Perhaps try giving the checkers and Orthagonal hop- If a checker on black is next to a piece on white, and the black space beyond is empty, the checker can jump from black square to black square, attacking the white square. (this situation would never come up in checkers, because if a checker is on black, ALL checkers would be on black and there's nothing to jump) That would give a checker 3 (possibly 5?) squares it could attack. I also vaguely recall a checkers move where you could jump your own pieces to reach a position you could jump the enemy. I recall that move not taking your own pieces. That is, a checker behind another checker can jump it, then get a second jump over a pawn, or whatever, and only the pawn is removed.
One other possibility: :Red and black are teaming up on chess. The checkers on white and the checkers on black are on different teams, and each team gets a move on Checker's turn.
- chess for next generation: Normal chess but each player has 8 options to start the game with an evolution concept Pawn evolution: can advance 2 squares in any condition and also move back 1 and 2 squares and captures diagonally backwards Can capture en passant anywhere and even in response to a backwards advancing Knight evolution: can move second time optionally (only moving twice with no capturing in either of the 2 moves) Bishop evolution: can move jumping through a piece diagonally (no capture) Rook evolution: can shoot a piece optionally (capture without moving) Queen evolution: can move by a bounce diagonally (can't capture by bouncing diagonally ) can't bounce twice. Starter Options: 1-evolve c,d,e,f pawns 2-evolve 2 knights and light squares bishop 3- evolve 2 knights and dark squares bishop 4- evolve 2 bishops and b knight 5- evolve 2 bishops and g knight 6- evolve rooks 7- evolve Queen 8- no evolution, with extra knights on c3,f3 to compensate Each player doesn't know the other,s starter Option until they start to play.
I'mma go with the pawn evolution. It'll likely make it more risky for the opponent to use minor/major pieces to capture pawns if they go diagonal behind the pawn.
They kinda do that but they don't en passant other then pawns so it's kinda not that defensive @@Sainttheslugcat Other options might also be tough to counter especially minor pieces evolution I guess they are meta in my pov idk...
@@Sainttheslugcat😂also rook evolution is a lil bit like high risk high reward You wanna survive the opening and in the middle game it will get crazy 🤣
En passant makes some sense. Imagine if you wanted your pawn to go by opponent's pawn without a capture. When they move a pawn on the 4th rank and your pawn still hasn't moved, you could just escape being captured by pushing it two squares. So in some local situations where you wanted your pawn to be safe from other pawn by making double push, this rule excludes that (it's not forced but gives a tactical change).
Remove forced captures, make checkers move backwards too, and also make them move orthogonally, rather than diagonally (I think some checkers versions are like that)
@@ArtemSayapov that's exactly why he's buffing checkers pieces and nerfing chess pieces without changing too much of the game. Removing forced captures and letting them capture backwards may be a valid argument, but not letting them move orthogonally as checkers are designed to move diagonally, and they wouldn't be distinct from chess's pawns. And in addition to what another commenter has said, adding en passant for checkers might be as beneficial as removing the former two suggestions that you mentioned.
@JustAnotherCommenter I personally agree with this as not having force captures is how my school does checkers here although going backwards ruins the point of getting a king so if he does do that he should make the king like it is in the Chinese version (forgive me if I got the type wrong
2:52 Actually I came from that unusual game you're making and it's a surprise for me it's not the main content here😅 At this point I think it's obvious that checkers are just trash pieces. They are completely incapable of attacking because in order for that they have to come closer. And they cannot do that without losing the defense. Checkers are so hopeless no quantity (and additional features) for quality can fix that.
