[Survey] Teams king capture rules

i like it YES

thinking of it from chess origin point of view leads to that green as an army has a clear aim is to kill the red or yellow king so when he has the opportunity to do he must do regardless of what is happening to his king after . 

in an easy way , their is no reason for war after king dies

but in fact its more complicated because if you allowed that you should give every player the opportunity to play any other move when his king is under check leading to the two possibilities of his partner saves the situation or his king being captured and then that will be far away from our regular chess .

so i think we shouldn't allow this , we should give priority to the check

> if you allowed that you should give every player the opportunity to play any other move when his king is under check

the only move you are allowed to make in this situation other than a regular getting out of check move is capturing a king. view this as an alternative way to get out of check. why should this not take precedence over what is only a threat to capture your king on the next turn? red will no longer be alive to make another move, the threat to your king is gone.

>leading to the two possibilities of his partner saves the situation

you can only ever capture the king of the player who is immediately after you, so neither partner has time to change anything.

I think yes

spacebar

"Green has a way to get out of check: By capturing the red king, the red army dies, and Green is no longer in check. Taking the red K is as good as taking the red Q for eliminating the check"

probably it makes sence in FFA because game goes on after elimination of 1 player, but in teams 4pc i didnt see difference if instead of red queen was yellow queen -  if some player "dies", his teammate also immediately lose

"this is falsy logic. checkmate just means the king will get captured on the next move"

In standart 2 pc or variant  where is the task to checkmate  (for ex. in Marseillais chess)  - checkmate means immediately "death" for the king, and does not mean kings capture on next move (otherwise stalemate it is a win for the reason of king capture). King's capture is illegal move in 2pc - ex. if in the game player left his king under check, he didnt lose the game by reason of king capture, the game must be returned to previous move with time penalty for player.

As I said earlier. main difference 4pc from 2pc  in the possibility of kings capture without illegal move by opponent (no way to compare it with 2pc rules) . If remove this opportunity, i agree that side with "hanging" king gets big advantage, so this rule is necessary, Of course any rule can be interpreted in different ways, ex. castle, en passant, stalemate was different in classiс chess over the centuries,

I understand your suggestion and agree that it does not  change a lot gameplay, but the rules must be clear for understanding and should not be considered future gameplay - ex. if player checkmated (or captured) on his turn - team lose.  In your suggestion according to the rules player have a priority for ignore threat to his king and capture enemy (make illegal move).

So imagine that king capture>checkmate, for reason that KC is logical continuation of CM. 

But how to interpret the situation, when green checkmated yellow, then red checkmated blue: in FFA yellow "dies" before blue and game goes on. In teams according to current rules (also in suggested rules ) r/y wins on blue turn,  this result looks unlogical because b/g team first able to capture enemy king. Another question,  on blue's turn  b/g can still win the game if blue able to ignore checkmate and capture yellow king, but paradox is  that anyway yellow king was taken before blue.

so i see no reason to change the rules and avoid double-interpretation situations, checkmate = king capture= game over on players turn

the goal of chess is to checkmate the enemy, capture the king counts as checkmate

You are not allowed to give checkmate if your king is in check or if the piece is pinned to your king first. Atleast for regular chess...

capturing a king is more direct then a pin, check, or even checkmate, as those only threaten to capture the king on the next move. pins, checks and mates are "one move slower" than a king capture. that's why i think king captures deserve taking precedence. Especially because you can only ever the capture the king of the player to your left, leaving no time for another player to interfere in any way.

fwiw in the original example, it's like yellow checkmates red by 'unpinning', leaving the red king to be captured next move.

@valger2 i don't follow your concern about "double-interpretation situations". Can you provide an example? It's only possible to capture the king of the player to your left - there's no need to worry about move order scenarios.

As for what if a yellow piece were checking Green: In FFA, it's clear that green cannot capture the red king. the game continues and he'd leave his king to be captured by yellow. In teams I would argue that the game ends as soon as Reds king is captured (plus it's red turn next so there's really no excuses to continue), so it doesn't matter who was checking green.

Say if you checkmate the person on your right but then his teamate checkmate you, who wins?

spacebar

yes, KC yellow king by green possible only in case that in last move yellow captured green king 

but in teams theoretically possible that for ex. blue can KC yellow 

green CM by "dead" yellow queen -  red forced to checkmate blue and blue only "legal" move is KC

i think you agree that future game simulation not valid according to the adequate rules and in this example b/g lose for the reason  that green cannot defend his king and it means immediately "death" for b/g pieces

next example

yellow's turn , if yellow didnt change situation - green cannot defend his king and all b/g pieces must be immediately "dead" including bishop, according to the logic of the previous example

in your suggestion green able to defend from threat  by only 1 legal move - KC red,  as if green took attacking piece

- in my opinion this is also future game simulation, because r/y pieces  becomes "dead" only on red's turn

- strange gameplay situations, like in last example best try for yellow - to leave unprotected red queen, because in CM situation green cannot make mistake

"Taking the red K is as good as taking the red Q for eliminating the check"

