584
"I negotiate my own wages"
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
584 points (99.0% liked)
AnarchyChess
6184 readers
223 users here now
Holy hell
Other chess communities:
!Chess@lemmy.ml
!chessbeginners@sh.itjust.works
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Okay, but now I want to see what the end state looks like for optimal (or near-optimal) play between both participants in this fucked-up chess variant.
It's pretty straight forward I think. Each side loses one piece every round. If white somehow runs out of pawns that can check the black king, or if the black king manages to get behind the pawns, white can still promote some of them and win.
~~What? In the bottom board, assuming white to move, any capture is a checkmate - black king cannot escape check, and cannot capture because the pawn is supported.~~
~~White wins in 1 move.~~
How?
The knights can defend at least two attacks.
I'm dumb. Thank you for correcting me.
Wouldn't promoted pawns join the other side? Like a manager getting a payrise
Ah, yeah, I guess I was forgetting about promoting. Agreed that white definitely wins then.
It's pretty clearly a win for white, unless black forces a stalemate. Those knights won't last and that's a fuckton of pawns, even ignoring promotion.
It would be tricksy trying to get checkmate without promoting any, but one or two promotions is all it would take to make it a sinch.
So what you're saying is, the strategy of e.g. Occupy Wall Street, avoiding creating leaders, made it less effective than it could've been.
Not sure, I was just analyzing the chess board.
Although I will say that decentralized movements may tend to shoot themselves in the foot by failing to coalesce around any solid leadership.
There's good ways to do leadership and bad ways to do leadership. A movement can be grassroots and decentralized while still having leaders.