9:13 As far as I'm aware, the two-tile-move was because a lot of games ended up opening with the same Pawn being moved forward twice on both sides, and then En Passant was later introduced because people were using that two-tile move to bypass enemy Pawns when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. In other words, their removal is entirely justified in this chaotic variant.
pretty much this, almost always 2 spaces up was required and while giving it a 2 tile move effects some games in that if white played 2 tiles then black did 1 tile now its whites turn and they are technically up a move in the old system. outside of cases like this the 2 tile move throughout the whole game added a lot more speed to the opening and dynamic strategy to later game parts if pawns saved their 2 move. That later saved strategy while really interesting in some cases is very annoying in other cases which en passent was made to solve. for people interested in chess or at least game design or strategy development, i think its a fun exercise to try and come up with ways that not having vs having double pawn moves can effect the opening mid and late game as well as how it can cause issues with and without en passent. whenever your next playing chess. for a game as old as chess with only a few real changes its interesting to see why different decisions were made.
@@Wilker_uwu that's also basically the only situation in normal chess when the option to promote to a rook or bishop may be preferred over promoting to a queen
@@neopalm2050 *yes, the game is called 5D Chess With Multiversal Time Travel, but it's played on a 2D board -- I think playing on a 3D board would make it 6D Chess
@@CircuitrinosOfficial that's actually an incredibly hard problem, like we all know that 1 move away is 1 move back but if you get up to like 9 moves, you may be able to solve it again in 5 or something
@@ms-fk6eb For this use case it's easy. Just start with a solved cube and scramble it N times. You now know it's at most N turns away from being solved.
It's interesting that the FIDE definition of the knight's move is not equivalent to the two and one tiles definition on a rubik's cube. The FIDE definition says that the knight moves to the closest squares that are not on the same rank, file, or diagonal so, some of those moves wouldn't be legal if you used that.
@@MrCheeze The more I think about it the more interesting it becomes. I just noticed that on the cube, it matters whether you step once and then twice or twice and then once (in other words, the 2,1 leaper and the 1,2 leaper are different). Carykh's new knight is the union of those two. The Chinese knight is not equivalent to any of those and neither is the "reverse" Chinese knight that moves diagonally first (see the case where the knight is one square away from a corner). The union of the two Chinese knights as well as the union of all four would also be reasonable definitions. I still prefer the FIDE definition, since the knight moving in a straight line or diagonally feels wrong, but that's just personal preference. Every definition I described above, as well as any other definition that is equivalent to the knight on a flat infinite chessboard is a defensible choice.
That's very interesting! Since the moves are functionally the same, is there any conceptual reason that they go with that definition? I guess it's efficient and unambiguous, whereas the "L-shape" idea is easier for learners unfamiliar with the terminology, and possibly aids with envisioning the different rotations. The Chinese chess definition is also interesting. Reading about it, the fact that the horse doesn't jump makes the definition relevant to gameplay (i.e. it matters which intermediate point it lands on), but I wonder whether the nature of the board plays into this conceptualization: does placing the pieces on the intersections of lines rather than in the middle of squares make thinking in terms of one-straight-plus-one-diagonal more natural? The board does have diagonal lines in the palace, perhaps priming players to think in those terms. I'm the top commenter in the video, suggesting that 1-then-2 also be considered, so you can partially blame me for it not conforming to FIDE (or your preference). In my defence, I did only say it was "arguably" the case. I don't really have a feeling of how it _should_ work; I was just interested (like you!) that changing the nature of the board made such distinctions matter where they didn't before. It went from two different ways of expressing the same thing (like 0.99... = 1 in standard maths) to a meaningful distinction (like introducing infinitessimals in the hyperreal number system).
@@TheJamesM different to International chess, in Chinese chess you can block the opponent by blocking it's vertical path, this lead to situation where you can have 2 horses piece attacking each other but if there is one piece in the middle of both pieces then horse with the vertical path blocked can't attack the other, this very unique mechanic leads to many interesting strat where you can block their horses and advance your horses at the same time or using pawn to block their attacking horses from attacking your important pieces/squares
Per official chess rules, this update made it wrong where it was correct before. The FIDE rules state:"The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal." So in fact, what everyone told you was wrong and you were right by accident.
I think this choice is best. People would be telling him constantly it's wrong and be confused. Everyone knows it as an L move, so. I mean, double step and en-passant went away, so
Fu%$ the FIDE rules. They clowned out the moment they ruled that transwomen can't play chess in the womens league. (to add insult to insult, the only conclusion that makes sense is: they apparently think women are inherently worse at chess, so it's a double shittake with en passant sexism on top) But back to the game: This game is already so far departed from chess, none of the official rules should be considered to be more than a suggestion.
@@TheAgamemnon911 I mean... tbh, why are there womens tournaments? Sex/Gender shouldnt really matter in chess anyway. Doesnt really matter if a trans person cant enter a womens tournament, thats not where the best players are anyway...
8:15 On this point, there are cases in regular chess where under-promoting to rook is better. Promoting to queen may result in a stalemate in an otherwise winning position.
9:24 the reason that the 2 space first move rule of chess was made was because games were too slow and this made games go faster, and en passant was made because if you were playing the old version of chess the pawn normally wouldn’t be able to move 2 spaces to avoid capture because if you moved one space at a time the first move would have put them in danger. Your version might not need this because maybe the moving chess boards would make the game start up fast enough to be fun.
In fact, many people forget that the Knight move is not just an L-shaped move. The Knight's move includes "jumping" (since it can't be blocked by other pieces) to the nearest squares that are NOT horizontal, vertical or diagonal, as it works for the Rook and Bishop (or Queen, if you combine them both). Therefore, I even see more logic in the old knight move system, as the new added options are Bishop-like (while the Knight does not repeat the movement capabilities of any other piece, being the most tricky one).
@@black_wink1649 that's the obvious way to define the Knight's move, comparing its pattern with other pieces. As FIDE defines it, "The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal." Also sorry if you noticed any "wiggleness", English is not native to me lol.
The reasoning behind en passant and pawns being able to move 2 steps on their first turn was a way to speed up the game and get into the middle game more quickly. I feel like it's fair to remove those rules here as pawn structure doesn't seem that important and the game is already complex enough at the beginning, it doesn't need to be sped up.