- didnt know in which chess variant with close to standart rules was opportunity to take  2+ pieces for 1 turn, as in situation with double check,  in 4pc teams possible that 4+ pieces threatening one king

- some strange situations in FFA

blue's turn and any  N jump eliminate immediately green, but if on j4 it was yellow N on his turn - probably Nl5 eliminates green (question is does green takes with himself red, or red is alive) ,  any other N move  forced to eliminate red 

- it may affect in some game situations, when team will no longer needed  to use tempo moves (check) to avoid mate (check) threat  which is conflicting with game logic

 blue ignore red mate threat and specially "covers" red king from check: Nf3 following by green Bh5 which makes unavoidable KC red. Similar with blue R on e4 instead of d4 N - Re2 (not check to any r/y side) 

in teams it looks fair that for ex. red is not immediately check (checkmate) green, and blue have a chance to save partner's king, but in relation to green -  red first created threat to the king, so logically green first shouldе to secure his king

Let's test this rule as a variant. My concern is that this complicates the game; "checkmate" as an objective is simpler than just this rule, unless the whole objective will be changed to capture a king rather than checkmate.

I think 4pc should follow the chess rules. If you're in check, you have to deal with check first. Hard disagree because it's breaking chess rules. It should stay as it is, I don't see why the current team rules are wrong... I don't think this should be used in any variant though, because this is not chess. The debate is what comes first, capture the king which IS checkmate as valger said and I say it too OR dealing with check. Seems logical that capture the king should come first, but it's breaking the chess rules and it's no longer chess, so, dealing with check must come first. Any chess player should be able to play 4pc and avoid confusion.

The argument is not whether you should be able to leave your king in check per se but rather whether opposing pieces giving check are nullified by capturing their king. Being in check means under threat of capture the following move, but it can be argued that without their king, a player's pieces can't move, and thus can't pose a threat of capture.

I personally think this will greatly complicate the game for no real reason but am willing to see it in a trial.

If the king is captured it's instant game over, why bother talking about this. Makes no sense. I don't think team players care, since it prob never happens in a real game. (these examples) It's just "what if"

@valger2

>yes, KC yellow king by green possible only in case that in last move yellow captured green king 

huh? yellow captures greens king -> green next and dead -> green cannot do anything.

your first example picture: i don't understand. yellow checkmates green, green is next, green is dead, game over. nothing changes.

Yellow cannot save Red here. the only way to save Red is to take the bishop or block the check (or capture Green king).

FFA: only Nl5 is mate, otherwise Green can capture Red king eliminating all the checks.

Teams: If it's a Yellow N, then moving the N anywhere is losing. (That's the whole point of this rule: to make it a bad idea to let your partners king get captured.) If it's a blue N, then yellow has to take the bishop, block the check, or capture the Green king, otherwise green will take red king.

But finally you did find a majestic example where things change a little bit:

[StartFen4 "B-0,0,0,0-0,0,0,0-0,0,0,0-0,0,0,0-3-14/14/14/13,gK/14/6,yK,1,yN,3,rQ,1/11,yB,2/5,gB,8/14/14/bK,2,bN,10/14/14/3,rK,10"]
[Variant "Teams"]
[RuleVariants "EnPassant"]
[CurrentMove "7"]

1. Nd4-f3 .. Kg9-h10 .. Bf7-h5
2. Qm9-n10+ .. Nf3-e5+ .. Kh10-h9 .. Bh5xKd1#

rQn10+ is a blunder now. I say things change only "a little bit" because is reminds me of the common situation where checkmating the player to your right is too slow if your teammate gets mated first.

@Laris7 the example is taken from a real game.

The thing that is disturbing is that Yellow moving his rook is not losing on the spot. It should be (unless perhaps Yellow captured an enemy king that move). An alternative solution might be to pin pieces to teammates king, not allowing them to move (unless perhaps to capture an enemy king)

> I think 4pc should follow the chess rules.

in that case the Yellow rook should be pinned to the red king, no?

Since they are teammates. Their kings can move next to each other they can't capture each other's pieces. I think yellow should be able to move the rook and let his teammate's king hang. I think it's probably luck (in this scenario) with move order, nothing else. What if it's different colors, try and switch colors - look how it goes with different move order. This probably stands for yellow letting red king hang and not red letting yellow king hang because of different move order. So if it is only yellow to be the one and blue or green, that's only in 2 scenarios which is really rare to occur. Top level games end fast without going for complicated variations (most likely) are short games with precise play (moves). 

You are missing the point, Laris. The current rules allow for tactics that go against common chess logic. The suggested rule is an attempt to fix this loophole.

Yellow deliberately moved his rook knowing that Green cannot take advantage. The suggested rule just means that allowing the opponents to capture your teammates king will be a blunder, which it should be imo.

The original exmaple in post #1 is taken from a real, top-level game where a player deliberately took advantage of the fact that this "loophole" exists.

In both cases blue to move and blue is in check. Can blue take yellow king? of course not. In 2nd picture, by your rule the game will end, I mean in both example the game ends. In 1st picture - How does red stop this? He cannot stop it. The game ends. The end. In 2nd picture (this is really important) by current rule, both kings move and THE GAME CONTINUES!!!