• Alaskaball [comrade/them]A
    ·
    2 years ago

    Oh the king is the most important piece that all other pieces should sacrifice their lives for?

    :thinking-about-it:

    • Lussy [any, hy/hym]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Oh, the least powerful people in society are the ones on the frontlines huh?

      And typical lib meritocratic bullshit to suggest some peasant pawn can become royaltyby working really hard, travelling the distance of the board, and become royalty.

      • anaesidemus [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        “He hated games they made the world look too simple. Chess, in particular, had always annoyed him. It was the dumb way the pawns went off and slaughtered their fellow pawns while the king lounged about doing nothing. If only the pawns would've united ... the whole board could've been a republic in about a dozen moves.”

        ― Terry Pratchett, Thud!

        • Owl [he/him]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Three-player chess. Black and white play as normal. Red starts with two pawns in the middle. Red's pawns move one space orthogonally, capture one space diagonally. If red would capture a pawn, that pawn instead becomes red. If a red pawn would capture a knight, bishop, rook, or queen, red's pawn becomes a piece of that type. Red loses if they run out of stuff. If black or white loses, their pieces stay on the board and stop making moves.

      • Nagarjuna [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        This is why I always open with a knight and a king's pawn. It's important that high ranking pieces should do their share.