The divider is necessary, when you can see exactly where the enemy king is, you could place the queen on the same file with a rook behind it to defend for an immediate checkmate. If you do this then the opponent would move the king when they see you do this, and then you might follow suit and the game would never begin
@@thejar3724, Aerxis is talking about placing kings from the special covered pieces set at first and then, when the placement is finished, opening, uncovering them. That way you can't initially place your pieces based on the position of the opponent's king
Find it interesting that lying isn’t really allowed in this version. You would think there’d be a whole thing where you could just bluff about “yea this pawn is totally a queen” and that kinda stuff. Like BS but for chess
@@avivyoukerharel2140 This feels more like a memory chess, rather than identity hidden chess. I would immediately change the rules for bluffing. Of course, you can't lie if they get caught of making illegal move, but you can lie and bluff your way to victory.
@@hamizannaruto yeah i understood that, but then why is there a whole rule about lying and punishments and stuff,they could just say that its illegal in this game.
The reason why you can't lie on this version is because the pieces location are randomized at the start of the game by you It would be too op if you could just make a queen move like a knight for the first few moves (while the opponent has no way of knowing that it's actually a queen) and then you just changed it back to queen's move last second for checkmate Bluff would make sense if the starting position is original chess and your opponent just have to remember which piece is where
I love the fact that chess developers left such a big modding potential, so when players get bored even after 1500 years of playing the game thay can still ad a fresh touch to it
I once played a game called medieval that was very similar to this except you were allowed to place your pieces anywhere on your side of the board, they all moved like kings, when two pieces clashed you would have to say the attacking piece's rank and the highest ranking one will eat the other. The highest ranking pieces was the mine, which couldn't move and could only be killed by the lowest raking piece. The goal of the game was to find the opponent king and kill it before they could do the same to yours
the castling might not be legal though; you could castle any two pieces so long as you arent caught, which appears to be part of the strategy in the game
@@TemphinFD iirc there was some chess gm that famously blundered a mate in 1, because while the move seemed good to him, he didn't realize opponent had a simple idea to mate. Basically even GMs forget to visualizer from opponent POV at times.
Hidden Identity Chess is kinda similar to another board game called "Game of the Generals", the different concept is that they never move in diagonals and only move in one box or step each move for each pieces. Pieces are eliminated by ranks. And the pieces will only be revealed when the game ended.
@@MGmirkin both games are quite similar in strategy and gameplay, yet the are differences 1. Stratego has miners and bombs. GOTG doesn’t 2. The spy in both games do the complete opposite. In GOTG, it takes out everyone but the Private (which can only kill Spy) In Stratego, Marshal can kill all but the Spy (which kills Marshal) 3. The flag can move in GOTG; Stratego’s flag is just permanently there Lastly, (I could be wrong but) there is no evidence that GOTG ripped off Stratego (Stratego came first);, it is said the spies were added in GOTG after rewatching James Bond movies Just my take on it :)
I was thinking that originally you could just win in one turn by putting the queen and rook on the same file but then if the king can be anywhere that doesn't really work. In the other variation where you can see the king, you already know to prepare for it. Enforcing fair play while being totally random seems like an interesting concept.
I think you've missed the part where they say that in the open kings variation you must use a divider screen to obscure king's placement which makes it impossible to prepare the immediate attack everytime. This variant won't be fair, however, because the available total control over piece placement leads to some positions having a stronger sacrificial attack for one of the players (you would really struggle to defend having a king in the corner with all of the opponents pieces pointed there basically from the start). The base variant mitigates this more by not having information about the king's placement so you wouldn't know right away to press the available attack. But not completely. Those positions will most probably be imbalanced anyway. Either way, the lack of information leads to a much more defensive game style because even if the attack is very beneficial to one player statistically the inability to calculate the outcome of the possible sacrifices reliably makes it a polarizing choice. The risk making it possible both to win and to lose quickly even if the latter is more probable
@@Aerxis, um, who asked? The person was discussing the balancing of the variant so I've supported their discussion. What do you add here with your "problem" talk except for toxicity?
@@Aerxis, well, it was a terrible attempt at humor and communication then. Because you've failed to account for other people not knowing the more obscure meaning of the phrase that can and most probably will be understood quite directly as a common passive aggressive remark.
Theres a lot of cool variations you can play with those pieces. A stratego version comes to mind, where you reveal the pieces before they move, then hide them again...
what about: - this same setup with the same pieces - youre allowed to make any move you want on your turn, legal or illegal - if a player believes the move their opponent just made was illegal, they may object to it. if the objection was correct, the one who performed the illegal move must undo the move, losing a turn. *however,* if the objection was incorrect and the move was legal, then the player who objected loses a turn, and their opponent moves again - you may only object to your opponents move immediately after it has been performed, and before you have made your next move - if you object to your opponents move, the two of you are allowed to discuss and give as many arguments as you wish about whether or not the move was illegal. you can reveal as much information about your pieces and knowledge as you want, but you must NEVER lie to your opponent. this goes on until the debate is settled promotion rules: - you can choose not to promote a pawn that gets to the other side of the board, but its an illegal move. - you can promote non-pawn pieces to any other piece (except king), including pawns, but this is also an illegal move. - you can choose to promote a pawn in the opposite side of the board even if it wasnt moved that turn. this is *not* an illegal move misc rules: - you are never required to show your opponent any of your pieces at any time during the game - there is no checkmate or stalemate. however, there *is* check, and any move that doesnt account for it is illegal, even if the one who moved didnt know they were in check - objecting to your oponents moves is never required - there is no limit to how often or how many times you can object to your opponents moves - kings and rooks lose their ability to castle legally as soon as they make any move, legal or illegal, even if its undone after an objection - if you promote or capture by en passant, you must announce it
istg every time i come up with a fun little idea for something like this i end up spending 2 hours refining it and writing a multiple paragraph essay about it in the yt comment section why am i like this anyway i hoped you liked it lmao name suggestions are welcome
@@versuzzero5335 yeah, its the only fair way to ensure no one is cheating. however it should be noted that the third party observer should not add anything to the discussion, only ensure that everything being said is true. if the players omit/overlook important information, they cant say anything about it. lastly, theyre not a judge, so its not a matter of convincing them that the move was legal/illegal, its a matter of convincing your opponent
@@airstep001 The Games of Generals, it was invented by a Filipino. Also known as "Salpakan". You can find it in supermarkets. It has the same concept of hidden pieces however slightly different to the rules of chess
Definitely some fun to be had here. I can already see players moving single spaces all over, saving diagonal movement or any long stretches for bigger plays or attempted trickery. Imagine managing to make a bishop look like it's a king! This would completely change the mind games that go on in a chess match.
