OK, I looked it up on Wikipedia. The bishop and queen were the last to have their moves set changed to the modern form in the 15th or 16th century. But even since then there have been some tweaks, such as the 3 move and 50 move rules for draws, and the orientation of the board. So you could maybe argue no balancing since the 16th century, and only a few bug fixes after that.
It's French for "in passing". It's a special move for taking a pawn with another pawn, if the first pawn tries using its double space first move to go past an enemy pawn.
Are you like an idiot or something? You actually thought asking "what's en passant?" Was going to come across as funny or sarcastic? Do you actually think everyone knows what en passant is? Most people don't know how to play chess, yet you think asking what en passant is, is some sort of witty thing? Moron.
Castling itself (as a single move) is a 17th century balance update. Before that it was done as separate moves. But the only reason castling became a thing was because the Queen and Bishop were buffed in the 15th century allowing them to threaten more spaces. This made it more advantageous to fortify the king’s position than to have him flee.
I had someone cheat against me the other day (without me realizing it, because I don't have the game sense to tell), then offer a draw in a clearly winning position. I guess they were trying to avoid detection, but I decided that I didn't want their handout, declined the draw offer, and resigned.
The system immediately flagged them as cheating and refunded my elo, so I guess all's well that ends well.
It's the rating system for competitive gaming that was originally developed for chess, but has since been applied to all sorts of gaming, sports, etc. sometimes you might even hear people refer to a game's matchmaking rating as "elo", even it's not called that.
Also, fun fact: it's not an acronym, it's a guy's name:
Oh no, it's completely free to play. What I meant was that when a game is over, the winning player gains rating points and the losing player loses rating points, proportional to the rating difference between them.
Since I had lost that game, I lost rating (elo) points. But, since the system recognized that it was against a cheater, which isn't fair, it gave me the points back when they banned him so that my rating would be unaffected.
Not quite true. Before the ~15th century, the queen moved like the king and the pawns could only move 1 square from their starting square. These changes were made to make the game more exciting and less slow.
You are quite correct that an asymetrical game is much harder to balance.
However having identical sides and a symmetric playing field doesn't always guarantee a balanced game. For example, if one piece or position dominates all others it can lead to a lack of viable options and just one way to play, making the game uninteresting. You don't just want the players to have equal strength, you also want the universe of possible playing strategies to contain many different strong options.
Actually it has had balance changes. Chess clock for instance is a balance update between the players, but there's also been balancing between pieces. En passant and castling but also changing how the pieces work (for example bishop).
Despite the obvious symmetry of the game there's still a lot to balance.
Yes and this isn't necessary because the two sides are completely identical. No differences in pieces or terrain or anything so there's no need to change a piece to make it stronger or weaker.
It is too simple to be useful in real life: a mere 8 by 8 grid, no fog of war, no technology tree, no random map or spawn position, only 2 players, both sides exact same pieces, etc.
Eh. My last move was to tie a ballistic missile to a pawn and roll it down a pinball machine. Their move is to keep it from hitting the bottom and exploding. That would keep them occupied for a while.
Every time a piece is about to hit another, the players have to arm wrestle and the winner takes the loser's piece (if you can't arm wrestle then you lose automatically).
You're just begging AnarchyChess to correct you.
They're going to tell me to google something. I can feel it.
You should only be Googling things en passant, and not hang around too long.
I’ll show myself out.
Holy hell
New response just dropped
Call the exorcist
Lemmy.world suffers an outage, doesn't come back
I set a cron job to do it, now I'm free
OK, I looked it up on Wikipedia. The bishop and queen were the last to have their moves set changed to the modern form in the 15th or 16th century. But even since then there have been some tweaks, such as the 3 move and 50 move rules for draws, and the orientation of the board. So you could maybe argue no balancing since the 16th century, and only a few bug fixes after that.
En passant wasn't even added until 1880.
More of a hotfix than a balance update imo
What's en passant?
It's French for "in passing". It's a special move for taking a pawn with another pawn, if the first pawn tries using its double space first move to go past an enemy pawn.
Woosh
Are you like an idiot or something? You actually thought asking "what's en passant?" Was going to come across as funny or sarcastic? Do you actually think everyone knows what en passant is? Most people don't know how to play chess, yet you think asking what en passant is, is some sort of witty thing? Moron.
Now I am confused about if you get the joke or not.
Yeah, chess was really hard when the board had to be vertical. Horizontal orientation was a huge improvement to the player experience.
Castle was put in place around the 17th century, and en passant wasn't put into the rules until 1880. Both were balance issues being solved.
White is OP, known issue since 1889 and devs haven't addressed it. Dead game
Possible quick fix: Switch from turn-based to real time mode
Isn't that just 1 second bullet?
I was thinking Kung Fu Chess
jfc
Castling itself (as a single move) is a 17th century balance update. Before that it was done as separate moves. But the only reason castling became a thing was because the Queen and Bishop were buffed in the 15th century allowing them to threaten more spaces. This made it more advantageous to fortify the king’s position than to have him flee.