I absolutely don't understand why at 6:06 you didn't take on e4 after taking on c4 in the same move. According to the checkers rules that I know, that is not only a possible move but an obligatory one. Checkers can move only forward, but they do capture backwads, at the very least they definitely do when it's a part of a combination of consequtive captures. And the captures are forced, if you have multiple continuations of a combination you can choose which one you follow, but you have to follow it through to the last capturable piece. The multiple capture combinations are not only at the core of this game, but they should actually be one strong asset for the checkers side in your game. Your checker should had gone b5 -> d3 -> f5 and captured both pawns on c4 and e4. This in my opinion is absolutely crucial. Also, not a big fan of the diamond formation rule. I guess you had your reasons, though from what I'd seen you seem pretty good at finding new, alternative solutions to your problems, so I hope you'll find a different one for this.
I see. Well, then maybe consider mixing it up with the international rules a little, like in this one specific case. It looks like allowing the checkers to capture backwards would strenghten them up a lot, and that seems to be the main issue since the beggining of your project, that they're just naturally weaker. Shouldn't be all that "against the nature of the game" if it's the international rules, and it just makes sense for this game, otherwise a chess side's infiltration like the one that happaned here is extremely deadly. Btw tbh I don't know which version I played, it seems I'm familiar with the non-American rules, but I'm almost sure I played on a 8x8 board, which seems not to be the international standard.
Add en passant for checkers!!!
he added en diamant (or however you spell it)
Perhaps try giving the checkers and Orthagonal hop- If a checker on black is next to a piece on white, and the black space beyond is empty, the checker can jump from black square to black square, attacking the white square. (this situation would never come up in checkers, because if a checker is on black, ALL checkers would be on black and there's nothing to jump)
That would give a checker 3 (possibly 5?) squares it could attack.
I also vaguely recall a checkers move where you could jump your own pieces to reach a position you could jump the enemy. I recall that move not taking your own pieces.
That is, a checker behind another checker can jump it, then get a second jump over a pawn, or whatever, and only the pawn is removed.
One other possibility: :Red and black are teaming up on chess. The checkers on white and the checkers on black are on different teams, and each team gets a move on Checker's turn.
- chess for next generation:
Normal chess but each player has 8 options to start the game with an evolution concept
Pawn evolution: can advance 2 squares in any condition and also move back 1 and 2 squares and captures diagonally backwards
Can capture en passant anywhere and even in response to a backwards advancing
Knight evolution: can move second time optionally (only moving twice with no capturing in either of the 2 moves)
Bishop evolution: can move jumping through a piece diagonally (no capture)
Rook evolution: can shoot a piece optionally (capture without moving)
Queen evolution: can move by a bounce diagonally (can't capture by bouncing diagonally ) can't bounce twice.
Starter Options:
1-evolve c,d,e,f pawns
2-evolve 2 knights and light squares bishop
3- evolve 2 knights and dark squares bishop
4- evolve 2 bishops and b knight
5- evolve 2 bishops and g knight
6- evolve rooks
7- evolve Queen
8- no evolution, with extra knights on c3,f3 to compensate
Each player doesn't know the other,s starter Option until they start to play.
I'mma go with the pawn evolution. It'll likely make it more risky for the opponent to use minor/major pieces to capture pawns if they go diagonal behind the pawn.
They kinda do that but they don't en passant other then pawns so it's kinda not that defensive @@Sainttheslugcat
Other options might also be tough to counter especially minor pieces evolution I guess they are meta in my pov idk...
@@Sainttheslugcatand you can breakthrough from the edges sense a,b,g,h pawns aren't evolved they are just normal ones
@@Sainttheslugcat😂also rook evolution is a lil bit like high risk high reward
You wanna survive the opening and in the middle game it will get crazy 🤣
Another way to play is to randomize it
Just like fisher random 960
But it's now 8 @@Sainttheslugcat
Which is very interesting 🤔
The diamond formation rule is very weird
But so is en passant
It’s also very weird that the checkers on opposite colors don’t defend each other.
@@alsatusmd1A13 That's just an opposite-colored bishops analogy
En passant makes some sense.
Imagine if you wanted your pawn to go by opponent's pawn without a capture. When they move a pawn on the 4th rank and your pawn still hasn't moved, you could just escape being captured by pushing it two squares.
