@Sarg0n
In short, my proposed rule is not applicable to nested pins. I had explained there on that forum.
Let me tell you.
Knight is pinned by rook.
Rook is pinned by bishop.
This implies that knight is immobile with accordance to my proposed rule.
Hence, King can go to c5.
Q.E.D.
Alternatively, use basic chess rule:
'Kings aren't capturable in standard chess'
Seconndly, the position isn't checkmate either.

@Akbar2thegreat said in #21:
> @Sarg0n
> In short, my proposed rule is not applicable to nested pins. I had explained there on that forum.
> Let me tell you.
> Knight is pinned by rook.
> Rook is pinned by bishop.
> This implies that knight is immobile with accordance to my proposed rule.
> Hence, King can go to c5.
> Q.E.D.
> Alternatively, use basic chess rule:
> 'Kings aren't capturable in standard chess'
> Seconndly, the position isn't checkmate either.
But logically the knight should be able to move because the rook is pinned. If the knight is immobile it makes no sense, so I don't see why fide should change this..

@SD_2709
I agree but you are sticking to basic rules. You are not exploring different views and things and how to change them by perceiving them differently.
Earlier, I used to say the same thing but now as I have good imaginative skills. It can be made at least a variant if not in real.
Also, who thought that one can play without Kings? But nowadays there is antichess.
See the world through different angle or from inverted spectacles. Whole world is like a chess game if you think properly.

Chess would be easier to understand if the king was treated as an ordinary piece. Win condition: capture opponents king.

If you create a new game, learn from the mistake chess did, making an advice a rule.

@what_game_is_this
Exactly. I was exploiting that thing. Someone finally got it.

amazing but true