8:12 because sometimes promoting to queen will cause a stalemate. with 6 sides, there are way more diagonal tiles to keep track of when choosing the queen instead of the rook so maybe underpromotion is a better option to save time thinking in the end game. anyway you should just make the promotion options a setting in game setup.
I think you didn't get it right. The knight movements are the opposite of the queen but without infinite distance. What I mean is if you put a queen and highlight all possible moves the nearest not-highlited squares are the ones that the knight moves. The FIDE rules explains that a bit better than me but a lot less visual: > The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal
i dont think the specific nomenclature of FIDE rules is the word of god that we have no right to disagree with. chess is a folk game with 1000 years of history, and part of the beauty of it is how many different ways there are to interpret and play with its rules.
@@dracoteu2526 it is, but when you want to get speciffic and mathematical it could be awesome to see which are the implications of the FIDE rule vs the L rule in Rubick's chess. Also you are agreeing to the L (looser) rule so I'm right and you are, perchance, wrong.
You should make it where you can promote to a queen or Amazon only if you don’t have one already, that way you can make a comeback if you lost them but not gain an advantage by getting a stockpile of them
It would be funny if they could move any number of tiles as long as they stay on the same colour and, unless capturing, one tile further yet, but unless capturing, not along their direct diagonals. That would technically describe regular chess pawn movement, but in practice would be comparable to the splatoon.
You might know me, I've been following your work for awhile. Your interest in problem solving and innovating the conventional has been super inspiring to me as an artist. Now, at the ripe age of a year plus your current age, I'm inching towards a career that has more computer science involved in it, because you made me desire having that flexibility in my life. Everything is a nail and a hammer, and in that sense, it's art. It's the little things, like that esoteric last sentence, that are the daily creative endeavors that keep my life full. If you have any doubts, know that your work has meant the world to me in these pursuits, and I hope you find something in that. Keep being you.
I think the nootalps are good to encourage use of scrambling, but I feel like having both them and splatoons at the same time is too strong - you're rewarded for being on an early game cube, and you're rewarded for being on a late game cube. What if the board started semiscrambled, but one colour has splatoons and the other has nootalps so each side is trying to get the cube to either state. Maybe that would be a bit unfair to the solving side though since they're having to actually think about solving while the scramble side just makes any random moves. Also I think hands are becoming too important as they're the only pieces that can turn the board, and especially the new walled games that becomes absolutely necessary. If you manage to get your king on its own face, you can just target the enemy hands and it becomes at least a stalemate if not a win.
@@a-love-supreme that is true, but even though those pieces are better in opposite positions, neither are overwhelmingly powerful even at their best. In this game especially, the board is so much bigger that a bishops linear movement will normally cover less of a proportion of the board than they do in regular chess, and the knight only covers a measly 8 squares, the same amount as the weakest Splatoon/nootalps albeit with the safety of an odd movement shape. I guess you could argue that pieces have never been equal in chess, like the queen Vs pawns, but the queen is balanced by being only 1 while Splatoon/nootalps are at minimum turning it into 3 queenlike pieces or potentially more depending how you choose to start the game. Actually that poses the idea what if you started the game with pieces on 3 faces and the opponent has pieces on 3 faces and each face has a bunch of regular pieces but each face only has one out of the 3 'overpowered' pieces so it's a little annoying to group them all together which is when they become major threats
I'm surprised Cary didn't know that the chess community cares a LOT about it's ability to under promote to the minimally viable piece for maximum swag 😎
Having bandaging on the Rubik’s cube or even cuboids would be rly cool too (maybe even mirror cubes where each slice has different sizes and if a hand turns a size, you can move onto those new exposed sides, and if a piece is on it when it’s turned, all of those pieces get captured, including your own ofc
The knights movement reminds me of a knights tour variant I made where the squares of the board were different sizes. So a knight on a 2 by 2 square surrounded by 1 by 1 squares could move to 20 squares. It got so cursed when mixing 2 by 1, 2 by 2, and 1 by 1 tiles
he could make a super-rubik's cube (SRC) where each tile is one of these rubik's cube chess boards (RCCB) and when you check or win one RCCB, its faces are painted with your colour, and after every move on an RCCB you get to also make one rotation on the SRC and win if you are able to colour in a complete face of the SRC with your colour. That's one extra dimension I guess, and if you add in the 2 temporal dimensions from 5D chess with multiverse time travel, you're already up to 6. Then you only need 3 more.
@@fdagpigj I was saying 9D chess, because 5D chess is 2D chess with multiverses and time travel, so 3D chess would be 6D chess... oh wait, my original math was wrong...
Two piece suggestions: archbishop, chancellor (B+N, R+N) Also, just wondering, is there stalemate in this variant? Example of a position in regular chess when promotion to a rook is the best move: White Pg7, White Kh4, Black Kh6 The best more here is for white is g8=R, since g8=Q would be stalemate.
You gotta make an alternate mode where if a player gets checkmated, they'll be allowed to solve the Rubix cube within a given amount of time, and if they succeeded, they will be allowed to move their king to any space desired (but only once per game. You could even make the time you have to solve the cube tie into a turn clock system, so you actually eat up the time you have left even if you succeed).
but how do you compete at solving the same cube? It'd only really make sense as an asymmetric gamemode where only one player has the alternative objective of solving the cube, but then it becomes a nightmare trying to balance.
One other update that would be cool is that if you could start a game with the cube prescrambled either randomly or in the opposite checkerboard pattern.
8'18 Speaking of queen, What about cases in normal chess where promoting to a queen would be a blunder and result in a stalemate because the opponent wouldn't have any squares to go to?
Notice how it swaps colors and odd amount of times before returning to the same place, side, this results in it being able to hit both the black and white tiles ON THE SAME FACE and therefore all tiles.
