Create a new chess piece!

If you were asked by the creators of chess to make a new chess piece. What kind of moves would it be able to do? What would it look like and what would it be named?

How about a chancellor which moves like a Knight and Rook or an archbishop which moves like a Knight and Bishop. Those pieces are used in gothic chess.

that would unbalanced chess their are plenty of  different chess pieces already like hawk elephant

Patzer, weren't those pieces that capablanca designed?

How about a piece that can move like every other piece on the board?

Make the board 10X10 and put a Chamealeon on each corner. It can move like any piece it is next to.

Spear.  It moves like a rook, but with a maximum distance of 2 squares.  But if it moves 2 squares it can kill the peice it lands on AND the one it jumped over.

As a nod to the state of modern warfare, I'd create the IED (or mine, if you prefer).  The rules are simple, and require no extra tokens:  Each player chooses two squares on rows 3-6 at the start of the game as "mined"(marked on slips of paper); any piece that moves through a mined square would be blown up, in the middle of the moving players turn, but the detonation of the mine would count as the opposing player's turn and the moving player would be allowed to move again (but would have one less piece to move with :(  ).  Any piece landing on a mined square would be at the mercy of the mine-owning player's choice: blow it up on any of his turns as his move, or wait until the piece tried to move and blew itself up automatically.  To detonate a mine, just shout "BOOM!" in a loud voice (try it, it's fun) and reveal the slip of paper with the mined square to your opponent (you can snicker with glee if the opponent tried to move his queen or a rook).  Knights can jump over pieces, and so can only be caught by landing on a mine, pawns can only move through if they moved two squares on their first turn, otherwise they would have to land on top.  As with all pieces, you can't occupy a square with more than one piece, so you can't move one of your pieces on to one of your mines (that gives your opponent clues as to where your mines might be).  The king alone is immune: if the king comes within one square of a mine, then the opponent must call check, and reveal the mined square as the source of the check (though he may move normally first).  A penny or some other small implement can be used to mark a revealed mined square for the rest of the game, at that point.  If the king is in check and the only squares to which he can move contain mines, then the king is counted as checkmated.

What do y'all think??  Anybody want to play test it????

In Chinese chess there is a great piece called a firecracker.  It moves like a rook, but can only capture by jumping over another piece.  The piece it jumps over can be anywhere on the rank or file it is capturing on between it and the piece it is capturing.  It can be powerful earlier in the game, but it is less threatening on an open board.

Oh, and two more things, once a king has been checked by a mine, and the mine rrevealed, the king isn't considered in check anymore since he knows where the mine is.

two, if the king is in check by some random source, and a piece trying to interpose gets mined, then the king is still in check and has to find some other way out. if there is no other way out, then the king becomes checkmate as soon as the mine makes it's capture.

Oh, and once the game starts "obviously" mines don't move.....

Hi, Norwegian mate.

I believe chess is more or less perfect so I don't think it is neccessary to think of new pieces :)

Just check out the chinese chess (xiangqi) or japanese chess (shogi) and you'll find pieces that move differently from chess.

The peasant - like the pawn but reversed (i.e. it moves one square diagonally and captures one square directly in front, and can only move forwards; can also promote when it reaches the last rank).

chess is good with the pieces it has. No new pieces are needed.

a slave.

it would be a queen that can jump 4 spaces one way and 3 the other.

and can jump to corners. (must be empty corners) but only 3 times a game.

and can be moved again after taking a pawn but only twice at a time.

but the only thing is..

IT CANT CHECK!

and it also can make indians after 5 moves.

indians just block things.

and you can upgrade indians to a jester after 10 moves. its an indian exept knights cant jump over it.

you can upgrade a jester into a stone after 20 moves.

its the same as a jester exept kings cant go around it.

and you can upgrade a stone into a super stone after 25 moves.

a super stone is a stone that kings cant go past from that hole line (example: if it was on the line where it says 5 the other persons king cant go past that line of the 5)

and you can upgrade a super stone into a golden eagle after 50 moves. its a super stone that can move from that line sme example as last time.

and you can upgrade a golden eagle into a silver trophie after 100 moves.

silver trophies let there teamates go through it.

and thats it.

:)

and there is two slaves in the middle for each team.

I like the idea of the 'Canon' in chinese chess.  In order to capture a piece it has to jump over it.

The chancellor and archbishop were introduced by Capablanca - here is an excerpt from my blog.

Capablanca "invents" Capablanca chess

Capablanca predicted that chess could face major problems if the various top players chose to draw every game. To prevent this from happening, Capablanca suggested a new variation on chess, called "Capablanca chess", to be played on a 10x8 board, with two new pieces introduced:

• a chancellor that moves as both a rook and a knight;
• an archbishop that moves as both a bishop and a knight.

Capablanca chess. Archbishop (bishop+knight compound) is placed between knight and bishop on the queen's side, chancellor (rook+knight compound) on the king's side.

 

His idea was that the added pieces and board size would increase the complexity of chess and allow the strongest player more opportunities to turn the game in his favor. Contrary to the assertion of some critics, Capablanca proposed this complicated variant while he was world champion, not as sour grapes after losing his title. He played a few games of this variant against Edward Lasker.

 

 

http://blog.chess.com/qtsii/jose-capablanca---chess-history-part-9-intellectual-input