Magnus Carlsen new chess variation: he trolled his team in this video

See the TROLL FACE of Magnus in the video.

Note the trolled face of his manager.

Magnus is a troll; it is proved.

xD

That little troublemaker, Magnus! :)

And he won comfortably.

If you sleep for 8 hours, you get 16 hours a day. Goofing off for 5 minutes is nothing.

if every piece changes every half move, then effectually, arent they not changing at all? what was a knight on your turn is a bishop on their turn, and is now a knight for your turn.  

Well what do you mean by "effectually?" Clearly the pieces would be changing, just not necessarily in a way that people would care about. But that doesn't mean they're not changing. No one would care if I decided to take a sip of water at 6:42 PM, but that doesn't mean I'm not doing so.

It was an initial thought in trying to understand Magnus's madness. If you had read even a little bit further, you'd see that this initial thought was already responded to and subsequently modified, which would mean that the post you just made would not have told the posters involved anything that they do not currently know.

By effectually, i mean in regards to the effect something has. as in if we take 3 left turns, then you have effectually turned right.  so if the pieces are changing every half turn, then effectually, they are not changing at all. Perhaps not the perfect use of the word, but contextually, it seems to work.

Also...sorry if offended you by not following the #1 unwritten rule of forums in that every single post must contribute to the collective knowledge of earlier posters.

If e.g. my knights were bishops only on my opponent's move, and if they're either pinning or checking, it would matter.

Or if I tried to pin something to the king with a bishop, my opponent could actually move the piece on his turn.

But yeah, in almost every position it wouldn't matter.

when i first read that, i thought it made sense but then i thought if they were pinning on the opponents move...he could move the pinned piece because the next move, the bishop is again a knight. so even if a piece is pinned to the king, you can still move it because you are not "putting your self in check" because the king can not be captured the next turn.

to be in check would mean that your king is at risk of being captured the next move, but if the next move they change back to a knight, then you were never at risk to begin with....so you literally could not pin a piece with a bishop that is changing back into a knight when it is your turn.

Yeah, it gets a little philosophical, and you'd need additional rules to clearly say when change happens.

For example in this position lets say black plays Nxd4 (remember this is legal because the piece on b5 is a knight during black's turn).

But the white king is not in check.  if Nxd4, and white plays Nxc7+ (because this is truly a check even though it is now a bishop.  it will be a knight on whites next move, threatening to capture on e8)

White can play Nxc7+ because Nxd4 is not really check.  sure the king is in the line of fire of blacks "bishop" during white's turn but the next turn black has it will be a knight again and unable to capture the king.

imagine if the game was the same except for every half turn pawns become queens and switch back to pawns. as long as they are pawns when it is your turn...nothing changes.  it doesn't matter how powerful 9 queens are if you only have them when its your opponent's move.

I hope this example of extreme's helps clarify what im trying to say that pins during your opponents turn are meaningless....

I set it up poorly lol. What I meant was white moved Bb5... but now it's black turn so I should have shown a knight on b5.

---

Anyway, yeah, if you use that rational then there is no difference, and the rule of switching every ply shouldn't be mentioned in the first place.

in fact, if the minor pieces change every half turn, the only thing this does to the game is reverse the set up of the knight and bishop for black, as whatever the piece is on your turn, it acts that way for you the rest of the game.  so with one half turn, black starts his game with the bishops where the knights are and visa versa.

so if white played Bb5, and is a knight on b5 it is "effectually" always a bishop because the power of a piece comes from what it can do when it is its owners move.  SO in this case, the knight on c6 really is pinned because if Nxd4 is played, white captures on e8 next. so i return to previous comment in that if these are in fact the rules, the only difference is the knights and bishops are reversed for black, but rest of game played normal.

Nice observation, yeah, that would be a weird starting position. I've looked at some 960 positions (briefly) that only change 1 or 2 things, but of course in 960 it's always symmetric.

Well, in normal chess this consideration never comes up. I've always treated it as the power of the piece comes from the squares it's influencing currently.

But like I said in #81, yeah, if you use that rational then it's back to the rule makes no difference.

A different way of seeing it is both kings are in check at the same time, so white has to move his king before he tries to capture black's.