It literally isn’t, notice how after passing over the edge three times it’s on the opposite parity squares on the SAME side, not another side. Also please res
Pawns' two-tile first move and en passant in regular chess feel arbitrary because they were essentially just house rules for speeding up the game which stuck. You can move two tiles on the first move because the first few moves of a chess game would otherwise almost always involve moving the same pawn multiple times before you can do anything else. En passant exists to patch the subsequent ability of a pawn to skip past an opposing pawn without it having an opportunity to capture it, since it would be able to without the two-tile move and it's only supposed to speed things up, not affect the strategy in any way. All this to say it makes perfect sense not to include those here since they're basically just hotfixes for a situation that arises at the start of normal chess that this game simply doesn't have.
Actually the concept of check and checkmate is a similar thing. Originally the game was won by capturing the opposing king. (Check came in as a rule that you had to announce when the king was threatened, just as a convenience to avoid games ending prematurely from a player failing to notice it.) Eventually it evolved into checkmate, which is just the practice of calling the game one move earlier at the point where defeat becomes inevitable to avoid a pointless move wasting a little bit of time. You let people do anything enough times and they'll end up micro-optimising every bit of wasted time out of the process, we're just like that.
@@Throckmorpheus Yeah, but then stalemate screwed it up. (Most stalemate positions would be losses if you won by capturing the king instead of by checkmate, because it would then be legal to move the king into check and lose.)
The pawn double move is to speed up the game since without this rule, it takes a long time for pawns to come in contact with each other and early aggressive pawn play (including almost every gambit) becomes pretty much impossible. En passant fixes an unfortunate side effect of the double move rule, namely the ability to move past an opposing pawn to avoid an exchange, which if abused leads to very boring, closed positions where neither side can make progress because the centre is clogged with pawns that can no longer capture each other. With en passant, for two pawns on adjacent files to move past each other, one player must offer a trade and the other has the chance to accept it, meaning locked down positions only happen if both sides are okay with it. For a dozen reasons none of this is relevant in Rubiks chess though.
Petition to add a piece that walls off it's side of the cube. Each side starts with one, and it would be a good mix between the walled mode while still allowing regular cross-board interactions.
The Bishop should be allowed to teleport to the opposite face when it hits a corner. Something about stopping it dead in its tracks goes against the spirit of the game.
Bishops normally stop when they reach the edge of the board? In this case there isn't an *opposite* corner to a cube face, there are two opposing corners that meet at an edge to the tile the bishop is on. It wouldn't really make sense to have it somehow continue going.
@@tegdig77 1. Rooks can loop around so I don't understand why you're opposing letting bishops do the same thing? 2. The opposite face from the top of a cube is the bottom. When the bishop hits a corner, it just goes upside down to the opposite face and keeps going until it hits a corner again and that way it loops.
@@Tubeytime I'm not opposing Bishops moving from one face to the next, they can do that in this game as seen in the video and that's bow they should work 👍 I'm only saying that when it hits a *corner* that it shouldn't go to any other face because it's just a corner, it wouldn't make sense to given that there is only an edge beyond it, not another face.
Alternatively, treat diagonal movement as moving two spaces in orthogonal axes at once per step. That way, when hitting a corner, you could move onto one face with one of the two and on the other face with the second, then continue moving from there. Basically, say black A1 is adjacent to red A1 and blue A1. Then the bishop on black B2 could move from black B2 to black A1, then from there over blue A1 to red A1 and continue to red B2 and beyond or vice versa to land on blue B2 and beyond.
i don't like the change to knights movement, because the "L" shape is just used to intuitivly explain the movement. However the knight moves like it doeas because it's filling up the spots that neither the rook or bishop could reach from that specific square
There is actually a case in chess where you promote a pawn into a rook/bishop: when a queen would cause the game to end in stalemate. But that’s such a niche case that I like the idea of not allowing queen (and amazon) promotions.
tbh it wouldve been neat to have pawns first move have more options just cause now theres ways to move pawns without it counting as a move of the pawn, so as long as the hand moved the pawn you could save that move for later
8:13 there *are* times to promote to rook or bishop instead of queen. While queens are a typical a “more powerful” piece, they aren’t strictly superior. They attack more squares, but attacking more squares is not the win condition in chess, checkmate is, and attacking more squares isn’t always what you want. The typical example for this is stalemate. It’s pretty easy to construct a scenario where promoting to queen causes stalemate while promoting to either rook or bishop doesn’t. These don’t happen very often in games, but they do happen. More intricate scenarios also exist where promoting to queen allows the opponent to force you to play stalemate on a later turn, but those are hard to construct, and may be hard to notice over the board.
I think that for the walled variant there should be a rule that lets you transform your most powerful unit into a hand if all of your hands are captured, since you would never be able to attack the enemy king without them
Don't worry, Cary. En passant and the two-tile-move thing only exist in chess to save time, It doesn't actually introduce any actually new moves. That's why it only applies to the first time the piece moves. If both players are just going to move the same pawn twice at the start, Why make that take 4 turns, When you can just cut it in half? And in that case, With the new double-move rule, En passant was introduced to say "No, You don't get to avoid capture by doing that, Because it would have been my turn, And I would have captured you."
2:38 what does "diagonal" mean to the bishop going around the corner anyway? Much like your knight behavior at the corner I think there might be some possible shenanigans depending on how you define diagonal. If it's two squares connected by a corner then you could theoretically jump a corner of the cube with a bishop. Alternately, think of diagonal as a very short knight's move of up-one-over-one and now a bishop could move to an adjacent face at a corner
it'd be cool to have a gamemode where the cube starts scrambled and an objective is to solve it. it could be a side thing like pawn promotion or one or both players could have it as a win condition. prolly only any fun on the 3x3 and other small cubes
at first i was like why rubick board but then i was like :O this looks amazing! it just need a little finishing and add background and it is ready to go!
For the nootnoot being too strong, my first thought was to nerf it by keeping the old behavoir, but with a new rule where it can never touch the same color multiple times in the same move. So same idea, but it can never move more than 5 tiles away since there's only 6 colors total.
While I initially thought it would be a good addition to include every way the knight can bend around those corners, I partly think that it might be better to limit the knight's moves to only the squares he can reach by doing *both* forms of his movement. So, if the knight can only reach a spot by doing 1 then 2, but not 2 then 1, then it isn't a valid move.