So my thought is to always move kings like pawns, always move rooks one or two spaces forward unless you absolutely can’t, play bishops as though they are queens, play one or two pawns as though they are the king, and well horses are horses
Yeah, it seems like the most obfuscating way to play the early game is like you have 2 knights, 3 bishops, and 11 pawns (or 2 bishops and 12 pawns if you're more concerned about keeping your queen in the larger mix).
The funny thing is that you could use the default starting positions and it shouldn't change things, but I bet it would since someone is going to mix up that bishop and pawn that last moved 30 moves ago.
Inspired off this game, here is my own chess variant. Plays exactly like this (hidden identity, place anywhere you want) but with an added twist. After a turn, the opposing player can accuse your move as an illegal move. If it is, the piece of pawn is removed and a piece or pawn of the opponents choice is removed. If it’s not, YOU lose a piece or pawn of their choice. Same can happen with you. You can do whatever you want with the pieces but any move other than their intended move is risk of being caught and losing material. En passant is allowed and can be done on ANY piece or pawn but en passant can only be performed by a pawn. If a player suspects that en passant was not done by a pawn, they can accuse their opponent. Same rules apply, but if they win, they also get their taken piece back. If by chance you take the other person’s king during the aftermath of an illegal move, you do not take it, but instead it is now revealed for the rest of the game. However, if your KING gets caught doing an illegal move, you lose immediately.
This reminds me of the board game 'Game of Generals' where each piece can only move in the 4 adjacent squares, but the way they capture a piece is dictated by a ranking system.
I could see some interesting bluff potential here. Pick a bishop, rook, or queen to only ever move in single-step increments and play defensively with that piece, and try to trick the opponent into going after it, thinking it's your king.
I really like the idea, you can just bluff all the way though if you want and i think two GM's would have an absolute field day trying to be a poker player for once
If you're playing anyone intelligent, bluffing all the way through would either be impossible or not worth the added difficulty on your part. Bluffing in the early game is an absolutely great strategy, but, at some point, your rook that's been inching forward like a pawn should strike when it has an advantage.
Out of all the variants out there, this one seems to be the most practical one out there. I’d be willing to play this if there was a way to play it online.
I think it's cool that bluffing what your pieces are is a viable strategy in this game. You just have to make sure that the enemy player knows about this/also plays like this
I used to Have this exact game, but it was battlefield themed, not the videogame, just a stereotype medieval battlefield. Pieces were numbers with a little art piece on cardboard, slid into a fortress wall style holder to keep the numbers visible only to you Less movement if I remember correctly, I did wish we had more movement styles akin to chess, so I'd say this is the upgrade!
Its hard to encorperate cheating as a core mechanic at any low level of chess. Best way I see fit is that players should be HEAVILY encouraged to notate moves, each piece back should be given a unique identifier (swappable) so both players can keep a method of verification. If accused of illegal movement, the piece(s) in question is revealed, if the accusation is correct the accuser can kill any piece on the board (except a known starter king), and if it is not chosen the piece remains revealed. If the accusation is false, the accused can select 1 of the opponents pieces to be revealed, then 1 piece to be removed. As I see it, with this set of rules almost all lies will likely get caught out by the end of the game, so it isn't strongly encouraged, but since the punishment for getting caught is not too great, you can likely get more out of it by taking some risks and getting a free grab or 2 before they call you on it.
Looks similar to a boardgame I've had since I was a kid. I don't know what would be the English translation, but it works on the same system that you don't see the type of the enemy piece, you only see their back like in this video. There's a total of 40 pieces on the board, divided into cca 11 piece types/classes or whatever you want to call it. The main goal is similar to chess/this variant of chess where you have to find and capture the enemy's flag (which cannot be moved). The last thing worth mentioning is the "combat" system. Unlike in chess, most of the pieces aren't capable of taking out all of the enemy piece types. Essentially the pieces are rated in order of their strength (which is drawn on the board, left to right, from strongest to weakest) and while attacking, the attacker turns around the piece of the defender. If the defending piece is weaker than the attacking one, it is taken out of battle, if it's stronger, the attacking piece is removed instead and the defending piece is turned around once again. If both pieces are the same type they take each other out at the same time.
I feel, the rule about lying is really weird, because it requires that after you lied you admit to being found out. Which I feel is weird. I guess in official tournaments, this would work with someone checking the replay (maybe it could also work on PC), but in a general match it would just result in arguing if that piece really moved differently 10 turns back. But even then, what I feel would be necessary is some kind of way to mark your opponents pieces so you know what they can technically be. Of course, you can make mistakes there, but otherwise it would be really hard for even good players to remember the exact move order 10-20 turns later. I guess, you could say that this is the difference to the top players in the end, but if that is the case then the whole lying thing becomes even less of a real part of the game, because then you wouldn't risk lying if you know the opponent is able to remember this. Or the whole beginning of the game would just be a combination of random moves to make sure that the opponent can never keep track of you lying. But if you don't make progress, what's the point of lying?
"what's the point of lying?" You aren't supposed to lie in the first place. The pieces are only supposed to make legal moves. Players that take advantage of having their pieces hidden to make illegal moves automatically lose the game.
@@SgtSupaman But then you would lose the game immediately. The fact that you don't lose immediately and that the opponent needs to call you out for it is showing Tha lying is supposed to be a strategy.
@@Modie , your opponent has to call you out if you switch your cards in poker too, but that doesn't mean it is part of the strategy within the rules of the game. It is cheating, period. You are talking about a meta strategy by trying to loophole the rules to see what you can get away with. There is a difference.
