At Exeter Chess Club I was recently playing in a chess variants tournament. One of my favourites is the variant where if the king reaches one of the central squares (e4, d4, e5, d5) it is an automatic win for the player whose king reaches that square. Otherwise normal rules of chess apply. I was playing Black and reached the following position with White to move:
I had given up a queen for a rook in order to get my king out to d6. In normal chess this position would be a straightforward win for White, but in this chess variant White has to be extremely careful as Black is only one move away from bringing the black king to the central squares and winning.
In the game White played 1.Qxe4 and resigned immediately after 1...Re8!. In a normal game 2.Qxe8 would win, but in this chess variant, 2.Qxe8 would be met by 2...Kd5 0-1. And if 2.Qxf5, Black wins normally with 2...Re1#, exploiting the weakness of the back rank.
A question is whether White can save this position despite being a queen for a rook ahead - this is the sort of chess variant that wouldn't work with computer analysis. An obvious try is 1.Qb5, covering the central squares for the time being, but after 1...Nd4 2,Qg5 f5 or 2.Qa5 b5, White is struggling to keep the central squares covered and stop the black king from advancing. 1.Qa5 is probably best, but White has to watch out for ...Rc8-c5 and ...Re8-e5 ideas.
The opening saw me on the black side of a Four Knights Game (via an unusual move order, 1.Nc3 Nc6 2.Nf3 e5 3.e4 Nf6 I think). My opponent then played 4.Bc4, allowing 4...Nxe4. He remarked afterwards that in this chess variant the Halloween Gambit (4.Nxe5, the subject of my Halloween update to my website) would have been strong as in various variations it is difficult for Black to stop White from safely moving the king forward towards the centre.
I imagine that the Mason Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nc3!?) and the allied Steinitz Gambit (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.d4!?), inviting ...Qh4+, forcing Ke2, would also be good in this particular variant.
