I made a variant where every move has a failure probability. People keep telling me it isn't chess.

Full disclosure: I built this, so treat me with the appropriate suspicion. It's free and there's nothing to buy. But the argument it keeps starting is more interesting than the project itself, and this seemed like the right room to have it in.

It's called ReChess. Ordinary chess with one change: every move has a probability of failing, and you see that probability before you commit. It comes from the piece (a king is perfectly reliable, pawns are the clumsiest), whether you're capturing, how many enemy pieces surround the square you're moving into, and whether you've been pushing the same piece move after move. So a queen sacrifice that needs the follow up knight to land isn't just a calculation anymore.

The objection I hear most: this isn't chess, it's a slot machine wearing a chessboard. Chess is worth playing precisely because nothing is hidden and nothing is random.

My counter would be that nothing is hidden here either. The numbers are all on the table before you move. You're just choosing between distributions instead of between moves. Backgammon has dice and nobody calls strong backgammon players lucky.

But I don't think "luck or skill" is the honest question. It's whether the skill is still chess skill, or something else that happens to use chess pieces. A player who calculates five moves deep might have no edge here, because move five might simply not happen. Maybe that makes it a different game pretending to be a variant.

I don't actually know which side I'm on. I built it to find out.

One thing I'm curious about: does a risk mechanic make play more conservative or more aggressive? I assumed conservative. In practice people seem to attack more, maybe because a failed defensive move feels like bad luck while a failed attack feels like you tried.

If anyone wants to form an opinion with their hands, it's at rechess.gg, browser, no account needed. But telling me the idea is rubbish without playing is also a valid position and I'd rather hear it argued than not.

Aren’t silly one move threats OP as hell? With the added chance of failure of defensive moves they seem a bit much. Without that it would seem very tactical and prevention strong.

Can you please tell more about how the failure chance starts and progresses? Or is there an explanation on the site?

If captures are more likely to fail, some cheesy sacrifices that lead to fast mate when capture fails seem possible. Def something u n to play as white/black pair or adjust early game chances.

Edit: just had 44 success 1 fail, so guess it’s very low in the medium section. I was thinking some serious chances 10-20%.

@Rookitiki said ^

Edit: just had 44 success 1 fail, so guess it’s very low in the medium section. I was thinking some serious chances 10-20%.

Thanks a lot for trying the game and for the thoughtful questions, really appreciate it!

You kind of answered the first one yourself with your edit. Since failure rates are low, relying on a one move threat and hoping the defense fails is usually a big gamble. It might work once in a while, but players who build their game around that tend to lose in the long run. The same goes for cheeky sacrifices: if the capture goes through (which it does most of the time), you’ve just given away material for nothing.

About the rates: we currently have two modes, Chaotic and Balanced. Chaotic has higher failure chances and is meant to be messy and unpredictable, so luck plays a bigger role and games can swing wildly. Balanced keeps the rates low on purpose, because there we want strategy to stay in the foreground and the randomness to be more of a spice than the main ingredient. So your 44 to 1 result sounds about right for Balanced.

To be honest, the current numbers were chosen by us through a lot of playtesting and trial and error. As the game grows and we get more feedback like yours, they could change a lot, so ideas are always welcome.

There’s also a rules page and a guide on the site that explain how the mechanics work in more detail, feel free to check them out. Thanks again!

Chess is not luck.
Why do you gamble the moves in a strategy game?
They are true. This is not chess.
It's a gamble in a chess board.

@Kaan_Burak said ^

Chess is not luck.
Why do you gamble the moves in a strategy game?
They are true. This is not chess.
It's a gamble in a chess board.

Kaan isminden dolayı Türkçe cevap veriyorum. Evet satranç içerisinde herhangi bir şekilde şans bulundurmayan bir oyun ve eğer senin istediğin tam olarak buysa buna karşın herhangi bir şey diyemem. Oyun ile ilgili yaptığın kumar eleştirisine katılmıyorum. Bir şeyin şans oyunu olması veya kumar olmasını iddia edebilmek için oynadığın oyunda veya yaptığın seçimlerde şans faktörünün yüksek bir belirleyici olması gerekiyor. ReChesse baktığımızde ise hamlendeki belirlenen başaramama olasılıkları oldukça düşük ve kontrol edilebilir. Bu yapının oyunun stratejik yapısına katman eklediğini düşünüyorum keza sadece hesaplamadan da ziyade kullanıcıyı zor anlarda yeni plan yapma. Veya oynayabileceğin hamleler arasında risk seçimi yapma gibi düşüncelere de itiyor. Dediğim gibi bu bir varyant ve klasik satrancı tercih ediyor olabilirsin fakat ReChess bir kumar ya da şans oyunu değildir.

Fikrine saygı duyuyorum ama ReChess'te hamlelerin bir başarısızlık şansı olması onu şans oyununa dahil eder. Şahsen fikrin kötü değil ama benim fazla hoşuma gitmedi.