14 Jun 16
3 edits
Originally posted by vivify
I understand what Joe means. It does seem like chess has loopholes. I started a thread a while back with this position:
[fen]8/8/7b/8/3PPn2/4K1r1/R2n1N2/2k5 w - - 0 1[/fen]
White is checkmated; however, the logic seems off. If white captures the knight being guarded by black's king, black would then have to capture the king by traveling into check. ...[text shortened]... again white can't travel into check in the first place (to capture the knight), so it evens out.
You mean 1. Kxd2 Kxd2 2. Rxd2 and I think Eladar was thinking of 1. Rxd2 Rxe3.
I think the standard way is the right way for checkmate to work, once the first king is taken the battle is over. Basically the objective in chess is to force one's opponent to break the rules as they can't leave their king in check and they can't move into check, rather than just to take their king. If the checkmate rule were changed to insist that one or other player could not deliver checkmate with a pinned piece then I don't think the game would be consistent without allowing the king to move into check if the checking piece is pinned to one's opponents king - this would mean that an unpinning king move or breaking the pin by interposing another piece would give check. I don't see why that shouldn't be a reasonable chess variant, but it might be a bit confusing. I don't think you could make a consistent set of rules if you insisted that for checkmate it had to be impossible to be checked, as that would mean that one's opponent could make a move which left their king in check.
It would be simpler to allow moving into check and drop checkmate altogether. The game would end when one or other king is captured with a rule that the opposing player has one last move if they have any pieces after their king is taken (so both kings being taken would be a draw). One could introduce an en-passant rule to penalize castling through check. so that on the move after castling it's possible to capture a king on a square it passed through. It drastically changes the game as stalemate would no longer be possible as the defender would simply be forced to move into check, so to secure a draw the defender has to keep a piece on the board to be able to check the attacker with before his king is taken.
14 Jun 16
2 edits
If the game ends when the king is dead, then if the king takes the knight, king would capture king and game is over. The fact that the game ends with the black king in check is meaningless since white was allowed to put his king into check.
Even using the term check is meaningless if we allow king capture to end the game. The term check is important only under the actual rules of chess which seems to be a bit too complicated for some to understand.
Originally posted by Benjamin BarkerWhy shouldn't a queen be able to move like a knight?
Them's the rules - the same as pawns can't go backwards - I'm still confused! Lol
Why can't I take my own piece if I want? Wouldn't that just be a sacrifice? If I can can sacrifice a queen, why not a pesky pawn that traps my king?
Why can't I move two pieces on my turn? I have two hands!
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by EladarIt seems to me that you are looking for a game similar to chess.
Why shouldn't a queen be able to move like a knight?
Why can't I take my own piece if I want? Wouldn't that just be a sacrifice? If I can can sacrifice a queen, why not a pesky pawn that traps my king?
Why can't I move two pieces on my turn? I have two hands!
You're not the first person
Try looking at Shogi or Fisher random chess or even suicide chess and no, taking your own piece wouldn't be just a sacrifice.
There's been many time when I've wished I could replace say a bad bishop with a potentially more active knight.
16 Jun 16
1 edit
Originally posted by MilkyJoeYou can't be in checkmate because in chess it is illegal to take the king.
My thinking behind it was, imagine instead of the game ending when there's checkmate (which is just saving you make the final move - kill/capture the king), it was played out... the piece taking the king leaves the other king in check, which is not allowed.
Make it legal to take the king, then you make it legal to be in check. You want to change the rules for one move, but then change them back on the next. Sounds a lot like the way my son wanted to play when he is losing (ok, back when he was about 7)
16 Jun 16
Originally posted by vendaNah, I was just being a sarcastic jerk.
It seems to me that you are looking for a game similar to chess.
You're not the first person
Try looking at Shogi or Fisher random chess or even suicide chess and no, taking your own piece wouldn't be just a sacrifice.
There's been many time when I've wished I could replace say a bad bishop with a potentially more active knight.