Fun Fact: The ability for pawns to move 2 spaces was created to speed up the early game of chess. This is also why En Passant was invented, to fix the problem that this creates.
There should be up to 6 player mode (for each face) The king would spawn on the center space of their color and be surrounded with all the other pieces in a consistent manner.
While it makes the mechanic easier to understand from a user interface and tactics standpoint, I feel like having rotating tied exclusively to the hand pieces makes the mechanic feel isolated from the rest of the game, especially when the hand piece's only purpose is to interact with that one mechanic. I think a better way to incorporate rotating would be to remove the hand pieces, and to instead have rotating be a mostly unrestricted action. It could be performed by selecting one of any of the tiles on the cube with right-click, and then have the player select one of four cardinal directions to rotate the tile in by 90°. To make doing versus not doing it a meaningful choice, I'd make it so a player can't move a piece and rotate a slice in the same turn. Overall, this should give rotating the same significance as in walled chess, but without reducing the mobility of every other piece. Also, to give Splatoons more agency later in the game, I'd give them the ability to convert whatever tile they move to into the color of whatever tile they moved from. This allows them to be moved strategically to increase the amount of "turf" that's in their team's color, potentially reducing the mobility loss from the cube getting progressively scrambled. The Nooter can have a similar buff in the early game by giving them the ability to convert the color of the tile they move to into any random color that they didn't encounter on their path to it. This buff assumes the Nooter can move cardinally by one space in a color block like a Splatoon can in a color change.
8:15 "if the queen were an option, why would you ever pick a rook" stalemate, there are some positions where promoting to a queen can cause stalemate but promoting to a rook can lead to an eventual mate, im not 100% sure this is the case for rubiks chess, but its very likely
It's not the case, because kings are allowed to move into check, so stalemate is very unlikely, if possible at all, and having a queen instead of a rook is certainly not going to stalemate your opponent.
I'm joking here... why not spawning pawns? Then introduce a minefield, and have parts of the cube explode when mines are not flagged in time by a minesweeper pawn, making the shape irregular and the moves even more complicated. Of course each pawn needs a backstory and a "damage" level. Also introduce a poisonous lizard: it has feet on multiple squares and it can walk on mines.
Game mode idea: solver (feel free to change the name) In Solver mode the cube starts off scrambled (using a cube scrambling algorithm) and you are only given hands and you can’t capture pieces as the goal is to unscrambled the cube and whoever makes the last turn that fully solves the cube wins
Now fix bishops around corners All sides of a corner are diagonal to each other (down + across = diagonal) so you actually should be able to attack the center tile with a bishop
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
9:13 As far as I'm aware, the two-tile-move was because a lot of games ended up opening with the same Pawn being moved forward twice on both sides, and then En Passant was later introduced because people were using that two-tile move to bypass enemy Pawns when they otherwise wouldn't be able to. In other words, their removal is entirely justified in this chaotic variant.
pretty much this, almost always 2 spaces up was required and while giving it a 2 tile move effects some games in that if white played 2 tiles then black did 1 tile now its whites turn and they are technically up a move in the old system. outside of cases like this the 2 tile move throughout the whole game added a lot more speed to the opening and dynamic strategy to later game parts if pawns saved their 2 move. That later saved strategy while really interesting in some cases is very annoying in other cases which en passent was made to solve.
for people interested in chess or at least game design or strategy development, i think its a fun exercise to try and come up with ways that not having vs having double pawn moves can effect the opening mid and late game as well as how it can cause issues with and without en passent. whenever your next playing chess. for a game as old as chess with only a few real changes its interesting to see why different decisions were made.
7:42 Oh boy! I can't wait to promote my pawn into another pawn!
pawn²
haha, I totally missed that!
And now I am trying to think of a situation where that is actually a winning move.
I think when the pawn gets to there the only way to make the pop up go away is to pick one, the pawn option allows you to keep it as is
@@TheAgamemnon911 there may be a case where you look to avoid a stalemate before promoting it again
@@Wilker_uwu that's also basically the only situation in normal chess when the option to promote to a rook or bishop may be preferred over promoting to a queen
Now my brain is melting trying to imagine 6D rubik's cube chess with multiverse time travel.
Stop that game is hard
*only actually 5 dimensional
Have you seen code parade 4d golf? Make it in 4d!
Just wait until they add a word search into this
@@neopalm2050 *yes, the game is called 5D Chess With Multiversal Time Travel, but it's played on a 2D board -- I think playing on a 3D board would make it 6D Chess
I would recommend adding an option to start with the cube scrambled and if you solve it you win in addition to getting checkmate.
with a slider to control how many moves away it is
@@CircuitrinosOfficial that's actually an incredibly hard problem, like we all know that 1 move away is 1 move back but if you get up to like 9 moves, you may be able to solve it again in 5 or something
@@ms-fk6ebIsn't finding the fastest way to solve a rubix cube a pretty simple task for a computer tho, even when it's bigger than 3x3?
@@malte291 np complete, but smaller cubes should be easy enough to brute force. doubt 20x20x20 runs in any reasonable time tho
@@ms-fk6eb For this use case it's easy. Just start with a solved cube and scramble it N times. You now know it's at most N turns away from being solved.
12:14 Gotta love how white wins the game before it even starts
yeah guaranteeing that you get at least one king might have been a good #9
It's interesting that the FIDE definition of the knight's move is not equivalent to the two and one tiles definition on a rubik's cube. The FIDE definition says that the knight moves to the closest squares that are not on the same rank, file, or diagonal so, some of those moves wouldn't be legal if you used that.
That's the definition I prefer tbh
Personally I like the chinese chess definition, where it's one square forwards then one square diagonally.
@@MrCheeze The more I think about it the more interesting it becomes. I just noticed that on the cube, it matters whether you step once and then twice or twice and then once (in other words, the 2,1 leaper and the 1,2 leaper are different). Carykh's new knight is the union of those two. The Chinese knight is not equivalent to any of those and neither is the "reverse" Chinese knight that moves diagonally first (see the case where the knight is one square away from a corner). The union of the two Chinese knights as well as the union of all four would also be reasonable definitions. I still prefer the FIDE definition, since the knight moving in a straight line or diagonally feels wrong, but that's just personal preference. Every definition I described above, as well as any other definition that is equivalent to the knight on a flat infinite chessboard is a defensible choice.
