Answers.Body: <p>There are helpmate problems. I haven't seen many of these recently, but they involve both sides cooperating to get to mate.</p>
  <p>But very few games of any sort involve only cooperation. The only one I can think of, offhand, is SimCity and, even for that, some of the variations are competitions against the computer or against your own previous score.</p>
  <p>Games more or less have to be competitive to be interesting, even if the competition is very light-hearted.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-02-11T20:04:47.443Z
Answers.Text: Although they are in the minority, there are certainly cooperative games. I've played several.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-03-15T08:25:02.780Z
Answers.Text: Numerous interesting cooperative board games exist, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_board_game
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-02-11T16:49:24.873Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-02-11T16:49:24.873Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter Flom
Answers.Body: <p>Yes! By the way, cooperative games are not the most popular among games, but could be very fun.</p>
  <p>The best cooperative chess variant I have heard is a variant proposed in reddit (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/chessvariants/comments/118piin/cooperative_chess/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">link</a>).
  As pointed out <a href="https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/cooperative-varient-ideas#comment-100529049" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> by josephruhf, a cooerative game is more fun with  randomization. In this variant, computer select 2 squares on the board. The 2 players should move to that square (by legal chess moves). If they are unable to do that they lose. If they are able to complete a legal game (of course, draw by agreement and resigning are not allowed), they win. The 2 players should be making their moves consecutively and without any communication with each other.</p>
  <p>I think this game may not be survivable for long if the squares chosen by the computer are completely random. A variation I suggest is to have the computer select a number of random squares and put 'zombies' on those squares. Then, white plays a move, and then zombies move randomly like kings (but not royal of course). Then, black makes a move, and then zombies move randomly like kings and so on. The game is over when all zombies are captured (here, players win), or either white or black king is captured (here, computer wins).</p>
  <p><em>Some other variations I can think of (these are new, I think)</em></p>
  <ol>
  <li>Instead of zombies, add some zombie-kings (royal) and zombie-anti-kings (non-royal). Neither zombie-kings nor zombie-anti-kings can be captured. Both of them move like kings. After every white/black move, no zombie-king must be in check and all zombie anti-kings must be in check. The aim of the game is to survive the longest.</li>
  <li>The computer has a zombie-king and a zombie-anti-king that start on random squares. The computer move them randomly like kings, but since zombie-king is royal, computer should move it to a safe square. Similarly, computer should move zombie-anti-king to an attacked square. If the computer is unable to make such moves, the players win the game.</li>
  </ol>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-29T06:48:21.350Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-07-30T05:48:09.360Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-07-30T05:48:09.360Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Cyriac Antony
Answers.Body: <p>I do not think such a chess variant exists. But it would be possible to design one that works well without too much effort, I think. I would start with Horde chess, make the defender's army smaller, split it up into two parts (controlled by Black and White on alternating turns), and let the movements of the Horde pieces be controlled by throwing dice (maybe with captures compulsory).</p>
  <p>There is then certainly some material imbalance where the task of the defending players becomes difficult; whether it becomes interesting, I don't know. But I would feel optimistic that something along these lines could be made to work well after some tinkering with the details.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-03-16T22:03:49.853Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-03-16T22:03:49.853Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Polytropos
Body: <p>One thing I've noticed is that even the most unusual chess variants tend to involve some sort of a competition.  For instance in 4 player chess teams the members of the same team cooperate with each other, however the different teams still compete against each other.  In some variants the game is something other than to trap the King, but in the ones I've read about and played it's still a competition with a winner and loser, or a draw.</p>
  <p>My question is are there any variants that involve all the players cooperating to achieve a common goal, with all players either winning together or losing together as opposed to competing with each other?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-02-11T08:45:42.700Z
Comments.Text: Not sure a chess variant is what you're after. If you want cooperation rather than competition, then you're not replacing the game of chess with some other game, you're replacing the activity of game-playing with some other activity. Perhaps composing chess problems? Or solving them?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Rosie F
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-02-11T19:23:04.413Z
Comments.Text: Building chess sets in Minecraft? :-) (Even CheatGPT could only suggest Bughouse 2 vs 2. Cooperative games are relatively rare.)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-02-12T15:40:30.527Z
Comments.Text: The closest I can think of is [Penultima](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penultima) (as the players sort of need to work together to figure out the rules) or [Paco Shako](https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/paco-shako) (as pieces are not captured, but are instead joined together into pieces that either player may move). However, in both of these, the goal is still to checkmate. In general, chess is a game where two players start on equal footing and work to be the first to reach some goal. It's hard to think of a way to change that element while still feeling like chess.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Nelson O
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-07-30T10:13:37.830Z
Comments.Text: Does solo chess count as a chess variant?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Lucenaposition
Tags: <chess-variants>
Title: Are there chess variants than involve only cooperation and no competition?
ThreadText: # Are there chess variants than involve only cooperation and no competition?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-02-10)
  
