Position Examples for Never-Ending Chess Game

This blog is meant to close the gap of confusion with the technical rules of how moving works, especially dealing with conditionals, offense, defending, and when exactly pieces are immobilized. The game is located here.

UPDATE: This blog talks about pieces being "Immobilized" or "Glued". When reading this, keep in mind that in the current version of the game, immobilized/glued pieces ARE actually allowed to move, but if a capture is attempted on them, their move will be canceled and they will be captured. Immobilized pieces are now called "Capturable" pieces. In addition to this, you may now include conditionals when moving your capturable pieces like this: "Move my capturable piece here, if it's actually captured, move this other piece instead."

Remember that everyone's move is made at same time inside the game upon a game board update. The chronological order people submit their move in doesn't matter.

In this board position, white submits their move as N(3,15). Black wants to threaten his knight, what are his options? ... Well, only moves that are visibly legal on the board update are legal, so playing Rook to (3,13) threatening the knight is illegal because in the picture, we see that the knight is blocking the path to the (3,13) square. (1)

Black tries to reason that white moved their knight out of the way before he moved R(3,13), but this violates the rule that everyone's move is made at the same time. White's move N(3,15) will not be registered until the next game board update! So since the picture shows the knight is the way, the move Rook to (3,13) is still illegal. Black can play R(10,15), knowing it'll be threatening to take the knight next move.

In this board, green sees he has a chance to capture Crimson-Red's knight, so he submits his move as RxN(12,15). However, red has a chance to dodge because everyone's move is played at the same time, so red decides to play N(10,14). After the board update the rook is left on (12,15) where the knight was previously, and the knight is on (10,14)! Green is upset that the capture didn't work and that he wasted his move to accomplish nothing!! D: (2)

It can be very hard to attempt a capture without wasting your move because your enemy can always dodge! How do we solve this dilemma? ... We include the ability to add a conditional to green's capture.

This time (see the above picture again), green submits his move as Rx(12,15), then he puts a conditional that, if the capture fails (because the knight moved out of the way), he'll instead go for his next preferred move, R(7,13) (for whatever reason). Green can express his entire move like this:

"Rx(12,15) Conditional capture failure then- R(7,13)"

Now, lets say crimson-red were to make any other move but not move not the knight- Green's preferred capturing move would be a success and the rook would replace the knight on (12,15)! But if red instead chooses to move his knight out of the way, then Green's preferred capturing move would turn out to be a failure, so his 2nd preferred move is taken into account- Red's knight is moved to (14,16) and Green's rook is moved to (7,13) simultaneously. (3)

On this board ^^, blue submits his move as (12,-6). Green sees blue's submitted pawn advancement and tries to submit his move as RxP(12,-6). This is NOT a legal way to make a capture! Since all pieces move at the same time, both the blue pawn and the green rook would occupy this square at once on the next board update: (4)

It is announced that multiple pieces are occupying the (12,-6) square, and all pieces will be forced to move out of (12,-6) or suffocate to death upon the next update. EVEN if blue submits a pawn advancement to (12,-5) leaving only 1 piece on the square, the green rook would still die unless he moves out as well!

This same position can be used to show an example of an illegal conditional move: Green submits his move as "Conditional on blue pawn advancing, Rx(14,-6), otherwise R(10,-8). Green got this wrong in 2 different ways- First, the capturing on (14,-6) wouldn't work because the pawn would be moved there the same time the rook does so they both would occupy it. And 2nd, you are not allowed to make conditionals this way. The correct way do express a conditional is "RxP(14,-6) Conditional capture failure- R(10,-8). But this is still illegal in this position because we can plainly see in the picture that green capturing a pawn on (14,-6) is illegal because there is no pawn there! (5)

Another example of an illegal conditional: Blue attempts to submit "Conditional green pawn advances- (14,-7)x(13,-6), otherwise (some other move)" This type of conditional is illegal because the picture shows there is no pawn on (13,-6) to capture. (6)