That's very interesting! Since the moves are functionally the same, is there any conceptual reason that they go with that definition? I guess it's efficient and unambiguous, whereas the "L-shape" idea is easier for learners unfamiliar with the terminology, and possibly aids with envisioning the different rotations.
The Chinese chess definition is also interesting. Reading about it, the fact that the horse doesn't jump makes the definition relevant to gameplay (i.e. it matters which intermediate point it lands on), but I wonder whether the nature of the board plays into this conceptualization: does placing the pieces on the intersections of lines rather than in the middle of squares make thinking in terms of one-straight-plus-one-diagonal more natural? The board does have diagonal lines in the palace, perhaps priming players to think in those terms.
I'm the top commenter in the video, suggesting that 1-then-2 also be considered, so you can partially blame me for it not conforming to FIDE (or your preference). In my defence, I did only say it was "arguably" the case. I don't really have a feeling of how it _should_ work; I was just interested (like you!) that changing the nature of the board made such distinctions matter where they didn't before. It went from two different ways of expressing the same thing (like 0.99... = 1 in standard maths) to a meaningful distinction (like introducing infinitessimals in the hyperreal number system).
@@TheJamesM different to International chess, in Chinese chess you can block the opponent by blocking it's vertical path, this lead to situation where you can have 2 horses piece attacking each other but if there is one piece in the middle of both pieces then horse with the vertical path blocked can't attack the other, this very unique mechanic leads to many interesting strat where you can block their horses and advance your horses at the same time or using pawn to block their attacking horses from attacking your important pieces/squares
Per official chess rules, this update made it wrong where it was correct before. The FIDE rules state:"The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on
the same rank, file or diagonal."
So in fact, what everyone told you was wrong and you were right by accident.
But in fairy chess the knight is classified as a (1,2)-leaper!
I think this choice is best. People would be telling him constantly it's wrong and be confused. Everyone knows it as an L move, so. I mean, double step and en-passant went away, so
Fu%$ the FIDE rules. They clowned out the moment they ruled that transwomen can't play chess in the womens league. (to add insult to insult, the only conclusion that makes sense is: they apparently think women are inherently worse at chess, so it's a double shittake with en passant sexism on top)
But back to the game: This game is already so far departed from chess, none of the official rules should be considered to be more than a suggestion.
fuck the FIDE
@@TheAgamemnon911 I mean... tbh, why are there womens tournaments? Sex/Gender shouldnt really matter in chess anyway.
Doesnt really matter if a trans person cant enter a womens tournament, thats not where the best players are anyway...
8:15
On this point, there are cases in regular chess where under-promoting to rook is better. Promoting to queen may result in a stalemate in an otherwise winning position.
I was just about to look up whether it ever made sense to promote to rook or bishop (other than stunting). Thanks for saving me the trouble!
you may also underpromote to a knight in rare circumstances (royal forks or anything else worth a queen or more)
9:24 the reason that the 2 space first move rule of chess was made was because games were too slow and this made games go faster, and en passant was made because if you were playing the old version of chess the pawn normally wouldn’t be able to move 2 spaces to avoid capture because if you moved one space at a time the first move would have put them in danger. Your version might not need this because maybe the moving chess boards would make the game start up fast enough to be fun.
legit forgot this was somewhat of a sillypost until i remembered the T-Posing Inklings
In fact, many people forget that the Knight move is not just an L-shaped move. The Knight's move includes "jumping" (since it can't be blocked by other pieces) to the nearest squares that are NOT horizontal, vertical or diagonal, as it works for the Rook and Bishop (or Queen, if you combine them both).
Therefore, I even see more logic in the old knight move system, as the new added options are Bishop-like (while the Knight does not repeat the movement capabilities of any other piece, being the most tricky one).
discordo craque, um pra um lado, dois pro outro...
What a wiggly comment you posted, do you have any evidence for this “fact”
@@black_wink1649 that's the obvious way to define the Knight's move, comparing its pattern with other pieces. As FIDE defines it, "The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal."
Also sorry if you noticed any "wiggleness", English is not native to me lol.
you mean "forgot" there is a past tense version of "forget"
@@cheesepop7175 present tense forms can be used for habitual tense
That confused you? This entire game confuses me!
if I tried to understand this my brain would instantly commit blank.
cant believe carykh created the battle between light and dark at the heart of skaia
omg so real
everywhere i go, homestuck follows suit
this webcomic will never leave me alone
Lol same
The reasoning behind en passant and pawns being able to move 2 steps on their first turn was a way to speed up the game and get into the middle game more quickly. I feel like it's fair to remove those rules here as pawn structure doesn't seem that important and the game is already complex enough at the beginning, it doesn't need to be sped up.
0:18 it's a smile.
11:25 it would be cool if the hand could remove one wall for one turn.
8:12 because sometimes promoting to queen will cause a stalemate. with 6 sides, there are way more diagonal tiles to keep track of when choosing the queen instead of the rook so maybe underpromotion is a better option to save time thinking in the end game. anyway you should just make the promotion options a setting in game setup.
Stalemate makes no sense
I think you didn't get it right. The knight movements are the opposite of the queen but without infinite distance. What I mean is if you put a queen and highlight all possible moves the nearest not-highlited squares are the ones that the knight moves.
The FIDE rules explains that a bit better than me but a lot less visual:
> The knight may move to one of the squares nearest to that on which it stands but not on the same rank, file or diagonal
That's what i'm saying lol
i dont think the specific nomenclature of FIDE rules is the word of god that we have no right to disagree with. chess is a folk game with 1000 years of history, and part of the beauty of it is how many different ways there are to interpret and play with its rules.
@@dracoteu2526 it is, but when you want to get speciffic and mathematical it could be awesome to see which are the implications of the FIDE rule vs the L rule in Rubick's chess. Also you are agreeing to the L (looser) rule so I'm right and you are, perchance, wrong.
You should make it where you can promote to a queen or Amazon only if you don’t have one already, that way you can make a comeback if you lost them but not gain an advantage by getting a stockpile of them
I almost want to mod the comically long splatoon pathfinding back in tbh
Putting a small rotation on the board is a brilliant way to enhance readability using parallax.