@@SgtSupaman That's a bad example. You can immediately call someone out for switching cards by just catching them in the act. This is impossible here because you aren't able to tell if a move is wrong or not. For example: I move my knight like a rook the first time and then 7 moves later I move it like a knight. You can't call me out on the first one because you can't know yet that I made an illegal move and you can't call me out on the other one because that one is legal. So you have to call me out on the fact that this piece moved differently 7 moves before. And good luck doing that. It's literally impossible. It's like trying to say someone switched cards in poker after you lost. Then, no one will believe you anymore because it's too late to prove.
If all sixteen of your pieces move one space forward, like a pawn, then you already lost. They will know you made four illegal moves with your knights and bishops.
@@Sisyphos1312 , you don't have to accuse a piece of cheating, just a person. If the player makes more than one illegal move, they lose, regardless of which pieces.
I’m glad the set up is different. I was thinking “man this would be essentally pointless for grandmasters seeing most of them memorize the board anyway.”
What's fascinating is that the rule where an "already performed an illegal move" piece causes 2 pieces to be removed is fascinating. It's a gambit, can you wager 2 pieces to perform a super illegal move early on if it gives you enough advantage? You lose if you have been caught performing two illegal moves, but that means in every game, one illegal move is technically allowed so long as you're sneaky enough.
I was thinking that as well. In terms of materiel, it would be very hard for your opponent to make cheating to capture their queen with your pawn more costly to you than to them.
i think one of the most fascinating parts is that, as others in the comments pointed out, its impossible to truly know if you cheated if you make it ambiguous as to which pieces are which. one guy suggested moving all pieces as pawns, making it impossible to know which pieces are actually pawns, which means the opponent knows you're cheating, but can't point out a specific case to call out although, on the other hand, there's a 50% chance in this case for the opponent to just call a random piece as cheating with no repurcussions if they're wrong; perhaps there should be repurcussions for false accusations
@@nibbletrinnal2289 , doesn't matter if you know which piece made the illegal move. If you know two illegal moves were made (like all sixteen pieces stepping once forward meaning that four illegal moves were made by the knights and bishops), the opponent automatically loses. The spirit of the game is that no one should have to call cheating ever, because you should only be making legal moves. So, no, there shouldn't be any repercussions for accusing someone of cheating. Cheating is meant to be easy to weed out.
@@nibbletrinnal2289 They don't need to point a specific instance at a certain point. Bishops moving 1 ahead, Rooks at angles, Knights doing both. Only Pawns, and the King and Queen can do this.
You missed the rule about no checks and mates. There are no illegal moves. Unless you talk about cheating by moving pawns as queens for example, in that case that just part of the game
@@kkrup5395 I mean if you're caught twice it's an instant loss, so it's not really supposed to be part of the game Atleast that's how I understand it i could be wrong idk
I have two things I don't like about this. First is that castling should work the same as it does in 960 fischer random chess. In that variant, castling always moves the king and rook to the same squares. I believe this just works better. The next is that because of illegal moves, this would be better implemented on a website rather than in board game form. All of the rules about illegal moves are too complicated and only exist to make the game work, rather than to make it better. Players would have a tough time remembering whether an illegal move was made 20 or 30 moves ago.
2:23 "If a player performs more than one illegal move in a game" You can't really know when the opponent moved illegally unless you discovered them. So I think, "If a player discovered the opponent performs more than one illegal move in a game." But what if both of them did more than one illegal move and noone "discovered" it. This needs a third party as an observer, like in the "Game of the Generals". The current rules are too "trusting" that both players would only do one illegal move per game. When we did this, we had an observer, since it's a combination of "Chess" and "Generals"
Is it really that hard for two friends to just play this with an honor system? What’s the point of cheating and ruining the experience of a fun quirky board game with nothing on the line?
@@williamhrivnak7345 It's more fun to be crafty and have deceit as one of the main focus of these kind of games. I mean... It's main attraction is "hidden identity". So having a third party as observer is the best to stabilise the game.
Illegal moves should be disallowed, period. IE, players must be required to move their pieces appropriately to their type. If they intentionally don't, they should lose the match. Obviously, there's no real way to police this (aside from a 3rd party observer/mediator), so it would have to be 100% "honor system." But still...
so basically just checkers except you kill pieces and move in different ways. The idea of "check" and "checkmate" are so unique to chess that removing those ideas makes it just "move your pieces in unique ways and kill as many of the other as you can
I need to see a sample game. It seems too hard to bluff if taking a piece reveals it and gives a really harsh penalty. But on the other hand, not being able to directly challenge a bluff makes it weird, since you need to catch an inconsistency.
The point is just to make both players figure out and remember the other's pieces, not to cheat. You are supposed to play the pieces just like normal chess. That's why cheating twice results in an instant loss. You can legally bluff by moving a queen like a pawn until you want to surprise your opponent, but moving a pawn like a queen for a couple turns means you are cheating and lose the game.
@@gingeral253 , no, the queen can move like a pawn using legal queen moves, so it won't count as cheating even if it gets taken. That is why I said it is a legal bluff to use a queen like a pawn (as long as you don't try to en passant with it, as that would be an illegal move for a queen).
@@SgtSupaman Oh I understand. But that means the only pieces that benefit from this are the Queen and Bishop. Or maybe the rook. It would be a lot easier if I seen an example.
@@gingeral253 , the benefit is that the pieces stay hidden the entire game. Players will easily identify knights by their unique moves, but, when you are considering your next move, you have to remember where those knights were (as well as every other piece that you've identified thus far). Queens, rooks, and kings can all do the basic one-step move of a pawn. When queens, rooks, and bishops only take single steps in whichever direction, they can look like kings. There are plenty of legal bluffs that can be done in the early game to keep your pieces identity hidden until you get a good opening to strike.
Coup, but chess if you think someone has made an illegal move, delare so, and they reveal the piece if your right, that piece's move is undone, and is removed, this counts as their turn. if your wrong, the move is done, and the player gets to move again.
