and funny
This is basically the Chess Multiverse lmao
Great video
Does this mean i can have four knights?
seeing a huge pawn larger than all the pieces on the board somehow made me laugh
Double doulbe crazyhouse game
1:56 bro can push one of the pawns
Imagine checkmating both boards at the same time.
We called this Swedish chess and played as quick-chess with clocks.
I feel like allowing to put a piece on any free square is too OP
I have those same chess sets
1:11 where we droppin’ boys?
I'm going to talk to the guys at work about this.
This is unnecessarily complicated. Seems like something a GM came up with after being bored and drunk out of their mind
So, 2v2 chess?
"No, Comrade, *We* won."
So basically, the pieces get banned from their own existence, and end up in another universe.
But they can come back later, old and wrinkly
Seems like crazyhouse but made to account for limited number of pieces and color
That’s a very amazing game I’d love to have my own
1:07 *GIGA PAWN*
We call it "Supply"
pawn tiny on big board
I am slow.
why does this feel like shogi
Stalemates on either board results in a DRAW.
I have the small chess board.
So this is a 4 players chess.
Mistake: if 3 illegal moves are done, then the team wins.
That's not how the game works though. It's the first illegal move by any player.
househouse
i used to call this Australian Chess.
Tbh I feel the name bughouse is a lie, would be more fun if the small board had bugs as pieces.
So 4 player shogi-chess
111th to watch. New record.
this is just chess with g/t
Shoji 2
so it's just chess x2
Okay seriously that's too much chess games
Who is a chess nerd?
Me
Woah 666 views
First
111 like
Hey great gameplay! If you like chess give my channel a look if you get some time
The waffle house has found it's new host