Talk:Losing chess

Variant 3

I imagine that in this variant, if a king can choose between check-evading moves and some are captures, you are obligated to choose the capture, right? Double sharp (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This text cites the first (1994) version of the Encyclopaedia of Chess Variants which I cannot find a PDF of online. I suspect you are right, but we would need to see if a source is specific on this. In the second edition ( p.86) the entry has been substantially rewritten by Beasley: "Losing Chess is one of the few games which I know better than David did, and I have taken it on myself to revise his intended entry.". Beasley is less precise about sub-variants: "Major variations involve the treatment of stalemate (some play it as a draw or as a win for the player who is left with the smaller number of men) and promotion (some prohibit promotion to K, some allow promotion only to Q). Some players prohibit castling, but this is rarely of importance.". --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I have it. Look at Les Echecs Battu-Battant on p.86 of ECV2. ‘Les Echecs Battu-Battant’ is basically Losing Chess as described below and again capturing is normally compulsory, but in two versions the king retains royal powers and escaping check has priority over a capture. The aim is either (1) to give checkmate or to be left with bare king, or (2) the same but the checkmated player wins.. These are, in effect, variants 3 and 4 discussed in the article as it currently stands. I think we should rewrite the article to reflect how it is discussed in the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Chess Variants (and mention Les Echecs Battu-Battant). --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)