Ok so the fact is whoever takes the king first wins. if you move your knight to check the opponent while it is in a pin then he takes your king and you can imagine that if the king is taken then the other pieces can't move. This is illustrated by the fact that in Atomic if the king is under check that you can still leave it in check if you can blow up the opponent king, then the explosion is immediate and the opponent king is taken before your king can be taken. This is a real rule and it saved me sometimes in Atomic.
@Kewin3 said in #20:
> what? that doesn't make any sense
King Trade, bro
Its Opening Theory you must know
> what? that doesn't make any sense
King Trade, bro
Its Opening Theory you must know
@schere said in #18:
> @Akbar2thegreat
> with "absolute pin" you certainly mean "pin", or is there a difference?
Any piece of greater value can be pinned with a relatively weaker piece guarding it.
In absolute, we mean the piece can't move at all.
And I made specific rule for that to ensure that king can stand on any one of those squares potentially occupied but not controlled according to my made rule.
@Kewin3 said in #15:
> The answer depends on what variant you are playing, but I guess it is illegal in any variant...
Ever heard of antichess!
> @Akbar2thegreat
> with "absolute pin" you certainly mean "pin", or is there a difference?
Any piece of greater value can be pinned with a relatively weaker piece guarding it.
In absolute, we mean the piece can't move at all.
And I made specific rule for that to ensure that king can stand on any one of those squares potentially occupied but not controlled according to my made rule.
@Kewin3 said in #15:
> The answer depends on what variant you are playing, but I guess it is illegal in any variant...
Ever heard of antichess!
@Eric_U said in #21:
> Ok so the fact is whoever takes the king first wins. if you move your knight to check the opponent while it is in a pin then he takes your king and you can imagine that if the king is taken then the other pieces can't move. This is illustrated by the fact that in Atomic if the king is under check that you can still leave it in check if you can blow up the opponent king, then the explosion is immediate and the opponent king is taken before your king can be taken. This is a real rule and it saved me sometimes in Atomic.
Exactly, that's the actual rule. The rule is applied in Racing Kings also.
> Ok so the fact is whoever takes the king first wins. if you move your knight to check the opponent while it is in a pin then he takes your king and you can imagine that if the king is taken then the other pieces can't move. This is illustrated by the fact that in Atomic if the king is under check that you can still leave it in check if you can blow up the opponent king, then the explosion is immediate and the opponent king is taken before your king can be taken. This is a real rule and it saved me sometimes in Atomic.
Exactly, that's the actual rule. The rule is applied in Racing Kings also.
@Kewin3 said in #25:
> Yes, Kc3 is also illegal in antichess...
No. In antichess, aim is to lose all pieces. And checks don't exist there.
> Yes, Kc3 is also illegal in antichess...
No. In antichess, aim is to lose all pieces. And checks don't exist there.
@Akbar2thegreat said in #26:
> No. In antichess, aim is to lose all pieces. And checks don't exist there.
I know, but you have to take the knight and Kc3 would be illegal then.
> No. In antichess, aim is to lose all pieces. And checks don't exist there.
I know, but you have to take the knight and Kc3 would be illegal then.
@Kewin3 said in #27:
> I know, but you have to take the knight and Kc3 would be illegal then.
Oh, yeah!
Didn't pay attention to must capture rule!
> I know, but you have to take the knight and Kc3 would be illegal then.
Oh, yeah!
Didn't pay attention to must capture rule!
@Akbar2thegreat said in #10:
> Yes, but I have made the rule better.
> Remember when I suggested changes in rules of chess.
> One was about that absolute pinned pieces should not be able to control the pieces.
> And I had proper response for your words there.
> See: lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/my-opinion-two-chess-rules-should-be-revised#1
Why are you keen on getting more and more dislikes?
Your timeout rule was pretty logical but this doesn't make any sense. And about en passant, why complicate when many don't even know about it.
> Yes, but I have made the rule better.
> Remember when I suggested changes in rules of chess.
> One was about that absolute pinned pieces should not be able to control the pieces.
> And I had proper response for your words there.
> See: lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/my-opinion-two-chess-rules-should-be-revised#1
Why are you keen on getting more and more dislikes?
Your timeout rule was pretty logical but this doesn't make any sense. And about en passant, why complicate when many don't even know about it.
I can't believe this thread been going on so long. Because you can't move into check. End of xxx
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.