Interesting I wonder if a "Liars" Chess variant is possible. Set-up is the same but after a piece is moved the opponent is given the option to declare if it was an illegal move. If the opponent calls the move illegal and it was, that piece is revealed and taken off the board. If the opponent calls the move illegal but it was not, that player who moved gets an extra turn. Also the King has to be revealed at the start of the game. I hope that made sense 🤷♂
Seems unbalanced simply because you can place your pieces however you want to Not being able to see piece's identities isn't a big problem, since by seeing them move you can narrow what piece it is down a lot, and then you just have to memorize it, but people have been playing chess blind, and from experience I can say that it isn't too hard, so while it is a unique idea, the important part is the set up being up to the player
Castle with a rook and a pawn, and always move that pawn like a king => pretty sure a lot of people would think the pawn is the king :D Only if that pawn is captured, it will be revealed that this was actually a pawn. I'd say this strategy is pretty effective.
I feel like giving a second chance for illegal moves can make it more interesting. You can do an illegal move to throw your opponent off temporarily, or to capture a problematic piece (assuming their piece won’t be returned if, for example, you move a pawn like a knight to capture something).
This game already exists. Its a Filipino board game called Generals edit: althouggh the moveset arent at all like chess and its less detecting whether your opponent made an illegal move and more like battleships meets chess meets risk. Every piece has a rank where higher rank can capture only capture a lower rank. The objective of he game is to capture the flag (sort of the king) or succesfully bring your flag to the opponent's side of the board.
When you specify a punishment for breaking the rules, rule breaking becomes a cost benefit analysis. I could see a situation where "illegally" castling with two pieces that don't include the king is worth the risk of discovery and extra piece sacrafice to misdirect the opponent into chasing the wrong piece.
I feel like the only additionnal mindgames this might create is confusion about pawns/rooks or move everything you can one square at a time to confuse about the identity of the king which means the second variant doesn't look too good to me.
On a serious note, why don't you use the setup for chess960? What happens when both rooks are on the same rank? Doesn't castling give away which piece is your king and rook?
It would make a whole lot sense for both players' pieces to move however they want to keep the mystery because if the pieces use their standard moves that would ruin the mystery
this is a cool concept but i very much disagree with the rules about illegal moves. any illegal move should forfeit the game instead of these silly rules about punishments for breaking the rules
Trying to take the elements of Stratego and putting them into chess looks good on paper but in practice doesn't work too well. Of course castling would be extremely bad and the knights are going to be the first known piece due to the only piece with a unique move of L. I think that if you pay enough attention to the moves. You will be able to deduce which piece is which.
The divider is not necessary. Just place the covered king, then both players reveal their kings by turning them or replacing them with a normal king.
I see you're absolutely capable of making a great addition. That's a really good point and it's strange that the video creators don't account for it
The divider is necessary, when you can see exactly where the enemy king is, you could place the queen on the same file with a rook behind it to defend for an immediate checkmate.
If you do this then the opponent would move the king when they see you do this, and then you might follow suit and the game would never begin
@@thejar3724 it is obvious you didn't read or understand my proposal. Please read again.
@@thejar3724, Aerxis is talking about placing kings from the special covered pieces set at first and then, when the placement is finished, opening, uncovering them. That way you can't initially place your pieces based on the position of the opponent's king
@@Aerxis sorry I misread you’re right 😂
Find it interesting that lying isn’t really allowed in this version. You would think there’d be a whole thing where you could just bluff about “yea this pawn is totally a queen” and that kinda stuff. Like BS but for chess
pokerface: chess edition
Yeah i think it would be much more interesting
@@avivyoukerharel2140 This feels more like a memory chess, rather than identity hidden chess.
I would immediately change the rules for bluffing. Of course, you can't lie if they get caught of making illegal move, but you can lie and bluff your way to victory.
@@hamizannaruto yeah i understood that, but then why is there a whole rule about lying and punishments and stuff,they could just say that its illegal in this game.
The reason why you can't lie on this version is because the pieces location are randomized at the start of the game by you
It would be too op if you could just make a queen move like a knight for the first few moves (while the opponent has no way of knowing that it's actually a queen) and then you just changed it back to queen's move last second for checkmate
Bluff would make sense if the starting position is original chess and your opponent just have to remember which piece is where
I love the fact that chess developers left such a big modding potential, so when players get bored even after 1500 years of playing the game thay can still ad a fresh touch to it
Fr chess mods are cool
I once played a game called medieval that was very similar to this except you were allowed to place your pieces anywhere on your side of the board, they all moved like kings, when two pieces clashed you would have to say the attacking piece's rank and the highest ranking one will eat the other. The highest ranking pieces was the mine, which couldn't move and could only be killed by the lowest raking piece.
The goal of the game was to find the opponent king and kill it before they could do the same to yours
That reminds me of the game Stratego, very similar
Game of the generals?
i used to have a transformers version of that
I once played something similar in a class, except we were the pieces
@@midnight_blue_moon Yeah and you would run around, but if the spy (lowest) caught the general (highest) you lose.
I feel like castling is a terrible idea in this game because you automatically reveal the king and a rook by doing it.
More importantly, you can place your king and rook anywhere, so you can just place the king and rook as if you castled already.
the castling might not be legal though; you could castle any two pieces so long as you arent caught, which appears to be part of the strategy in the game
Like you fake castle pawn with pawn and now opponent will focus to that pawn
If they already discovered it basically has the defensive purpose anyway
@@nibbletrinnal2289 but you van only castle king and rook no other
The one time where playing chess in front of a mirror actually gives you an upper hand
Technically, playing normal chess in front of a mirror helps you see from the opponent's POV, which is actually helpful in avoiding blunders
That would give your enemy an upper hand.
Manstercot
@@byeguyssry i feel like this only applies at lower levels before the visualization becomes strong.
@@TemphinFD iirc there was some chess gm that famously blundered a mate in 1, because while the move seemed good to him, he didn't realize opponent had a simple idea to mate.
Basically even GMs forget to visualizer from opponent POV at times.
Having the pieces in any starting position actually could mean there is a meta in this game
frfr
There’s a meta in chess
Sure, but then why not run a strategy to counter the meta?
@@alex2005z it doesnt have a counter strategy thats why its meta
@@Idk_a_name_88 it doesnt mean that it doesnt have counters. It just means its the best overall strategy
Hidden Identity Chess is kinda similar to another board game called "Game of the Generals", the different concept is that they never move in diagonals and only move in one box or step each move for each pieces. Pieces are eliminated by ranks. And the pieces will only be revealed when the game ended.
