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)
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.
...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?
i personally would also be against the automatic-move thing because i don't like computers doing anything on my behalf that i haven't told them to do. it's a little too 2001: A Space Oddyseyesque for me. a lot too, actually...