King of the Hill, Three Checks, Anti Chess, Atomic Chess

I was not particularly interested in chess variants apart from Chess 960 ( I thought that they are not really chess ). However watching live games at a site a high rated king of the hill game came up and I found it interesting ( this is: the side which can put its king in the center wins, in the case of three checks the side which hits three checks sooner, wins ).

I started playing and to my surprise I'm much better in king of the hill than three checks. I have known for a long time that I'm worse at quick time controls and that gambits are not for me, but it comes to me as a surprise why I'm almost 200 points better in one variant than an other.

I wonder what skills king of the hill requires that are different from three checks.

I think King of the Hill is much closer to normal Chess than 3check. Before the end-game the center is usually not accessible to Kings, not even when they are suicidal. An if you get ahead enough in the middle game that the end-game would be won in normal Chess (e.g. a minor ahead), you will usually be able to force your King to the center as well.

With 3check you really have to be well aware of how much the first and second check are worth, compared to material. E.g. is it a good deal to sac a minor for the second check, or even a Rook? Is the first check worth a minor, or not even a Pawn?

I play king of the hill in the suicidal way. So this is not the answer.

I have only a secondary interest in the right strategy, I only wonder what kind of skill or personality three checks requires, that is not required by king of the hill. Somehow playing king of the hill was natural for me, as if I did this in all my life, while three checks I could not understand ( even though I understand the rules, and after a few games I become familiar with the basic tricks ).

The required skill is sacrificing material for checks.

Masterpiece king of the hill game. Not only won in terms of the center, but in the normal sense. The final move is just masterpiece. I can't help it.

I'm interested too...

I'm terrible at 3 checks.  Somehow I just don't "get it" it seems.

Maybe with some practice... but I haven't played it in so long.

What I'm trying is to build a rock solid position and hope that the opponent gets too suicidal. In this way finally I managed to beat a player who is 200 points higher rated than me in three checks ( but rated 100 points lower than my standard, so in principle I'm stronger chess player than him ). I had many opportunities to win material, but I restrained myself and instead went for opening up the queenside for light square diagonal checks.

I have tried Anti Chess. I'm surprisingly good ( I have played 9 games, with a record of 7 wins 1 draw 1 loss ). It's somewhat like promotion legality puzzles, where you have to have your pieces captured. In such puzzles you often just open up one of your bishops and have it captured on the a or h file ( one of the quickest way to have one of your pieces captured ). It came to me that I should try this in Anti Chess and it worked.

New variant I have tried: Atomic Chess. The capturing piece explodes everything in its neighbourhood including itself ( except for pawns ). The goal is to explode your opponent's king. Check and mate works here as well, but if in check you can explode the opponent's king, this enjoys preference. The king cannot capture, because this would make it explode. So a queen can mate alone. Two kings can be adjacent. Theory says that after 1. Nf3 black's only move is 1. ... f6 because the knight threatens to take on f7 after 2. Ng5 or Ne5.

My opponent obviously was not aware of theory and responded with 1. ... e6. So my first and only game so far turned out to be short.