AKA, "Stratego."
@@MGmirkin both games are quite similar in strategy and gameplay, yet the are differences
1. Stratego has miners and bombs. GOTG doesn’t
2. The spy in both games do the complete opposite. In GOTG, it takes out everyone but the Private (which can only kill Spy) In Stratego, Marshal can kill all but the Spy (which kills Marshal)
3. The flag can move in GOTG; Stratego’s flag is just permanently there
Lastly, (I could be wrong but) there is no evidence that GOTG ripped off Stratego (Stratego came first);, it is said the spies were added in GOTG after rewatching James Bond movies
Just my take on it :)
@@niceColdWuhtaThe Marshal can kill the Spy in Stratego, but ONLY if the Marshal is the attacker.
i actually love how normally illegal moves are actually allowed to be played, you just have a high risk in doing so.
I was thinking that originally you could just win in one turn by putting the queen and rook on the same file but then if the king can be anywhere that doesn't really work. In the other variation where you can see the king, you already know to prepare for it.
Enforcing fair play while being totally random seems like an interesting concept.
I think you've missed the part where they say that in the open kings variation you must use a divider screen to obscure king's placement which makes it impossible to prepare the immediate attack everytime.
This variant won't be fair, however, because the available total control over piece placement leads to some positions having a stronger sacrificial attack for one of the players (you would really struggle to defend having a king in the corner with all of the opponents pieces pointed there basically from the start).
The base variant mitigates this more by not having information about the king's placement so you wouldn't know right away to press the available attack. But not completely. Those positions will most probably be imbalanced anyway.
Either way, the lack of information leads to a much more defensive game style because even if the attack is very beneficial to one player statistically the inability to calculate the outcome of the possible sacrifices reliably makes it a polarizing choice. The risk making it possible both to win and to lose quickly even if the latter is more probable
@@a_wild_Kirillian I think you missed the part where that's his problem....
@@Aerxis, um, who asked? The person was discussing the balancing of the variant so I've supported their discussion. What do you add here with your "problem" talk except for toxicity?
@@a_wild_Kirillian I add a reference to "the human spider", a joke you missed.
@@Aerxis, well, it was a terrible attempt at humor and communication then. Because you've failed to account for other people not knowing the more obscure meaning of the phrase that can and most probably will be understood quite directly as a common passive aggressive remark.
Theres a lot of cool variations you can play with those pieces. A stratego version comes to mind, where you reveal the pieces before they move, then hide them again...
what about:
- this same setup with the same pieces
- youre allowed to make any move you want on your turn, legal or illegal
- if a player believes the move their opponent just made was illegal, they may object to it. if the objection was correct, the one who performed the illegal move must undo the move, losing a turn. *however,* if the objection was incorrect and the move was legal, then the player who objected loses a turn, and their opponent moves again
- you may only object to your opponents move immediately after it has been performed, and before you have made your next move
- if you object to your opponents move, the two of you are allowed to discuss and give as many arguments as you wish about whether or not the move was illegal. you can reveal as much information about your pieces and knowledge as you want, but you must NEVER lie to your opponent. this goes on until the debate is settled
promotion rules:
- you can choose not to promote a pawn that gets to the other side of the board, but its an illegal move.
- you can promote non-pawn pieces to any other piece (except king), including pawns, but this is also an illegal move.
- you can choose to promote a pawn in the opposite side of the board even if it wasnt moved that turn. this is *not* an illegal move
misc rules:
- you are never required to show your opponent any of your pieces at any time during the game
- there is no checkmate or stalemate. however, there *is* check, and any move that doesnt account for it is illegal, even if the one who moved didnt know they were in check
- objecting to your oponents moves is never required
- there is no limit to how often or how many times you can object to your opponents moves
- kings and rooks lose their ability to castle legally as soon as they make any move, legal or illegal, even if its undone after an objection
- if you promote or capture by en passant, you must announce it
istg every time i come up with a fun little idea for something like this i end up spending 2 hours refining it and writing a multiple paragraph essay about it in the yt comment section why am i like this
anyway i hoped you liked it lmao
name suggestions are welcome
@@paulamarina04
Feels like there should be a third party to make sure the players don't lie too much.
Just like "Game of the Generals" board game...
@@versuzzero5335 yeah, its the only fair way to ensure no one is cheating. however it should be noted that the third party observer should not add anything to the discussion, only ensure that everything being said is true. if the players omit/overlook important information, they cant say anything about it. lastly, theyre not a judge, so its not a matter of convincing them that the move was legal/illegal, its a matter of convincing your opponent
@@paulamarina04
Yes. That's exactly what I'm thinking.
The revealed kings version could be great fun, probably the second best variant I've heard of after Chess+
It's like the combination of Games of Generals, a Filipino board game, and Chess in a single board game. Awesome!
Wait what Filipino board game please tell me the only Filipino board game I know is the one with the rocks and like 16 holes
@@airstep001 The Games of Generals, it was invented by a Filipino. Also known as "Salpakan". You can find it in supermarkets. It has the same concept of hidden pieces however slightly different to the rules of chess
My understanding is that it's equivalent to Stratego
salpakan my beloved
Thats litterally what i was thinking
So it's Stratego: Chess Edition. I like the idea of players trying to get away with cheating. It really comes down to a game of memory.
I love Stratego!
@@umathewu I prefer stratego :P
Definitely some fun to be had here. I can already see players moving single spaces all over, saving diagonal movement or any long stretches for bigger plays or attempted trickery. Imagine managing to make a bishop look like it's a king! This would completely change the mind games that go on in a chess match.
So my thought is to always move kings like pawns, always move rooks one or two spaces forward unless you absolutely can’t, play bishops as though they are queens, play one or two pawns as though they are the king, and well horses are horses
Or play Queens like they're only Bishops [or only Rooks]. Until you need to use them otherwise, strategically. :P
Yeah, it seems like the most obfuscating way to play the early game is like you have 2 knights, 3 bishops, and 11 pawns (or 2 bishops and 12 pawns if you're more concerned about keeping your queen in the larger mix).
The funny thing is that you could use the default starting positions and it shouldn't change things, but I bet it would since someone is going to mix up that bishop and pawn that last moved 30 moves ago.
