BrainKing - Discussion boards (Chess variants (8x8))

Moderator: WhisperzQ

, Mort

, Bwild

Chess variants (8x8)

including Amazon, Anti, Atomic, Berolina, Corner, Crazy Screen, Cylinder, Dark, Extinction, Fischer Random, Fortress, Horde, Knight Relay, Legan, Loop, Maharajah, Screen, Three Checks

For posting:
- invitations to games (you can also use the New Game menu)
- information about upcoming tournaments
- discussion of games (please limit this to completed games or discussion on how a game has arrived at a certain position ... speculation on who has an advantage or the benefits of potential moves is not permitted)
- links to interesting related sites (non-promotional)

Community Announcements:
- Nasmichael is helping to co-ordinate the Fischer Random Chess Email Chess (FRCEC) Club and can set up quad or trio games if you send him a PM here.

List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.

Mode: Everyone can post

3. June 2006, 02:18:30

plaintiger

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: question

...which i'll ask here rather than bug nabla with every niggling thing that comes through my head:

the rules for ambiguous say there's no check or checkmate, but if the goal is to capture the opponent's king, and my opponent's queen is staring down and open file at my king, i consider myself to be in check. so: is ambiguous like regular chess in that i (and so my opponent) is/am obligated to protect my king when possible?

in other words, if i have this above-described situation, and i click a square between my opponent's Queen and my king, and any of several pieces could move there including my king, whose moving there would leave him in "check", can my opponent move my king to that square and then take him on his next move, thus winning the game? or is he obligated to move some other piece to that square, thus protecting my king?

thank you.

3. June 2006, 03:11:50

WhisperzQ

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re: question

plaintiger: I understand that your opponent can move whichever piece they chose so long as it is a valid chess move for that piece (checks not taken into account) ... so if your King could move there they could move your King and then they would click on the square on which your King resides and you would need to select one of their pieces to move to take your King, in this case the queen would suffice.

3. June 2006, 05:09:19

plaintiger

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re: question

WhisperzQ: okay. thank you very much.

3. June 2006, 11:18:07

nabla

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re: question

WhisperzQ: This is 99.9% correct. The only difference is that Fencer did it (rightly) so that when more than one piece can take the king, selecting the king's square as destination wins the game outright, the opponent does not have to choose who will eat his king.

3. June 2006, 11:15:46

nabla

show this user posts | show thread | link

Subject: Re: question

plaintiger: Questions about rules do not bug me ! Although you already got the answer, I would add that in any chess variant saying "no check or checkmate, the goal is to take the king", it must be understood as "you are allowed to leave your king open to capture, though you will lose the game if you do so".
Actually, you can still talk about "check" (threat to capture the king in the next move) and "checkmate" (unstoppable "check"), but taking these concepts out of the game rules make them much simpler to state.