[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
An interesting analysis of a problem of restricted check generally. There are similar issues in multi-player games with rules about checkmate by multiple armies.
Sacred King Chess seems like a natural extension of this, and I like it better. Still cool though.
How a player will win in this game, if you cant give check? Lets say white is in turn 10, he cant check the oponent king. So, to white be able mate/capture the king in turn 12, black would need to make changes the board position, by some movement and/or capture on turn 11, and that would then allow white capture king on turn 12. But the problem is: A player cant put his king in check, and so in turn 11 black would not be able to make this movement that put his king in check.
"Keller, in his 10th issue of World Game Review mentions the following paradox: what if, say white checks black, such that blacks only move is to check white, but in that position, whites only move is to check black, and so on and so on." How this would happen in checkless chess? The rules say that you can only mate the enemy king, not check him. In fact this is the main idea of the variant.
Rodrigo, I think the idea is that if after white's move, black's only response will put white in (non-mate) check, then that black move is illegal, so black is in fact in checkmate, and white's move was legal. Then, what happens if black's only response is to put white in a similar position? This is the "paradox" that is referenced.
5 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.