The possibilities of strategies that can be made in this one is crazy. Really cool stuff
"In a game of chess, you can never let your adversary see your pieces"
Inspired off this game, here is my own chess variant.
Plays exactly like this (hidden identity, place anywhere you want) but with an added twist. After a turn, the opposing player can accuse your move as an illegal move. If it is, the piece of pawn is removed and a piece or pawn of the opponents choice is removed. If it’s not, YOU lose a piece or pawn of their choice. Same can happen with you. You can do whatever you want with the pieces but any move other than their intended move is risk of being caught and losing material. En passant is allowed and can be done on ANY piece or pawn but en passant can only be performed by a pawn. If a player suspects that en passant was not done by a pawn, they can accuse their opponent. Same rules apply, but if they win, they also get their taken piece back. If by chance you take the other person’s king during the aftermath of an illegal move, you do not take it, but instead it is now revealed for the rest of the game. However, if your KING gets caught doing an illegal move, you lose immediately.
you can just take the king and win before challenging
Like the card game cheat?
This reminds me of the board game 'Game of Generals' where each piece can only move in the 4 adjacent squares, but the way they capture a piece is dictated by a ranking system.
I could see some interesting bluff potential here. Pick a bishop, rook, or queen to only ever move in single-step increments and play defensively with that piece, and try to trick the opponent into going after it, thinking it's your king.
games of the generals but more chesssy
i
This is Generals, this is literally just Generals
So chess, but Stratego
i was thinking that
Yep, Stratego-Chess.
I really like the idea, you can just bluff all the way though if you want and i think two GM's would have an absolute field day trying to be a poker player for once
If you're playing anyone intelligent, bluffing all the way through would either be impossible or not worth the added difficulty on your part. Bluffing in the early game is an absolutely great strategy, but, at some point, your rook that's been inching forward like a pawn should strike when it has an advantage.
What a great way to make it more mind boggling
I really like this variant of Chess. I will pick it up for sure.
Out of all the variants out there, this one seems to be the most practical one out there. I’d be willing to play this if there was a way to play it online.
I think it's cool that bluffing what your pieces are is a viable strategy in this game. You just have to make sure that the enemy player knows about this/also plays like this
ooh, this variant reminds me a lot of Game of the Generals. can you guys do a video on that one too?
AKA, "Stratego" in the USA...
I used to Have this exact game, but it was battlefield themed, not the videogame, just a stereotype medieval battlefield. Pieces were numbers with a little art piece on cardboard, slid into a fortress wall style holder to keep the numbers visible only to you
Less movement if I remember correctly, I did wish we had more movement styles akin to chess, so I'd say this is the upgrade!
That sounds like "Stratego," which I was very good at, as a kid.
This game actually reminded me of game of the generals
you can play it online by allowing starting pos self-assembly and making opponent's pieces have a 1x1 texture
I love this variation so much!
This is like Stratego! And I love it!
stratego was my first thought too
This is just Stratego with chess pieces, Neat!
Yep...
Basically Chess combined with Stratego one of my other favorite games 💞
game of the generals but in chess:
Its hard to encorperate cheating as a core mechanic at any low level of chess. Best way I see fit is that players should be HEAVILY encouraged to notate moves, each piece back should be given a unique identifier (swappable) so both players can keep a method of verification.
If accused of illegal movement, the piece(s) in question is revealed, if the accusation is correct the accuser can kill any piece on the board (except a known starter king), and if it is not chosen the piece remains revealed.
If the accusation is false, the accused can select 1 of the opponents pieces to be revealed, then 1 piece to be removed.
As I see it, with this set of rules almost all lies will likely get caught out by the end of the game, so it isn't strongly encouraged, but since the punishment for getting caught is not too great, you can likely get more out of it by taking some risks and getting a free grab or 2 before they call you on it.
I love your videos!
Looks similar to a boardgame I've had since I was a kid. I don't know what would be the English translation, but it works on the same system that you don't see the type of the enemy piece, you only see their back like in this video.
There's a total of 40 pieces on the board, divided into cca 11 piece types/classes or whatever you want to call it. The main goal is similar to chess/this variant of chess where you have to find and capture the enemy's flag (which cannot be moved).
The last thing worth mentioning is the "combat" system. Unlike in chess, most of the pieces aren't capable of taking out all of the enemy piece types. Essentially the pieces are rated in order of their strength (which is drawn on the board, left to right, from strongest to weakest) and while attacking, the attacker turns around the piece of the defender. If the defending piece is weaker than the attacking one, it is taken out of battle, if it's stronger, the attacking piece is removed instead and the defending piece is turned around once again. If both pieces are the same type they take each other out at the same time.
Sounds like Stratego?
is it stratego
Stratego. Played it all the time as a kid,and kicked @$$ most of the time.
Just looked up the suggestions that the people told me in the replies. Yup, it's "Stratego". Ty everyone.
I feel, the rule about lying is really weird, because it requires that after you lied you admit to being found out. Which I feel is weird. I guess in official tournaments, this would work with someone checking the replay (maybe it could also work on PC), but in a general match it would just result in arguing if that piece really moved differently 10 turns back.
But even then, what I feel would be necessary is some kind of way to mark your opponents pieces so you know what they can technically be. Of course, you can make mistakes there, but otherwise it would be really hard for even good players to remember the exact move order 10-20 turns later. I guess, you could say that this is the difference to the top players in the end, but if that is the case then the whole lying thing becomes even less of a real part of the game, because then you wouldn't risk lying if you know the opponent is able to remember this. Or the whole beginning of the game would just be a combination of random moves to make sure that the opponent can never keep track of you lying. But if you don't make progress, what's the point of lying?
Agreed, feels like this would be better played on a computer or with a referee that can enforce a no-lying rule.
"what's the point of lying?" You aren't supposed to lie in the first place. The pieces are only supposed to make legal moves. Players that take advantage of having their pieces hidden to make illegal moves automatically lose the game.
@@SgtSupaman
But then you would lose the game immediately. The fact that you don't lose immediately and that the opponent needs to call you out for it is showing Tha lying is supposed to be a strategy.