It would be interesting if pawns could only move towards the nearest tile of the opposite color.
It would probably suck though.
It would be funny if they could move any number of tiles as long as they stay on the same colour and, unless capturing, one tile further yet, but unless capturing, not along their direct diagonals. That would technically describe regular chess pawn movement, but in practice would be comparable to the splatoon.
The rest of the cube confuses me even more.
Having literal hands and Splatoon Inkling Girls in there feels so... wrong. What's next? Pinkie Pie?
Is that hand inspiried off of Roblox death run's hand?
@@name6953 Honestly, I don't know. I haven't played Roblox in years.
You might know me, I've been following your work for awhile. Your interest in problem solving and innovating the conventional has been super inspiring to me as an artist. Now, at the ripe age of a year plus your current age, I'm inching towards a career that has more computer science involved in it, because you made me desire having that flexibility in my life. Everything is a nail and a hammer, and in that sense, it's art. It's the little things, like that esoteric last sentence, that are the daily creative endeavors that keep my life full. If you have any doubts, know that your work has meant the world to me in these pursuits, and I hope you find something in that. Keep being you.
you should make knights, nootnoots, and amazons be able to jump over the walls in a walled game
GENIUS
This would also make it less likely to softlock (if all hands die and no pawn can currently promote)
@@user-lw2yb9ln7r Stalemate.
update 10 can mean multiverse time travel. which will only make the game even more like homestuck.
can't fuckin escape homestuck even in the middle of rubiks cube + chess brainrot
I think the nootalps are good to encourage use of scrambling, but I feel like having both them and splatoons at the same time is too strong - you're rewarded for being on an early game cube, and you're rewarded for being on a late game cube.
What if the board started semiscrambled, but one colour has splatoons and the other has nootalps so each side is trying to get the cube to either state. Maybe that would be a bit unfair to the solving side though since they're having to actually think about solving while the scramble side just makes any random moves.
Also I think hands are becoming too important as they're the only pieces that can turn the board, and especially the new walled games that becomes absolutely necessary. If you manage to get your king on its own face, you can just target the enemy hands and it becomes at least a stalemate if not a win.
What if the walls all disappear the first time any hand is captured?
i see the logic behind it-it's kinda like how knights are often better in closed chess positions and bishops are often better in open positions
@@a-love-supreme that is true, but even though those pieces are better in opposite positions, neither are overwhelmingly powerful even at their best. In this game especially, the board is so much bigger that a bishops linear movement will normally cover less of a proportion of the board than they do in regular chess, and the knight only covers a measly 8 squares, the same amount as the weakest Splatoon/nootalps albeit with the safety of an odd movement shape.
I guess you could argue that pieces have never been equal in chess, like the queen Vs pawns, but the queen is balanced by being only 1 while Splatoon/nootalps are at minimum turning it into 3 queenlike pieces or potentially more depending how you choose to start the game. Actually that poses the idea what if you started the game with pieces on 3 faces and the opponent has pieces on 3 faces and each face has a bunch of regular pieces but each face only has one out of the 3 'overpowered' pieces so it's a little annoying to group them all together which is when they become major threats
I'm surprised Cary didn't know that the chess community cares a LOT about it's ability to under promote to the minimally viable piece for maximum swag 😎
Having bandaging on the Rubik’s cube or even cuboids would be rly cool too (maybe even mirror cubes where each slice has different sizes and if a hand turns a size, you can move onto those new exposed sides, and if a piece is on it when it’s turned, all of those pieces get captured, including your own ofc
?
The knights movement reminds me of a knights tour variant I made where the squares of the board were different sizes. So a knight on a 2 by 2 square surrounded by 1 by 1 squares could move to 20 squares. It got so cursed when mixing 2 by 1, 2 by 2, and 1 by 1 tiles
10:27 You don't want to create 9D rubik's chess with multiverses and time travel?
he could make a super-rubik's cube (SRC) where each tile is one of these rubik's cube chess boards (RCCB) and when you check or win one RCCB, its faces are painted with your colour, and after every move on an RCCB you get to also make one rotation on the SRC and win if you are able to colour in a complete face of the SRC with your colour. That's one extra dimension I guess, and if you add in the 2 temporal dimensions from 5D chess with multiverse time travel, you're already up to 6. Then you only need 3 more.
@@fdagpigj I was saying 9D chess, because 5D chess is 2D chess with multiverses and time travel, so 3D chess would be 6D chess... oh wait, my original math was wrong...
Two piece suggestions: archbishop, chancellor (B+N, R+N)
Also, just wondering, is there stalemate in this variant?
Example of a position in regular chess when promotion to a rook is the best move:
White Pg7, White Kh4, Black Kh6
The best more here is for white is g8=R, since g8=Q would be stalemate.
You gotta make an alternate mode where if a player gets checkmated, they'll be allowed to solve the Rubix cube within a given amount of time, and if they succeeded, they will be allowed to move their king to any space desired (but only once per game. You could even make the time you have to solve the cube tie into a turn clock system, so you actually eat up the time you have left even if you succeed).
Idea here:
Make the pieces have less polygons so the game may run faster with bigger cubes (don't remove too many polygons)
There should be a gammemode where the cube is randomized and each player tries to solve the cube while playing chess
but how do you compete at solving the same cube? It'd only really make sense as an asymmetric gamemode where only one player has the alternative objective of solving the cube, but then it becomes a nightmare trying to balance.
@@fdagpigjhorde chess but solving the cube with a bunch of hands vs a set of pieces
I dare you to make chess on a Rubik cube in real life
One other update that would be cool is that if you could start a game with the cube prescrambled either randomly or in the opposite checkerboard pattern.
8'18 Speaking of queen, What about cases in normal chess where promoting to a queen would be a blunder and result in a stalemate because the opponent wouldn't have any squares to go to?
Stalemate is a stupid and nonsensical mechanic.
What happens when a diagonal move directly hits a corner? Does it split or stop?
9:08 holy hell
13:24 Actually bishops still only have 50% coverage, the only thing that changes that the color is inconsistent, thats all
No, it can get to both the sets of tiles on the same side.
