user32157: I'm new to this forum and don't know if the following question is appropriate. It is of a more general "meta-chess" nature.
I wonder if a variant of chess makes sense in which negotiations are mimicked like this: When black is to move he proposes a number of possible next moves and white must give responses to each of the proposals (as "promises"). After this step (the "negotiation step") black definitely chooses one of his moves, and white must respond as promised. Then white makes his proposals and so on.
The (maximal) number n of proposals may be specified, but does not have to. n=1 is already different from standard chess. I assume that it doesn't make sense to propose fewer than n moves when n are allowed (because you will get more information from the opponent) – but it will be a matter of time.
This variant would not be a completely different game but obviously a significantly different one. It bears more similarities with actual warfare where negotiations play a role. Was it ever considered to play this variant of chess, maybe in some niches of the chess world?

user11144: Not really an answer, but a quite similar idea: The variant "Refusal chess" is known. One side makes a move, the other can let it stand (in which case it counts as played) or refuse it (in which case another move must be played, which then stands). Obviously, this could be generalized to higher n, "only legal moves" have to always stand.
(My source: Faschingsschach der WELT, methinks)

32157: <p>I'm new to this forum and don't know if the following question is appropriate. It is of a more general &quot;meta-chess&quot; nature.</p>
<p>I wonder if a variant of chess makes sense in which negotiations are mimicked like this: When black is to move he proposes a number of possible next moves and white must give responses to each of the proposals (as &quot;promises&quot;). After this step (the &quot;negotiation step&quot;) black definitely chooses one of his moves, and white must respond as promised. Then white makes his proposals and so on.</p>
<p>The (maximal) number <em>n</em> of proposals may be specified, but does not have to. <em>n</em>=1 is already different from standard chess. I assume that it doesn't make sense to propose fewer than <em>n</em> moves when <em>n</em> are allowed (because you will get more information from the opponent) – but it will be a matter of time.</p>
<p>This variant would not be a completely different game but obviously a significantly different one. It bears more similarities with actual warfare where negotiations play a role. Was it ever considered to play this variant of chess, maybe in some niches of the chess world?</p>
 11144: <p>Not really an answer, but a quite similar idea: The variant &quot;Refusal chess&quot; is known. One side makes a move, the other can let it stand (in which case it counts as played) or refuse it (in which case another move must be played, which then stands). Obviously, this could be generalized to higher n, &quot;only legal moves&quot; have to always stand.</p>
<p>(My source: Faschingsschach der WELT, methinks)</p>