@@Modie , your opponent has to call you out if you switch your cards in poker too, but that doesn't mean it is part of the strategy within the rules of the game. It is cheating, period. You are talking about a meta strategy by trying to loophole the rules to see what you can get away with. There is a difference.
@@SgtSupaman
That's a bad example. You can immediately call someone out for switching cards by just catching them in the act. This is impossible here because you aren't able to tell if a move is wrong or not. For example: I move my knight like a rook the first time and then 7 moves later I move it like a knight. You can't call me out on the first one because you can't know yet that I made an illegal move and you can't call me out on the other one because that one is legal. So you have to call me out on the fact that this piece moved differently 7 moves before. And good luck doing that. It's literally impossible. It's like trying to say someone switched cards in poker after you lost. Then, no one will believe you anymore because it's too late to prove.
Keep up the good work, and merry Christmas
Every piece: moves like a pawn
Enemy: You sure you’re not only using pawn right?
Me: Yes🙂
If all sixteen of your pieces move one space forward, like a pawn, then you already lost. They will know you made four illegal moves with your knights and bishops.
@@SgtSupaman just do it for all (except bishops and knights) pieces
@@SgtSupaman they wont know which pieces to accuse of cheating tho
@@Sisyphos1312 , you don't have to accuse a piece of cheating, just a person. If the player makes more than one illegal move, they lose, regardless of which pieces.
@SgtSupaman oh yeah guess I didnt quite listen to that
Sounds like a weird mix of Stratego and chess, my favorites!
This is fog chess but the fog tiles cover your enemy pieces
... There's fog chess?
@@vioslavia Fog of war chess, to be precise. You can only see the squares that your pieces (and pawns) can see/move to.
@@widmo206 oh... Gonna have to check that out. Might I invite you to check out Tyranny The Chess Card Game?
Thank god i commented on time
@@tango_mondo5751 thank you. I had forgotten about that
I’m glad the set up is different. I was thinking “man this would be essentally pointless for grandmasters seeing most of them memorize the board anyway.”
What's fascinating is that the rule where an "already performed an illegal move" piece causes 2 pieces to be removed is fascinating. It's a gambit, can you wager 2 pieces to perform a super illegal move early on if it gives you enough advantage? You lose if you have been caught performing two illegal moves, but that means in every game, one illegal move is technically allowed so long as you're sneaky enough.
I was thinking that as well. In terms of materiel, it would be very hard for your opponent to make cheating to capture their queen with your pawn more costly to you than to them.
i think one of the most fascinating parts is that, as others in the comments pointed out, its impossible to truly know if you cheated if you make it ambiguous as to which pieces are which. one guy suggested moving all pieces as pawns, making it impossible to know which pieces are actually pawns, which means the opponent knows you're cheating, but can't point out a specific case to call out
although, on the other hand, there's a 50% chance in this case for the opponent to just call a random piece as cheating with no repurcussions if they're wrong; perhaps there should be repurcussions for false accusations
@@nibbletrinnal2289 , doesn't matter if you know which piece made the illegal move. If you know two illegal moves were made (like all sixteen pieces stepping once forward meaning that four illegal moves were made by the knights and bishops), the opponent automatically loses. The spirit of the game is that no one should have to call cheating ever, because you should only be making legal moves. So, no, there shouldn't be any repercussions for accusing someone of cheating. Cheating is meant to be easy to weed out.
@@nibbletrinnal2289 i like the idea of this, a complete madhatter strategy, a full on gamble with high payoff. love it.
@@nibbletrinnal2289 They don't need to point a specific instance at a certain point. Bishops moving 1 ahead, Rooks at angles, Knights doing both. Only Pawns, and the King and Queen can do this.
BRO I NEED THIS
A Literal NO U! 1:02
you should cover games of the general, it's similar
I feel like it would be very difficult to follow piece movement to ensure no illegal moves are ever made.
You missed the rule about no checks and mates. There are no illegal moves. Unless you talk about cheating by moving pawns as queens for example, in that case that just part of the game
@@kkrup5395 I mean if you're caught twice it's an instant loss, so it's not really supposed to be part of the game
Atleast that's how I understand it i could be wrong idk
I have two things I don't like about this. First is that castling should work the same as it does in 960 fischer random chess. In that variant, castling always moves the king and rook to the same squares. I believe this just works better. The next is that because of illegal moves, this would be better implemented on a website rather than in board game form. All of the rules about illegal moves are too complicated and only exist to make the game work, rather than to make it better. Players would have a tough time remembering whether an illegal move was made 20 or 30 moves ago.
2:23
"If a player performs more than one illegal move in a game"
You can't really know when the opponent moved illegally unless you discovered them.
So I think, "If a player discovered the opponent performs more than one illegal move in a game." But what if both of them did more than one illegal move and noone "discovered" it.
This needs a third party as an observer, like in the "Game of the Generals".
The current rules are too "trusting" that both players would only do one illegal move per game.
When we did this, we had an observer, since it's a combination of "Chess" and "Generals"
I think Triple S Games haven't done "Games of the Generals" how to play yet...
Or just allow cheating like most of the comments seem to want. Adds more fun to the game when you are trying to guess the players illegal moves.
Is it really that hard for two friends to just play this with an honor system? What’s the point of cheating and ruining the experience of a fun quirky board game with nothing on the line?
@@williamhrivnak7345
It's more fun to be crafty and have deceit as one of the main focus of these kind of games.
I mean...
It's main attraction is "hidden identity". So having a third party as observer is the best to stabilise the game.
Illegal moves should be disallowed, period. IE, players must be required to move their pieces appropriately to their type. If they intentionally don't, they should lose the match.
Obviously, there's no real way to police this (aside from a 3rd party observer/mediator), so it would have to be 100% "honor system." But still...
so basically just checkers except you kill pieces and move in different ways. The idea of "check" and "checkmate" are so unique to chess that removing those ideas makes it just "move your pieces in unique ways and kill as many of the other as you can
This seems a lot like game of the generals
cool mix of stratego and chess
I need to see a sample game. It seems too hard to bluff if taking a piece reveals it and gives a really harsh penalty. But on the other hand, not being able to directly challenge a bluff makes it weird, since you need to catch an inconsistency.