Notice how it swaps colors and odd amount of times before returning to the same place, side, this results in it being able to hit both the black and white tiles ON THE SAME FACE and therefore all tiles.
It literally isn’t, notice how after passing over the edge three times it’s on the opposite parity squares on the SAME side, not another side.
Also please res
Pawns' two-tile first move and en passant in regular chess feel arbitrary because they were essentially just house rules for speeding up the game which stuck. You can move two tiles on the first move because the first few moves of a chess game would otherwise almost always involve moving the same pawn multiple times before you can do anything else. En passant exists to patch the subsequent ability of a pawn to skip past an opposing pawn without it having an opportunity to capture it, since it would be able to without the two-tile move and it's only supposed to speed things up, not affect the strategy in any way.
All this to say it makes perfect sense not to include those here since they're basically just hotfixes for a situation that arises at the start of normal chess that this game simply doesn't have.
Actually the concept of check and checkmate is a similar thing. Originally the game was won by capturing the opposing king. (Check came in as a rule that you had to announce when the king was threatened, just as a convenience to avoid games ending prematurely from a player failing to notice it.)
Eventually it evolved into checkmate, which is just the practice of calling the game one move earlier at the point where defeat becomes inevitable to avoid a pointless move wasting a little bit of time. You let people do anything enough times and they'll end up micro-optimising every bit of wasted time out of the process, we're just like that.
@@Throckmorpheus Yeah, but then stalemate screwed it up. (Most stalemate positions would be losses if you won by capturing the king instead of by checkmate, because it would then be legal to move the king into check and lose.)
This turns chess into an army strategy puzzle game
The pawn double move is to speed up the game since without this rule, it takes a long time for pawns to come in contact with each other and early aggressive pawn play (including almost every gambit) becomes pretty much impossible. En passant fixes an unfortunate side effect of the double move rule, namely the ability to move past an opposing pawn to avoid an exchange, which if abused leads to very boring, closed positions where neither side can make progress because the centre is clogged with pawns that can no longer capture each other. With en passant, for two pawns on adjacent files to move past each other, one player must offer a trade and the other has the chance to accept it, meaning locked down positions only happen if both sides are okay with it.
For a dozen reasons none of this is relevant in Rubiks chess though.
Petition to add a piece that walls off it's side of the cube. Each side starts with one, and it would be a good mix between the walled mode while still allowing regular cross-board interactions.
10:26 5d chess with multiverse time travel
4:49 Noot🐧Alps🏔
Also my brain is melting from trying to process the pathways of the pieces
The Bishop should be allowed to teleport to the opposite face when it hits a corner. Something about stopping it dead in its tracks goes against the spirit of the game.
Bishops normally stop when they reach the edge of the board? In this case there isn't an *opposite* corner to a cube face, there are two opposing corners that meet at an edge to the tile the bishop is on. It wouldn't really make sense to have it somehow continue going.
@@tegdig77 1. Rooks can loop around so I don't understand why you're opposing letting bishops do the same thing?
2. The opposite face from the top of a cube is the bottom. When the bishop hits a corner, it just goes upside down to the opposite face and keeps going until it hits a corner again and that way it loops.
@@Tubeytime I'm not opposing Bishops moving from one face to the next, they can do that in this game as seen in the video and that's bow they should work 👍
I'm only saying that when it hits a *corner* that it shouldn't go to any other face because it's just a corner, it wouldn't make sense to given that there is only an edge beyond it, not another face.
Wouldn't make that the piece a bit overpowered? Entering the opponents side bypassing everything on the 4 side faces seems like it.
Alternatively, treat diagonal movement as moving two spaces in orthogonal axes at once per step. That way, when hitting a corner, you could move onto one face with one of the two and on the other face with the second, then continue moving from there. Basically, say black A1 is adjacent to red A1 and blue A1. Then the bishop on black B2 could move from black B2 to black A1, then from there over blue A1 to red A1 and continue to red B2 and beyond or vice versa to land on blue B2 and beyond.
i don't like the change to knights movement, because the "L" shape is just used to intuitivly explain the movement. However the knight moves like it doeas because it's filling up the spots that neither the rook or bishop could reach from that specific square
No, it actually does jump in an L shape, it’s just that the reason that definition was chosen was to allow it to go where the queen can’t
first time I've seen this series and he's talking about splatoon pieces. Never change, Cary.
There is actually a case in chess where you promote a pawn into a rook/bishop: when a queen would cause the game to end in stalemate.
But that’s such a niche case that I like the idea of not allowing queen (and amazon) promotions.
Old inklings movement was kinda funny, i hope you will add an option to change it back
tbh it wouldve been neat to have pawns first move have more options just cause now theres ways to move pawns without it counting as a move of the pawn, so as long as the hand moved the pawn you could save that move for later
No no keep the branching option, and give TRUE "5D chess with parallel dimension and time travel "
8:13 there *are* times to promote to rook or bishop instead of queen.
While queens are a typical a “more powerful” piece, they aren’t strictly superior. They attack more squares, but attacking more squares is not the win condition in chess, checkmate is, and attacking more squares isn’t always what you want.
The typical example for this is stalemate. It’s pretty easy to construct a scenario where promoting to queen causes stalemate while promoting to either rook or bishop doesn’t. These don’t happen very often in games, but they do happen.
More intricate scenarios also exist where promoting to queen allows the opponent to force you to play stalemate on a later turn, but those are hard to construct, and may be hard to notice over the board.
Now add time travel and quantum entangled pieces
I think that for the walled variant there should be a rule that lets you transform your most powerful unit into a hand if all of your hands are captured, since you would never be able to attack the enemy king without them
En passant makes total sense. A pawn is just protecting the path no matter if the enemy walks slowly or just happens to try to run for it.
It doesn't make sense if you take out the double start move, which indeed is quite arbitrary.
Don't worry, Cary. En passant and the two-tile-move thing only exist in chess to save time, It doesn't actually introduce any actually new moves.
That's why it only applies to the first time the piece moves. If both players are just going to move the same pawn twice at the start, Why make that take 4 turns, When you can just cut it in half?