Here is an example of a correct conditional: Blue submits his move as "(14,-7)x(13,-6) Conditional capture failure- (14,-6)". Green submits his move as (13,-5), and upon the game update both pawns advance 1 square! (7)

Now, say blue never included a conditional in his move, let's say he instead submitted "(14,-7)x(13,-6)" This IS legal because we can see in the picture that there is a pawn on (13,-6) to capture! So what will happen upon game update? The green pawn will advance 1 square and the blue pawn will be where the green pawn used to be! ... So the green pawn "dodged" the capture, and the blue pawn switched lanes without ever making a capture: (8)

Let's look into the rules around capturing, defense, when exactly are pieces immobilized, and moving to covered squares. In this example, blue would like to capture green's pawn. (9)

Blue decides to submit "R(3,-10)" to get behind the pawn. Green submits his move as P(3,-8). The game updates and now the board looks like: (10)

Now green has 1 chance to move out of check of the rook or his pawn will be immobilized for a move. Blue submits "RxP(3,-7)" conditional capture fails then (some other move)", green submits a pawn advancement to (3,-6). The game updates and now the board is: (11)

Since the green pawn failed it's chance to get out of the way of the rook, it has been immobilized and green is NOT allowed to move it this turn. This guarantees blue can capture the pawn now by means of "RxP(3,-6)", since it is currently immobilized!

If we return to this position where blue had just moved behind green's pawn: (12)

Green gets one chance to move out of check of the blue rook. Green submits a pawn advancement to (3,-6). Blue this time decides to move his rook to (7,-10). The game updates and now the board is: (13)

Now the pawn is no longer in check, so it will NOT be immobilized this turn so green may continue to march it!

... But what if say the rook moves, but still threatening the pawn? Let's return to this position once again: (14)

Blue has just moved his rook behind the green pawn. The green pawn gets one chance to move out of check. This time blue submits his move as R(3,-14), green submits a pawn advancement (3,-6). The game updates and now we're here: (15)

Since blue moved his rook but remaining on the same rank/file, green's pawn has still been glued for a move!

This does not apply to positions where someone repeatedly puts a piece in check. See this position: (16)

Blue has threatened green's queen so they get once chance to move out of check! Green submits Q(32,-3) and Blue submits R(32,-6). After the board update we are here: (17)

Can this be considered failing to get out of check? Should green's queen be immobilized for a move? NO because blue is giving check on an entirely different file than he was previously giving check on! Green will receive yet another chance to get out of check! (The example for picture #15 works because the blue rook remained on the same file the pawn was originally put in check on!)

Here is another example of how to capture a running pawn- (18)

In this position blue submits C(5,-9) and green submits P(3,-9). After the board update we are here: (19)

Now green's pawn has been threatened so it gets one chance to move out of check or it will be immobilized for a move! Green submits (3,-8) and blue submits some other move. After the next update: (20)Since the green pawn failed to move out of check of the chancellor, it has been immobilized for 1 move! So blue can now be guaranteed the capture by doing CxP(3,-8)!

Now let me include some examples of capturing defended pieces... (21)

In the above position. Blue submits to capture the pawn with his guard. Green submitted some other move and on the next board update we're here: (22)

Blue's guard has been immobilized! Why? He captured a piece that was defended, so green must be given a chance to make the recapture! Green now submits RxG (and blue some other move) and on next update blue's guard has been captured!- (23)

The same story goes for moving pieces to squares covered by other people! See this position: (24)

Blue would like to stop the green pawn from advancing, so he submits R(27,6). Green submits pawn advancement and now we're here: (25)

Blue is wondering why has his rook been immobilized?? We'd tell him that he moved to a square that the green rook was covering! So green must be given the chance to make the capture! Green submits RxR (and blue some other move) and on the next update the blue rook will be captured: (26)

Ok, but what is the deal about capturing a piece the same time it is defended? See this position: Blue has just last move moved behind green's pawn: (27)

To blue, it appears the pawn isn't defended, so he would like to capture the green pawn this turn via "Rx(30,6) conditional dodge then (some other move)". 