Jesus christ, lol
The Picard Maneuver of checkmates if I've ever seen one
PIcard tried to pull some shit and the dog knocked the pieces over in frustration, I'm certain
Picard opened with the Amar: Krazy Kat variation and the dog couldn't help himself.
(I had no idea this opening existed. I just googled, assuming there had to be one with "cat" in the name)
Google
en passantvertical castlingBut bots have become a big problem for this game recently.
Funny story time:
I had someone cheat against me the other day (without me realizing it, because I don't have the game sense to tell), then offer a draw in a clearly winning position. I guess they were trying to avoid detection, but I decided that I didn't want their handout, declined the draw offer, and resigned.
The system immediately flagged them as cheating and refunded my elo, so I guess all's well that ends well.
Excellent Chad loss, my man
What is elo?
It's the rating system for competitive gaming that was originally developed for chess, but has since been applied to all sorts of gaming, sports, etc. sometimes you might even hear people refer to a game's matchmaking rating as "elo", even it's not called that.
Also, fun fact: it's not an acronym, it's a guy's name:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
Interesting, thanks for the info! What does refunded my elo mean? Do you have to pay for a matchmaking?
Oh no, it's completely free to play. What I meant was that when a game is over, the winning player gains rating points and the losing player loses rating points, proportional to the rating difference between them.
Since I had lost that game, I lost rating (elo) points. But, since the system recognized that it was against a cheater, which isn't fair, it gave me the points back when they banned him so that my rating would be unaffected.
Ah, got it. Thanks for the explanation.
I bet a bot can beat you at Counter Strike too if we made them as strong as possible like chess bots.
"Butt bots... Sorry. But bots have become..." (Read in Ze Frank voice)
bots and plugs yeah
Not quite true. Before the ~15th century, the queen moved like the king and the pawns could only move 1 square from their starting square. These changes were made to make the game more exciting and less slow.
Also castling and en Passant
That old set excavated in Britain (Lewis Chessmen) had other pieces as well, such as the Berserker.
It doesn't get balance updates because the sides are virtually identical, it's not hard when your game design doesn't take risks
You are quite correct that an asymetrical game is much harder to balance.
However having identical sides and a symmetric playing field doesn't always guarantee a balanced game. For example, if one piece or position dominates all others it can lead to a lack of viable options and just one way to play, making the game uninteresting. You don't just want the players to have equal strength, you also want the universe of possible playing strategies to contain many different strong options.
Also, in that case having first move advantage would be seen as unbalanced.
Queen OP, pls fix.
Actually it has had balance changes. Chess clock for instance is a balance update between the players, but there's also been balancing between pieces. En passant and castling but also changing how the pieces work (for example bishop).
Despite the obvious symmetry of the game there's still a lot to balance.
wait the bishop changed??
In the olden days Bishops could move only 2 squares and jump over other pieces like knights.
Interesting, that's how it still works in Chinese chess.
I think they meant balance as in the pieces haven't received nerfs or buffs.
Yes and this isn't necessary because the two sides are completely identical. No differences in pieces or terrain or anything so there's no need to change a piece to make it stronger or weaker.
So I can't get a Battlepass knight? That doesn't seem fair.
Devs abandoned it, players won't
The map is 64-bit.
It is too simple to be useful in real life: a mere 8 by 8 grid, no fog of war, no technology tree, no random map or spawn position, only 2 players, both sides exact same pieces, etc.
Polytopia addresses these limitations.
Best comment in this thread
Folks over at c/AnarchyChess are feeling so triggered rn
It's ok, we're two steps past them now. I think we're safe.
Eh. My last move was to tie a ballistic missile to a pawn and roll it down a pinball machine. Their move is to keep it from hitting the bottom and exploding. That would keep them occupied for a while.
I mean it did get forked into shogi.
Well, balance is quite a bit easier if everything is a mirror match. And they still fucked it up, white has the starting advantage.
Nah, staring position is zugzwang, black gets to capitalise on whites blunder in the opening.
Having your opponent make the first move can absolutely be an advantage since it hints to the strategy they're going with.
I typically choose black for that reason.
Bruh, queen is so OP! It's BULLSHIT!
She's such a Mary Sue.
But if you wanted to turn chess into a 4X game, here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taikyoku_shogi?wprov=sfla1
"One game may be played over several long sessions and require each player to make over a thousand moves."
I got bored with chess so I started playing Shogi. It's the same thing, but different.
Rocket League is also like chess. Basically the same, just different.
Every time a piece is about to hit another, the players have to arm wrestle and the winner takes the loser's piece (if you can't arm wrestle then you lose automatically).
Machines will win 100% of arm wrestling matches if they're built to do so. We can't compete with the strength of a hydrologic servo.
You can only move pieces to squares with pictures of crosswalks on them.
Holy hell