Rate this page! | Skip to comments

Extinction chess

Introduction Rules Play Sample Games Computer play Books See also: A pdf by ChessCafe's Taylor Kingston about David Pritchard's Popular Chess Variants. A problem by Fabrice Liardet. A discussion list on BrainKing. Fabio Forzoni's page in Italian.

Introduction

This game was invented by Games editor-in-chief R. Wayne Schmittberger in 1985 under the name Survival of the Species. It is mentioned in Schmittberger's nice book New Rules for Classic Games. It is somewhat similar in rules to the older Kinglet, but much more lively. The game was popular in the now defunct organisations AISE and NOST and is played routinely on BrainKing and It'sYourTurn.com.
It was also played in the 2003 Multivariant Tournament and the 2005 Second Game Courier Tournament.

Rules

All rules of Orthodox Chess are used, with the following exception. Check and checkmate do not apply. Instead, the first player that does not have pieces of all types loses the game. Thus, a player who loses either his King, his Queen, his two Rooks, his two Bishops, his two Knights or his eight Pawns loses the game (barring a promotion).

Pawns may promote to any other type of piece, including Kings. When a Pawn promotes to some type of piece, this piece is also counted among the pieces of the type; e.g., when a Pawn promotes to a Queen, and the other Queen is taken from the player, then the Queens are not considered to be extinct, i.e., the game continues. If a player promotes his last Pawn, he loses (as his Pawns are now extinct), unless he wins by extinction on that very move.

Since there is no check, castling under or through check is allowed.
This rule has been confirmed by R. Wayne Schmittberger himself. However, a variant allows castling only if the King (unless the player has several Kings) and the Rook (unless the player has several Rooks) aren't threatened. This seems rather odd, since Extinction Chess allows a Queen, a Rook or a Bishop to slide through check anyway.

Play

Extinction Chess may be the only variant other than Orthochess where a deep understanding of opening theory (as opposed to mere rote learning) would help.
As in Chess, the ususal practice seems to open agressively and fight for the center, although many NOST participants may have gone for a more cramped game.

A common advice is that when a Knight, a Bishop, or a Rook has been captured, it is better not to develop the other. Nevertheless, the riders remain useful: not only it would be a mistake to hide the Queen simply because of its royal nature, but an only remaining Rook or Bishop is sometimes in a position to deliver the fatal blow.

The species which is the most at risk is clearly the Knight. The other species usually get captured only as a consequence of a pin or a double check.

The King alone is less in immediate danger for the first ten moves than in Chess, because a Queen is unable to come to its contact (a luxury not enjoyed by the Knight), but it will never find itself in a position to attack since there is simply too much material on the Board. Hence, if castling by the fourth move is unnecessary, you shouldn't wait too long.

The Rooks are more resilient than the Bishops or the Knights, so exchanging a Rook for a Bishop or a Knight is often good. However, a protected Rook in enemy territory may prove devastating.

The Bishop vs. Knight exchange may be the most important decision in Extinction Chess. There is little doubt that exchanging a Bishop for a Knight is often desirable, particularly when the other Knight won't find an easy retreat behind a wall of Pawns. However, there are a few downsides as well. For instance, you may open a file for an enemy Rook, or get your only remaining Bishop chased by its opposite number.
A Knight on c3 or f3, or c6 or f6 is certainly useful on the first few moves, but quickly becomes kind of a sitting duck for Bishop vs. Knight exchange (unless the relevant Bishop has been exchanged, of course, or if it is blocked by Pawns of either color).

The Pawns won't become extinct, although they remain important. It is true that since you need not fret about long-term positional considerations, there must be many gambits of a Pawn to consider. But the reason for gambitting a Pawn is less to go after a royal piece than to open the right file for a Rook.

Sample Games

The French town of Messigny hosts a yearly convention for problemists, the RIFACE, (Rencontre Internationale en France des Amateurs de la Composition Échiquéenne) which features a blitz tournament for a Chess Variant.
1998 was the year for Extinction Chess.

