Seeing this board, I would recommend to play this game on a regular Staunton style chess board, because the contrast between pieces and squares is much better. Giving both squares and pieces the exact same primary color is a bad choice. You can solve the problem by buying two sets of pieces in two other colors, however, but I don't like the fact that they do this as a kind of marketing trick to get more money through purchases of additional sets of pieces. Fun fact: There is a game on Steam called Super X Chess. That game plays like traditional chess, but two pieces of the same color can 'fuse' into one by uniting them in a way similar to uniting pieces in Paco Šako. Fused pieces can't be separated, but they have the moving abilities of both pieces involved in the union. It's still 'war chess', though, so enemy pieces are captured. When I saw the game, I realized the the Paco Šako set is actually the perfect set to play Super X Chess physically.
I think pushing a pawn back and forth means that you have 3 fold repetition and thus a draw. The game of chess is drawn if you have a three-fold repetition situation, it stalemates or you have not had a pawn move or capture happen after 50 moves.
Good review. I love this beautiful game! It is by far my favorite abstract game. I actually have 2 sets in my collection a Black vs White and a Blue vs Red. That way I can play 4 player, which is also insane fun. My rule book has the 3 move reception draw rule. I had the same concern that this game would end more draws than normal chess, because of how easy it is to simply move a union back to it's original square. If you have the advantage, you need to plan around this possible draw scenario. Which isn't hard since pieces never leave the board. In practice this forces deeper games.
Thank you for the positive feedback. It's good to hear from those that have played the game longer than myself that the repetitive moves are not as much of an issue as I thought. Thank you very much for commenting. :)
They could have printed a Byzantine, Circular, Hexagonal or Infinite chess board on the opposite side. Also would be interesting to see it played out on a 3 or 4 player chess board.
Kaptain, i just read on page 71 of the chunky rulebook that a (3x) repetition of moves leads to a Draw. I think that is equal to normal chess. That is the only way I have seen draws in PacoSako. 99% are wins though ;). I agree with the Fluid Fast & Fun; Elegant & Brilliant 👍👍👍👍
My page 71 doesn't have that on it. We may have different editions of the game. My game is the new edition that just came out with the hard board. I couldn't find a rule like that in my book, it's possible the book was changed between editions. That rule is a good way to deal with the situation though.
@@TheBoardGameKaptain All rules in Paco have been thoroughly contemplated :-))) (sometimes too much by me I think:-))) Also, this rule and the option you suggested is the option that was considered and I even keep an open mind to changing it in the future. Though over time my confidence in the rule leaving it as it is has grown more solid. First of all, because all official tournaments have shown hardly any draws occurred. Less than 1% and even some of these were not really necessary. Second of all I actually like this moment and it makes me search for being very opportunistic about my play (if I am in a less interesting position. and then, why would the other want a draw). There is also a certain logic in which the repetitive move happens, I believe mostly when both players create a win and it's at the same time their only defence move. And last but not least, I believe to be able to win Paco Sako tournaments in the future, you just have to win your games and take your chances. Games can have surprising changes and turn arounds, just play for it! And it's also a pity to stop a game like that.
I remember the last game between our two Dutch champions in which one of them twice went for a draw by repetition (which surprised me, I think his position was slightly better). The other player decided to keep the game alive and take his chances. Later in the game, he did have a direct win but did not see it. Eventually, he lost, but it showed you often have winning opportunities if you don't feel you're position is lost. And then, why would the other want a draw.
This so far is my experience, but yes... kids do this a little bit more. I then ask if they don't want to win. They say yes and I say, Well then try to find another route. It looks like an issue, but experience so far has shown differently.
This is hilarious to me. In war gaming and train gaming, they will come up with one game "system" and endlessly iterate variations as whole new games in this "system". There are thousands of games that use the core mechanism in Yahtzee as a component of their design. And then this guy can't stand that there is a genre of Chess in the same way there there are several COIN games, 18xx games, or Leader games.
Seeing this board, I would recommend to play this game on a regular Staunton style chess board, because the contrast between pieces and squares is much better. Giving both squares and pieces the exact same primary color is a bad choice. You can solve the problem by buying two sets of pieces in two other colors, however, but I don't like the fact that they do this as a kind of marketing trick to get more money through purchases of additional sets of pieces.