So in some local situations where you wanted your pawn to be safe from other pawn by making double push, this rule excludes that (it's not forced but gives a tactical change).
why not give the checkers the ability to capture back?
like in Russian checkers or international draughts?
Bro Is American, Bro Will Obviously Use American Rules For Checkers
@@ChessDraughtsKid да, но можно было и более сложные правила взять, это дало бы больше шансов шашкам
Remove forced captures, make checkers move backwards too, and also make them move orthogonally, rather than diagonally (I think some checkers versions are like that)
I think he can only add rules to checkers, not remove them, especially if he's trying to keep the rules as natural as possible.
@@JustAnotherCommenter well, if he's trying to keep rules natural, it's never going to be close to fair for the checkers
@@ArtemSayapov that's exactly why he's buffing checkers pieces and nerfing chess pieces without changing too much of the game.
Removing forced captures and letting them capture backwards may be a valid argument, but not letting them move orthogonally as checkers are designed to move diagonally, and they wouldn't be distinct from chess's pawns. And in addition to what another commenter has said, adding en passant for checkers might be as beneficial as removing the former two suggestions that you mentioned.
@@JustAnotherCommenter search up turkish checkers, they move orthogonally there
@JustAnotherCommenter I personally agree with this as not having force captures is how my school does checkers here although going backwards ruins the point of getting a king so if he does do that he should make the king like it is in the Chinese version (forgive me if I got the type wrong
We back in deckmate! Love game design :D
Ding Liren Vs Yuri Anikeev Ahh Fight
Robert James Fischer Vs Marion Franklin Tinsley Ahh Fight 🤣💀
hexagonal checkers when
chexers
2:52 Actually I came from that unusual game you're making and it's a surprise for me it's not the main content here😅
At this point I think it's obvious that checkers are just trash pieces.
They are completely incapable of attacking because in order for that they have to come closer. And they cannot do that without losing the defense. Checkers are so hopeless no quantity (and additional features) for quality can fix that.
why are captures forced? what does it balance?
cool to see you back in deckmate and are you gonna make a video on flip chess?
love your videos@!
2:51 That's me 😂
Checkers on top 😎
very cool, i think you are giving checkers too much. please buff the circular chess knights
I absolutely don't understand why at 6:06 you didn't take on e4 after taking on c4 in the same move. According to the checkers rules that I know, that is not only a possible move but an obligatory one. Checkers can move only forward, but they do capture backwads, at the very least they definitely do when it's a part of a combination of consequtive captures. And the captures are forced, if you have multiple continuations of a combination you can choose which one you follow, but you have to follow it through to the last capturable piece. The multiple capture combinations are not only at the core of this game, but they should actually be one strong asset for the checkers side in your game. Your checker should had gone b5 -> d3 -> f5 and captured both pawns on c4 and e4. This in my opinion is absolutely crucial.
Also, not a big fan of the diamond formation rule. I guess you had your reasons, though from what I'd seen you seem pretty good at finding new, alternative solutions to your problems, so I hope you'll find a different one for this.
Now that I continued the video I see you seem to have both of these rules, so maybe it was a bug?
It is based on American Checkers. There are several versions with different rules like the one you mentioned though.
I see. Well, then maybe consider mixing it up with the international rules a little, like in this one specific case. It looks like allowing the checkers to capture backwards would strenghten them up a lot, and that seems to be the main issue since the beggining of your project, that they're just naturally weaker. Shouldn't be all that "against the nature of the game" if it's the international rules, and it just makes sense for this game, otherwise a chess side's infiltration like the one that happaned here is extremely deadly.
Btw tbh I don't know which version I played, it seems I'm familiar with the non-American rules, but I'm almost sure I played on a 8x8 board, which seems not to be the international standard.
Great vid!
epic
What's the name of the game?
the most obvious you can imagine, it's in the title of the video
Deckmate