If green were to submit a pawn advancement here, the capture would fail so blue's other move would be taken into account. And the green pawn would be immobilized for failing to get out of check of the blue rook!

But if green were to attempt to defend the pawn then the capture would be a success: (28)

Blue's rook is NOT immobilized in this case. WHY? Because at the time blue submitted to capture the green pawn, the picture clearly showed it was NOT defended!! How could blue have known it would be defended or not? - This is why in this game pieces must be pre-defended. Or you must anticipate any threats against your soldiers! Green tries to get revenge on blue for taking his pawn and tries to take blue's rook... But blue is able to dodge and escape!: (29)

Pins still work in this game because, if you move a pinned piece (simultaneously exposing another *friendly piece* to a discovered attack) than this can be considered the same thing as moving into check, so your exposed piece will be immobilized/glued for 1 move to allow the chance to make the capture! Take this example: (30)

Blue is pinning green's knight with his rook! If green were to play N(40,28) in this position, this would simultaneously expose his queen to blue's rook, so it is considered moving his queen into check, and his queen will be glued upon game update to allow blue to make the capture: (31)

 

However, if you move a piece simultaneously exposing a discovered attack on somebody else, then they will not be glued immediately, but will still receive the 1 chance to move out of check. In this example, blue is threatening green's bishop: (32)

Green submits B(40,22), but since the knight on (45,24) does not belong to green, the knight will not be immediately glued upon the discovered attack: (33)

Red's knight is not immediately immobilized, so they will still get their chance to move out of check in this position.

Now.. what if you were to move to the same file/rank as somebody else at the same time? Who would be immobilized? Would nobody? If we start out in this position: (34)

Green submits Q(27,-5) and Red submits R(32,-5). After the board update we are here: (35)

Both green and Red have occupied the same rank at the same time!! Should either one be immobilized? No. They both will be able to dodge the other, neither will be glued if they fail to get out of check! (They could even endlessly dodge each other by remaining on the -5 rank)

BUT, stabilized pieces will gain higher priority over isolated pieces. In the above position, if green submits "Qx(32,-5)" and Red submits "Rx(27,-5) Conditional failure then R(34,-5)". After the board update we are here: (36)

Red has stabilized his rook on rank -5 by moving to a squared covered by his knight! So red gains the higher priority, and green is now forced to move out of check or HE will be immobilized next move! This guarantees red will win the -5 rank!

Let's look into some time thief examples... Green attempts to submit an example of an INCORRECT conditional usage: "TTxU(16,-5) Conditional illegal capture- (because it isn't moved) (some other move)" This kind of time-thief move is illegal because time-thiefs can only capture pieces that just moved away last move, this illegal example would result in green capturing the unicorn at the same time it moved away! (37)

Now I'll show you a correct example: Green submits a different move not using the TT. Cyan submits his move as U(13,-4). The game updates and this is where we are: (38)

Now, it is legal for green to do play TTxU(16,-5) to capture cyan's unicorn because the picture clearly shows the unicorn moved off of the (16,-5) square, when the last board update it was there! Now if Cyan were desperate he would submit his move as UxTT(11,-5). What happens here is the time-thief "dodges" the cyan unicorn and at the same time *captures* the unicorn on the (16,-5) square! Since cyan was so careless to move his unicorn twice in a row he just had 2 of his  moves undo'd there! In most cases the time thief will only undo 1 move though. 

Forks will still work in this game! Take this example... green is able to capture 1 of the 2 blue rooks by means of this special move: "NxR(17,-5) Conditional capture failure then NxR(14,-4)" This guarantees green will win 1 of blue's rooks! (39)

Lastly, you have the ability to chain conditionals. In this position, blue can submit his move as...

UxQ(14,-3) Conditional capture failure then:

UxR(18,-5) Conditional capture failure then:

UxP(17,-5) Conditional capture failure then:

(some other move)

...It's a bit complicated but it's legal!  (40)

Questions? Anything I left out? Comment below