Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

If two of your Wild Roses are in check (under attack), you win the game (blossom roses)

Leaving one of your Wild Roses under attack means you lose the game (rose cutting)

What happens if a win/loss condition based on leaving Roses in check occurs for both players at the same time?

Please pay attention to ALL PHRASES in the description of W/L Conditions

Win/Loss Conditions
After your move:
- By giving check to two of your opponent's Wild Roses at the same time, you win the game (checkmate)
- If two of your Wild Roses are in check (under attack), you win the game (blossom roses)
- Leaving your opponent without pieces (only with Wild Roses) - you win the game (fading roses)
- Leaving one of your Wild Roses under attack means you lose the game (rose cutting)
Winning Conditions always prevail over the only Losing Condition. Or in other words, the first one to fulfill one of the three winning conditions wins.

There is no missing in the second sentence is "at the end of your turn". 

Win/Loss Conditions
After your move:

You're right. The more Wild Roses a player has, the more difficult it is for him to maneuver. If we remember the famous chess problem about eight queens, then a lot will become clear. However, fortunately, as in standard chess, reaching the last rank with a pawn is not so easy.

You are absolutely right!

But this means that the opponent having more roses isn't necessarily good for you, right? It allows them to win by blossoming more readily (even if it allows you to win by checkmate more easily)?

I think the crucial phrase that is missing in the second sentence is "at the end of your turn".

"Giving check" already implies that it is at the end of your turn. But because of this fine distinction it might be better to formulate the whole thing in a more similar way:

If two or more(?) of your Wild Roses are under attack at the start of your turn, you lose (checkmate).

If two or more(?) of your Wild Roses are under attack at the end of your turn, you win (blossom roses).

- By giving check to two of your opponent's Wild Roses at the same time, you win the game (checkmate)
- If two of your Wild Roses are in check (under attack), you win the game (blossom roses)

These seem to contradict each other. If you give check to two enemy Wild Roses, that fulfills the first condition for you, while fulfilling the second condition for your opponent at the same time. So who wins in this situation?

Also, like H. G. said, the promotion rules would benefit greatly from simply having a Pawn promote an enemy piece to an enemy Wild Rose and then ending the turn there.

Okay, done.

- If two of your Wild Roses are in check (under attack), you win the game (blossom roses)

The author, Вадря Покштя, has updated this page.

'are put in check' means a literal transition from static to dynamic. To win by Blossom Roses you have to move one of your pieces.

But 'moving one of your pieces' would not count as 'putting [the opponent] in check', unless you checked him with that piece, or by discovering a slider check over the square that this peace evacuated. So the expression 'are put in check' suggests that they should not be in check before, and that the check has to be caused by the move. While 'are in check' only addresses the static condition that should apply after the move, without making any suggestion as to the way it originated.

The examples you give in the chess.com blog show that you mean the latter. But the article here should be unambiguously understandable without having to consult chess.com, and your wording creates the wrong impression.

to H.G. Muller

'are put in check' means a literal transition from static to dynamic. To win by Blossom Roses you have to move one of your pieces. I don't see any problem with the expression 'if two of them are in check' but saying 'are put in check' we are talking about the dynamics of events. Of course, we can use various words like 'to place', 'to expose' etc. I think I tried to convey the idea correctly.

" If the Pawn would just change into an enemy Rose on the promotion square, the opponent would also have an extra Rose." This makes it harder to win. By having the choice of 'planting' a new Rose where it benefits him, the player significantly increases his chances of success. I don't know if I can post pictures here, but I would show it very well with examples.

to Lev Grigoriev 

Лев, да я все понимаю и сталкивался с этим уже не раз тут. Спасибо за слова поддержки!

Indeed the bar is rather low on chess.com...

The problem I had is with the clarity of your description, and your latest message doesn't really solve it. You say there "if two of them are put in check AFTER YOUR MOVE, you win". The presence of the word put is what confuses me. Why is it there? Why don't you simply say "if two of them are in check AFTER YOUR MOVE, you win"? The latter is unambiguous, as it refers to a state. But when you say 'are put' it refers to a transition, and raises the question what should be the state before the transition. As there would not be any transition if that state was the same.

