@DogyBrown said in #10:
> what is the second part?
I cant say it yet. First someone must guess first part
When I was 4, I actually thought that was how the game ended
If there were a position where you could capture the opponent's king, then this king
would have to be checked and left in check in the previous moves, which is impossible.
However, assume that we let a checkmated player make moves. We can not be sure
that we would capture his king, because he could possibly tie by perpetual check or threefold
repetition. He should only avoid giving a checkmate, because then we will be able to ignore
this check and capture his king.
imagine if all the pieces were pawns except for the king.
Or replace the pawns with queens (that would be complete chaos)
Or with knight, rooks, bishops, anything!
i don't think we can replace them with air though. that would be automatic draw.
@Marcin2 said in #13:
> If there were a position where you could capture the opponent's king, then this king
> would have to be checked and left in check in the previous moves, which is impossible.
> However, assume that we let a checkmated player make moves. We can not be sure
> that we would capture his king, because he could possibly tie by perpetual check or threefold
> repetition. He should only avoid giving a checkmate, because then we will be able to ignore
> this check and capture his king.
Check on the board if your idea works
I dont think so
Come on guys someone must solve it. This is chess forum after all
ez antichess
yea thats what i thought u can capture the king then it is antichess
Antichess has different rules
@Nivedit_Santhosh said in #18:
> yea thats what i thought u can capture the king then it is antichess
Yea but we just have to take the king
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.