  One thing I've noticed is that even the most unusual chess variants tend to involve some sort of a competition. For instance in 4 player chess teams the members of the same team cooperate with each other, however the different teams still compete against each other. In some variants the game is something other than to trap the King, but in the ones I've read about and played it's still a competition with a winner and loser, or a draw.
  
  My question is are there any variants that involve all the players cooperating to achieve a common goal, with all players either winning together or losing together as opposed to competing with each other?
  
  **Tags:** chess-variants
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Not sure a chess variant is what you're after. If you want cooperation rather than competition, then you're not replacing the game of chess with some other game, you're replacing the activity of game-playing with some other activity. Perhaps composing chess problems? Or solving them?  
  > **username_2**: Building chess sets in Minecraft? :-) (Even CheatGPT could only suggest Bughouse 2 vs 2. Cooperative games are relatively rare.)  
  > **username_3**: The closest I can think of is [Penultima](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penultima) (as the players sort of need to work together to figure out the rules) or [Paco Shako](https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/paco-shako) (as pieces are not captured, but are instead joined together into pieces that either player may move). However, in both of these, the goal is still to checkmate. In general, chess is a game where two players start on equal footing and work to be the first to reach some goal. It's hard to think of a way to change that element while still feeling like chess.  
  > **username_4**: Does solo chess count as a chess variant?  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2024-02-11. Score: 3
  
  There are helpmate problems. I haven't seen many of these recently, but they involve both sides cooperating to get to mate.
  
  But very few games of any sort involve only cooperation. The only one I can think of, offhand, is SimCity and, even for that, some of the variations are competitions against the computer or against your own previous score.
  
  Games more or less have to be competitive to be interesting, even if the competition is very light-hearted.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: Although they are in the minority, there are certainly cooperative games. I've played several.  
  > **username_7**: Numerous interesting cooperative board games exist, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_board_game  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_8 on 2024-07-29. Score: 1
  
  Yes! By the way, cooperative games are not the most popular among games, but could be very fun.
  
  The best cooperative chess variant I have heard is a variant proposed in reddit ([link](https://www.reddit.com/r/chessvariants/comments/118piin/cooperative_chess/)).
  As pointed out [here](https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/cooperative-varient-ideas#comment-100529049) by josephruhf, a cooerative game is more fun with randomization. In this variant, computer select 2 squares on the board. The 2 players should move to that square (by legal chess moves). If they are unable to do that they lose. If they are able to complete a legal game (of course, draw by agreement and resigning are not allowed), they win. The 2 players should be making their moves consecutively and without any communication with each other.
  
  I think this game may not be survivable for long if the squares chosen by the computer are completely random. A variation I suggest is to have the computer select a number of random squares and put 'zombies' on those squares. Then, white plays a move, and then zombies move randomly like kings (but not royal of course). Then, black makes a move, and then zombies move randomly like kings and so on. The game is over when all zombies are captured (here, players win), or either white or black king is captured (here, computer wins).
  
  *Some other variations I can think of (these are new, I think)*
  
  1. Instead of zombies, add some zombie-kings (royal) and zombie-anti-kings (non-royal). Neither zombie-kings nor zombie-anti-kings can be captured. Both of them move like kings. After every white/black move, no zombie-king must be in check and all zombie anti-kings must be in check. The aim of the game is to survive the longest.
  2. The computer has a zombie-king and a zombie-anti-king that start on random squares. The computer move them randomly like kings, but since zombie-king is royal, computer should move it to a safe square. Similarly, computer should move zombie-anti-king to an attacked square. If the computer is unable to make such moves, the players win the game.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2024-03-16. Score: 0
  
  I do not think such a chess variant exists. But it would be possible to design one that works well without too much effort, I think. I would start with Horde chess, make the defender's army smaller, split it up into two parts (controlled by Black and White on alternating turns), and let the movements of the Horde pieces be controlled by throwing dice (maybe with captures compulsory).
  
  There is then certainly some material imbalance where the task of the defending players becomes difficult; whether it becomes interesting, I don't know. But I would feel optimistic that something along these lines could be made to work well after some tinkering with the details.
  
  
  ---
  
  