And in that case, With the new double-move rule, En passant was introduced to say "No, You don't get to avoid capture by doing that, Because it would have been my turn, And I would have captured you."
2:38 what does "diagonal" mean to the bishop going around the corner anyway? Much like your knight behavior at the corner I think there might be some possible shenanigans depending on how you define diagonal. If it's two squares connected by a corner then you could theoretically jump a corner of the cube with a bishop. Alternately, think of diagonal as a very short knight's move of up-one-over-one and now a bishop could move to an adjacent face at a corner
That night was always confusing, even in the second dimension
7:43 I promote my pawn to a... PAWN!
The knight not being able to move like that originally made me instantly stop watching the video out of frustration
Do a "random wall" game, where only some edges have walls.
sometimes in chess there is a reason to underpromote your piece (choose rook or bishop over queen) and that is to avoid stale
mate
"there is no update 9" that's 11 updates then
it'd be cool to have a gamemode where the cube starts scrambled and an objective is to solve it. it could be a side thing like pawn promotion or one or both players could have it as a win condition. prolly only any fun on the 3x3 and other small cubes
at first i was like why rubick board but then i was like :O
this looks amazing! it just need a little finishing and add background and it is ready to go!
For the nootnoot being too strong, my first thought was to nerf it by keeping the old behavoir, but with a new rule where it can never touch the same color multiple times in the same move. So same idea, but it can never move more than 5 tiles away since there's only 6 colors total.
My grandad loves both rubix cubes and chess, I need to show him this!
While I initially thought it would be a good addition to include every way the knight can bend around those corners, I partly think that it might be better to limit the knight's moves to only the squares he can reach by doing *both* forms of his movement. So, if the knight can only reach a spot by doing 1 then 2, but not 2 then 1, then it isn't a valid move.
We want The Amazing Marble Race S3 Leg 10! 🙏
You should have called the splatoons inklings and the pingus octolings.
Fix this: Splatoons are called hands when checking a king
I would just call your additional piece The dragon.
1:43 unprototyped skaia session
Fun Fact: The ability for pawns to move 2 spaces was created to speed up the early game of chess. This is also why En Passant was invented, to fix the problem that this creates.
Suggestion: support for the colourblind, as a bonus makes the colourseers have an easier time reading the map
There should be up to 6 player mode (for each face)
The king would spawn on the center space of their color and be surrounded with all the other pieces in a consistent manner.
Good update. Pingu's inclusion is welcome. 🐧
While it makes the mechanic easier to understand from a user interface and tactics standpoint, I feel like having rotating tied exclusively to the hand pieces makes the mechanic feel isolated from the rest of the game, especially when the hand piece's only purpose is to interact with that one mechanic.
I think a better way to incorporate rotating would be to remove the hand pieces, and to instead have rotating be a mostly unrestricted action. It could be performed by selecting one of any of the tiles on the cube with right-click, and then have the player select one of four cardinal directions to rotate the tile in by 90°. To make doing versus not doing it a meaningful choice, I'd make it so a player can't move a piece and rotate a slice in the same turn. Overall, this should give rotating the same significance as in walled chess, but without reducing the mobility of every other piece.
Also, to give Splatoons more agency later in the game, I'd give them the ability to convert whatever tile they move to into the color of whatever tile they moved from. This allows them to be moved strategically to increase the amount of "turf" that's in their team's color, potentially reducing the mobility loss from the cube getting progressively scrambled. The Nooter can have a similar buff in the early game by giving them the ability to convert the color of the tile they move to into any random color that they didn't encounter on their path to it. This buff assumes the Nooter can move cardinally by one space in a color block like a Splatoon can in a color change.
8:15 "if the queen were an option, why would you ever pick a rook" stalemate, there are some positions where promoting to a queen can cause stalemate but promoting to a rook can lead to an eventual mate, im not 100% sure this is the case for rubiks chess, but its very likely
It's not the case, because kings are allowed to move into check, so stalemate is very unlikely, if possible at all, and having a queen instead of a rook is certainly not going to stalemate your opponent.
You should have knights be able to go over the walls, like how they can jump over pieces.
imagine if by promoting a pawn to a pawn you can create a clone of the pawn
Rocky getting into the final 6 in BFDI confuses me even more.
I mean he was kinda famous in bfdi
That's an oddly specific thing to bring up
@@FourPlushie he's literally a vomiting rock
@@BlockyFromBFB a vomiting rock that can vomit basically anything.
rocky slander in the comments, day ruined
Nootnoot on a 8x8 can go everywhere due to the fact its always alternating
"cuter" *shows revolting devilspawn*
9:46 I love this refrence to antimatter dimensions lol
omg how did I not notice that 😭
now we just need 5d rubix chess with time trawel
as an austrian i can confirm, we don't just have kangaroos, we also have penguins
I'm joking here... why not spawning pawns? Then introduce a minefield, and have parts of the cube explode when mines are not flagged in time by a minesweeper pawn, making the shape irregular and the moves even more complicated. Of course each pawn needs a backstory and a "damage" level. Also introduce a poisonous lizard: it has feet on multiple squares and it can walk on mines.
There should be a toggle that displays how much pieces each square is protected by
Or we could reference what the Knight's move actually is; closest space neither orthogonal nor diagonal
> What about Update 9? There is no Update 9.
Ah yes, Antimatter Dimensions
when i set the piece density in sandbox chess to a 3-digit decimal like 0.75, it just spawns 4 black amazons and it says white wins the game
I literally beg of you, please add alternate timelines and time travel. Please. Maybe as an alternate version. PLEASE.
Game mode idea: solver (feel free to change the name)
In Solver mode the cube starts off scrambled (using a cube scrambling algorithm) and you are only given hands and you can’t capture pieces as the goal is to unscrambled the cube and whoever makes the last turn that fully solves the cube wins
JUSTICE FOR UPDATE #9!!!!!
Do it! Add the 5D Chess mechanics! We need to go deeper!
8:13 Maybe people would promote to a weaker piece to avoid a stalemate.
Now fix bishops around corners
All sides of a corner are diagonal to each other (down + across = diagonal) so you actually should be able to attack the center tile with a bishop