grenv: Knight Relay Chess is the game!

grenv: I do not see the point neither why check and mate do not exist.

grenv: That is something that could be said about Atomic Chess by someone playing his first game, giving an orthodox check, and seeing his opponent answering by ignoring the check and blowing his king up !
Did you mean that one should disallow to choose a move leaving the opponent in check, or only redefine "checks" so as to avoid that a player can lose his king in one move (that is, making those moves illegal instead of losing) ?

nabla: I didn't really understand your question, but what I meant was that moves leaving the king in check should be illegal.

Atomic chess should be the same, except that "check" should mean any situation where I can blow up the king.

e.g.
1.Nf3 f6
2.Ne5+

or
1.Nf3 a6
2.Ne5x

grenv: If my question wasn't, your answer was very clear :-)
Making moves that leave the king in check illegal is indeed an alternative formulation in my personal ruleset ( http://www.pion.ch/echecs/variante.php?jeu=ambigus&rubrique=regles&changer_langue=E ) . Basically it doesn't change the game at all (except for the stalemate, but I like the fact that stalemate is a win), has the advantage to cut off silly mistakes, to make the game more chess-like, but the disadvantages to make the rules more difficult to understand, three times as long and more difficult to implement.
The last reason is enough to make any programer prefer the simple no-check no-mate formulation, and even if I supported your proposition, I am sure that Fencer would not. He didn't implement checks in either Atomic Chess or Extinction Chess, and rightly so imho.

grenv: So you say that in Atomic Chess 8.exd5 should not be allowed for white or even worse 8...Qxd2 with win, should not be allowed for black?

1. Nf3 f6 2. Nd4 Nh6 3. f3 c6 4. e3 d5 5. Nb5 cxb5 6. Bb5 Nc6 7. e4 Ng4 8.exd5 Qxd2 0-1

But that would just be another variation of Atomic Chess different than that we have here.....

Chicago Bulls: In your example, grenv would probably like 8.exd5 to be rejected by the system as illegal.

Chicago Bulls: It's not different at all, in fact why would anyone consider exd5???, it loses the game immediately. Why allow stupid mistakes?

nabla: In the first case the game would be inferior i think, while in the second it's pointless since it's just a delay of the loss....

Chicago Bulls: I fully agree that my first suggested option would make the game less interesting because defence would superseed attack.