Alessandro Castelli won and annotated the following three games.
(The Italian versions are on Fabio Forzoni's page. Forzoni writes that ALL the games played within the AISE are reproducted in the Enciclopedia delle Varianti Scacchistiche.)

Alessandro Castelli - R. Wayne Schmittberger. (CM92)

Alessandro Castelli - Aldo Kustrin (GP93)

Patrizio Fontana - Alessandro Castelli (GP90)

Another annotated AISE game:

Hall of fame

Messigny blitz tournament
1998 Fabrice Liardet

Computer Play

The Chess zrf for Zillions of Games caters to Extinction Chess.
Greg Strong's ChessV also allows you to play Extinction.

Books

There is a four-page entry for Extinction Chess in David Pritchard's Popular Chess Variants.
It offers eleven games won by Schmittberger, Castelli, Liardet, Yearout...

The above was authored by: Hans L. Bodlaender and Antoine Fourrière. The above was invented by: R. Wayne Schmittberger.
The above was edited/posted by: Antoine Fourrière
Created on: April 04, 1996. Last modified on: April 22, 2005.

See also:

See also:

Comments

Date	Name	Rating	Comment
2005-04-07	Fergus Duniho	None	I have just sent you the information you requested by email, so that spam robots won't harvest his address by seeing it here.
2005-04-07	Austin Lockwood	Excellent	I have just added Extinction Chess as a playable game on the correspondence chess/chess variants server <a href='http://www.schemingmind.com'>SchemingMind.com</a>. I haven't played a full game yet, but am looking forward to doing so!<br><br>I couldn't find an email address for Mr. Schmittberger anywhere, and would like to check with him that he doesn't mind me having Extinction Chess on SchemingMind.com - if anyone here knows how he can be contacted I would be grateful for this information.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Austin
2005-03-29	Thomas James McElmurry	None	Thanks to Mr. Schmittberger for the quick decision. <p>I agree that such a position is very unlikely -- presumably it's unusual for a game of Extinction Chess even to last so long -- but it's not inconceivable. If the ruling had been for a draw, then one could imagine a game in which Black had no winning chances, but could force a draw by moving the Bishop to c8, forcing the Pawn to promote or die. <p>On the other hand, since the capture-promotion has been declared a win for White, it seems that the position as I stated it could arise only after an obvious blunder by Black. But of course the Black piece need not be a Bishop. One could imagine White pushing his last Pawn to the 7th rank, forking Black's last Rook and Knight.
2005-03-29	Fergus Duniho	None	<P>R. Wayne Schmittberger, creator of Extinction Chess, has ruled that it would be a win for White if White's last Pawn captured Black's last Bishop on the last rank. This corresponds with how I already programmed the rules for Game Courier. In my email to him, I described the situation given in a previous comment, and I asked, 'In this move, should the capture take priority over the promotion, so that White wins, or do capture and promotion take equal priority, so that the game is drawn?' Here is his response to my email:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> It's a good question, and I agree that either rule can be supported by logic. Although I'm sure this will never come up in practice, I would favor this scenario being a win for White. One reason is that I like draw margins to be as small as possible; in at least one other game that I invented (Flying Obelisks--see April 2004 Games Magazine), where it was theoretically possible for both sides to achieve victory conditions simultaneously, I chose the rule that whoever brought about that position by making the last move was the winner. Another reason is an intuitive sense that the victory conditions aren't quite fulfilled simultaneously--the bishop comes off the board an infinitesimal amount of time before the pawn (which, after all, moved as a pawn to make the capture) must promote. </BLOCKQUOTE>
2005-03-28	Fergus Duniho	None	My Game Courier preset for Extinction Chess checks for an extinction among enemy pieces first, and so it would give a win to White. But this is an unclear point in the rules. So I have just sent an email to R. Wayne Schmittberger asking for a ruling on this matter.

This item has a total of 18 comment(s), 8 rating(s), and an average rating of Excellent. View all comments for this item.

Provide feedback on this page!

[info] [edit] [link]

Contact us About us

The Chess Variant Pages sponsored by

Member of Palamede

Last modified: Sunday, August 21, 2005