Fun fact: There is a game on Steam called Super X Chess. That game plays like traditional chess, but two pieces of the same color can 'fuse' into one by uniting them in a way similar to uniting pieces in Paco Šako. Fused pieces can't be separated, but they have the moving abilities of both pieces involved in the union. It's still 'war chess', though, so enemy pieces are captured. When I saw the game, I realized the the Paco Šako set is actually the perfect set to play Super X Chess physically.
Very interesting, I'll have to look up Super X chess, thanks.
I think pushing a pawn back and forth means that you have 3 fold repetition and thus a draw.
The game of chess is drawn if you have a three-fold repetition situation, it stalemates or you have not had a pawn move or capture happen after 50 moves.
That is a very good point.
Good review. I love this beautiful game! It is by far my favorite abstract game. I actually have 2 sets in my collection a Black vs White and a Blue vs Red. That way I can play 4 player, which is also insane fun.
My rule book has the 3 move reception draw rule. I had the same concern that this game would end more draws than normal chess, because of how easy it is to simply move a union back to it's original square. If you have the advantage, you need to plan around this possible draw scenario. Which isn't hard since pieces never leave the board. In practice this forces deeper games.
Thank you for the positive feedback. It's good to hear from those that have played the game longer than myself that the repetitive moves are not as much of an issue as I thought. Thank you very much for commenting. :)
They could have printed a Byzantine, Circular, Hexagonal or Infinite chess board on the opposite side. Also would be interesting to see it played out on a 3 or 4 player chess board.
One of the fun things about Chess variants is definitely combining them. ;)
Kaptain, i just read on page 71 of the chunky rulebook that a (3x) repetition of moves leads to a Draw. I think that is equal to normal chess. That is the only way I have seen draws in PacoSako. 99% are wins though ;). I agree with the Fluid Fast & Fun; Elegant & Brilliant 👍👍👍👍
My page 71 doesn't have that on it. We may have different editions of the game. My game is the new edition that just came out with the hard board. I couldn't find a rule like that in my book, it's possible the book was changed between editions. That rule is a good way to deal with the situation though.
@@TheBoardGameKaptain All rules in Paco have been thoroughly contemplated :-))) (sometimes too much by me I think:-))) Also, this rule and the option you suggested is the option that was considered and I even keep an open mind to changing it in the future. Though over time my confidence in the rule leaving it as it is has grown more solid. First of all, because all official tournaments have shown hardly any draws occurred. Less than 1% and even some of these were not really necessary. Second of all I actually like this moment and it makes me search for being very opportunistic about my play (if I am in a less interesting position. and then, why would the other want a draw). There is also a certain logic in which the repetitive move happens, I believe mostly when both players create a win and it's at the same time their only defence move. And last but not least, I believe to be able to win Paco Sako tournaments in the future, you just have to win your games and take your chances. Games can have surprising changes and turn arounds, just play for it! And it's also a pity to stop a game like that.
I remember the last game between our two Dutch champions in which one of them twice went for a draw by repetition (which surprised me, I think his position was slightly better). The other player decided to keep the game alive and take his chances. Later in the game, he did have a direct win but did not see it. Eventually, he lost, but it showed you often have winning opportunities if you don't feel you're position is lost. And then, why would the other want a draw.
This so far is my experience, but yes... kids do this a little bit more. I then ask if they don't want to win. They say yes and I say, Well then try to find another route. It looks like an issue, but experience so far has shown differently.
I'll make a video on this :-)
Love this game!
Me too. ;)
You didn't mention the actual win conditions. Does the queen have to mate with the king to win or is it any piece mate with the king?
You need any of your pieces to join with your opponents king. I'm sorry, I though I had mentioned it, my bad.
Interesting
Indeed it is.
How to butcher chess.
This is hilarious to me. In war gaming and train gaming, they will come up with one game "system" and endlessly iterate variations as whole new games in this "system". There are thousands of games that use the core mechanism in Yahtzee as a component of their design. And then this guy can't stand that there is a genre of Chess in the same way there there are several COIN games, 18xx games, or Leader games.