The point is just to make both players figure out and remember the other's pieces, not to cheat. You are supposed to play the pieces just like normal chess. That's why cheating twice results in an instant loss. You can legally bluff by moving a queen like a pawn until you want to surprise your opponent, but moving a pawn like a queen for a couple turns means you are cheating and lose the game.
@@SgtSupaman That’s an issue, since if they catch the inconsistency, the Queen is effectively a pawn that loses you a piece when taken.
@@gingeral253 , no, the queen can move like a pawn using legal queen moves, so it won't count as cheating even if it gets taken. That is why I said it is a legal bluff to use a queen like a pawn (as long as you don't try to en passant with it, as that would be an illegal move for a queen).
@@SgtSupaman Oh I understand. But that means the only pieces that benefit from this are the Queen and Bishop. Or maybe the rook. It would be a lot easier if I seen an example.
@@gingeral253 , the benefit is that the pieces stay hidden the entire game. Players will easily identify knights by their unique moves, but, when you are considering your next move, you have to remember where those knights were (as well as every other piece that you've identified thus far). Queens, rooks, and kings can all do the basic one-step move of a pawn. When queens, rooks, and bishops only take single steps in whichever direction, they can look like kings. There are plenty of legal bluffs that can be done in the early game to keep your pieces identity hidden until you get a good opening to strike.
Coup, but chess
if you think someone has made an illegal move, delare so, and they reveal the piece
if your right, that piece's move is undone, and is removed, this counts as their turn.
if your wrong, the move is done, and the player gets to move again.
Isn't this makes castling useless? since it could expose your king position?
Interesting
I wonder if a "Liars" Chess variant is possible.
Set-up is the same but after a piece is moved the opponent is given the option to declare if it was an illegal move. If the opponent calls the move illegal and it was, that piece is revealed and taken off the board. If the opponent calls the move illegal but it was not, that player who moved gets an extra turn. Also the King has to be revealed at the start of the game.
I hope that made sense 🤷♂
Seems unbalanced simply because you can place your pieces however you want to
Not being able to see piece's identities isn't a big problem, since by seeing them move you can narrow what piece it is down a lot, and then you just have to memorize it, but people have been playing chess blind, and from experience I can say that it isn't too hard, so while it is a unique idea, the important part is the set up being up to the player
That just part of the fun, you could engage in some trickery, like pretending the queen is a pawn and striking a piece you suspect to be the king.
@@IndaBlood yeah but there's only so much you can do with that
this suddenly makes me want to play the game of the generals
Its interesting that you can legally make more than 1 illegal move if your opponent just has a really, really, bad memory
Technically, in regular chess, you can still do this, but your opponent's memory has to be so bad they forget how to play chess
2:41 Or just turn the king token around
Castle with a rook and a pawn, and always move that pawn like a king => pretty sure a lot of people would think the pawn is the king :D
Only if that pawn is captured, it will be revealed that this was actually a pawn. I'd say this strategy is pretty effective.
this sounds fun and i want to try it.
This is just stratego with extra steps
I read the title as "Hidden Identity Crisis" and I was like "that's so me"
First time i hear you raise the voice in the intro. Also nice video!
Thanks!
this looks so fun
Stratego+chess… who is the mad lad that think about it
I usually don't like chess, but this is pretty good.
I feel like giving a second chance for illegal moves can make it more interesting. You can do an illegal move to throw your opponent off temporarily, or to capture a problematic piece (assuming their piece won’t be returned if, for example, you move a pawn like a knight to capture something).
However, if the opponent guesses where the king is, game over.
I really love that an illegal move becomes a valid risk reward tactic.
This game already exists. Its a Filipino board game called Generals
edit: althouggh the moveset arent at all like chess and its less detecting whether your opponent made an illegal move and more like battleships meets chess meets risk. Every piece has a rank where higher rank can capture only capture a lower rank. The objective of he game is to capture the flag (sort of the king) or succesfully bring your flag to the opponent's side of the board.
This is very similar to the game Stratego, really fun board game
When you specify a punishment for breaking the rules, rule breaking becomes a cost benefit analysis. I could see a situation where "illegally" castling with two pieces that don't include the king is worth the risk of discovery and extra piece sacrafice to misdirect the opponent into chasing the wrong piece.
I feel like the only additionnal mindgames this might create is confusion about pawns/rooks or move everything you can one square at a time to confuse about the identity of the king which means the second variant doesn't look too good to me.
Kid: Mom can we get Stratego
Mom: no we have Stratego at home
Stratego at home:
What are the rules on il Vaticano?
On a serious note, why don't you use the setup for chess960? What happens when both rooks are on the same rank? Doesn't castling give away which piece is your king and rook?
Strateguess?
Pretty great idea of a game, similar to Games of the Generals board game with their unidentified pieces.
And Stratego.
What's interesting is that the Stratego-type games (includign chinese Army Chess) were kept alive, but pretty much forgotten here.
This is freaking cool
Oooh so its Stratego in disguise
We really be out here making Chess into Stratego.
I'm down for it.
to play Cemer, set up like normal, use normal pawns, but hidden identity pieces
also, instead of using a divider for that second version, you could just place it, but then remove the kings and replace them in the same place
Isn't this the concept of "The Generals"?
The "Place a mirror behind your opponent to see their pieces" meme is actually real now
Add a host is also a good idea to keep identity hidden and prevent illegal move.
It would make a whole lot sense for both players' pieces to move however they want to keep the mystery because if the pieces use their standard moves that would ruin the mystery
this is a cool concept but i very much disagree with the rules about illegal moves. any illegal move should forfeit the game instead of these silly rules about punishments for breaking the rules
This is a chess variant inspired by "Game of the Generals". The board game features mechanics from this particular game.
this reminds me of that one level in chesscraft where black's back row is made of ghosts
Stratigo meets chess.
this made me remember a game called games of the general
cool, now we can finally use the "just place a big mirror behind the opponent" strategy
Trying to take the elements of Stratego and putting them into chess looks good on paper but in practice doesn't work too well. Of course castling would be extremely bad and the knights are going to be the first known piece due to the only piece with a unique move of L. I think that if you pay enough attention to the moves. You will be able to deduce which piece is which.