I was not doubting that  Roses are a liability, and giving the opponent more is to your advantage. I was just wondering why this had to be done in such a complex way. If the Pawn would just change into an enemy Rose on the promotion square, the opponent would also have an extra Rose.

Ну они не поняли, бывает. Их цель – сделать каждый аспект игры понятным. Вы можете сделать самое лучшее – уточнить это прямо в тексте страницы, что «шах после Вашего хода – победа, после чужого – наоборот». Для нас это понятно, для них нет) а в целом отлично)

Wild Rose is not a chess King. It can give check and be in check. I use the word 'in check' to mean 'under attack'. Please see here for more details https://www.chess.com/blog/Pokshtya/wild-rose-chess There is no need to measure the game by standard chess standards. This is NOT STANDARD chess. Win/Loss Conditions are very clear. To win the game with one of the three Winning Conditions YOU MUST MAKE A MOVE. Thus, if I leave my two Wild Roses under attack AFTER MY TURN IS ENDED, then I win. It will no longer be your opponent's turn. And he won't be able to say that he's attacking my two Wild Roses.

"Also, what happens if you have more than two Wild Roses? How does that affect win/loss conditions?" Answer: None You can have as many as 16 Wild Roses. If two of them are put in check AFTER YOUR OPPONENT'S MOVE, you lose, if two of them are put in check AFTER YOUR MOVE, you win.

"It is not clear to me what 'putting your Wild Roses into check' means, though." Answer: 'putting your Wild Roses into check' means putting your WR's under attack. AVOIDING CHECK IS NOT NECESSARY, but it does affect on Win/Loss Conditions. AVOIDING CHECK IS NOT NECESSARY - THERE IS NO KINGS in the game. Check is just a threat like saying GARDE to op's queen.

"Perhaps except in case of a promotion. The rules for that seem unnecessarily complicated." Answer: You are absolutly wrong. The more Wild Roses your opponent has, the easier it is to win the game. Again see examples here https://www.chess.com/blog/Pokshtya/wild-rose-chess

During the first day of publication on chess.com, I received more than a dozen positive feedbacks about the game. Not a single negative one.

It seems to me that this is irrelevant, as the the termination rules appear to specify that the game is finished as soon as such a capture would be possible.

It is not clear to me what 'putting your Wild Roses into check' means, though. Does that mean that both have to be not in check before your move? Or does this also cover the case where the opponent checks one of my Wild Roses, and that I then move the other to an attacked square? If not, then it seems not specified what would happen in that case.

Perhaps except in case of a promotion. The rules for that seem unnecessarily complicated. When you select an opponent piece to change to Rose, you could pick a piece that is under attack. And then you can do another move. Does that count for the opponent as leaving his Rose in check? When I use my move to attack one of his other two (or more) Roses, does that count as having put two of his Roses in check? What of the promotion move itself already delivered a discovered check, and I pick an attacked piece to change to Rose?

I think it would be much cleaner to just have the Pawn promote to an opponent Rose. That doesn't raise any questions as to when a turn ends, and consequently what 'putting' and 'leaving' in check means.

Wild Rose (Queen) - this piece combines the functions of the Queen and the King: it can move and capture like a Queen, it cannot be captured, but it can be declared check or checkmate like a regular King in chess.

How so? Also, the inability to be captured basically nullifies check and thus checkmate.

Also, what happens if you have more than two Wild Roses? How does that affect win/loss conditions?

My submission is ready for publication.

Лев спасибо огромное! Разобрался. раньше такого не было вот и запутался. Спасибо еще раз!

Спасибо за помощь! То есть Edit Metadata for this Page? но там нет переключения с привата на общий доступ. Все остается без изменений.

Тогда неплохо переключить с приватки (доступ только авторам и редакторам) на суд членов сайта (Страница > Править метаданные > Доступ, приватный или всеобщий для CVP)

My submission is ready for publication.