Four-Player Infinite Chess - The Battle of Morgarten!

This must be where there is a misunderstanding.

The rules do say no king can be left in check or placed into check.

But it doesn't say anything about other pieces.

If one king is on the board and not in checkmate, then both players on a team have a right to make any legal move with any other piece.

Maybe the confusion is that normal chess does not have two kings per army, and we're working from a different premise?

My view is that one alive king keeps an entire team alive.

Your view seems to be that one checkmated king takes priority.

I suppose both views are legitimate, but I take the view that one standing king creates a "right" for all pieces on a team to continue to play normally.

Yes. McGoohan's move was 5 days ago, and I've sent messages to Luke_Hands but no reply anywhere. I hope he's OK.

So Tomato is taking over. You have to go back to page 8 to see the last board diagram, and McGoohan's follow-up move. So now green to move (Tomato).

Tomato is my nemesis in a tournament-game, but my ally here.

@vickalan, what is your definition of leaving a king in check? Is it not to make a move that results in your king being threatened to be captured by an enemy piece?

K(7,8) I will get battered to a pulp. So, better start sacrificing!

Welcome to the game Tomato

But I think 21...K(7,8) is an illegal move.

My last move was 21.Qx(-1,14)+

The green king is at (5,8).

In my opinion, the green King has only two options:

21...K(6,8) or 21…K(5,7)

O_O K(6,8)

So far we have three very different positions and I believe we need to decide soon on a solution, either by consensus or by vote. For me, all three rules are still acceptable.

A: (hitthepin) with the best and simplest default solution:

“The king is immediately removed from the board.”

B: (vickalan) with an exciting  and unconventional wild experiment:

“The player may not move the king, but may move any other piece.”

C: (Martin0) with the most logical and sharpest rule (for me):

“If a player has no legal moves, then their turn is skipped.”

I'll go with B. The king is indefinitely "captured", like a gray piece in 4-player classical, but with an extra king on the board, the pieces may continue moving (because they have not yet lost total hope, as an allied king is still on)

Nooo!!! Vickalin! Don't leave me!

I agree with Tomato (B), but I can be agreeable to others.

Comments on others:

(A) this option is simple. But it introduces a new condition that doesn't exit in normal chess.

(C) this is OK but it has one weird anomaly:

If one king is in checkmate (and the other standing) then the player's turn is skipped.

But if one king is captured (and the other standing) then the player can move any piece.

(Pieces can play normally when their king is gone, but they can't do anything when their king is in checkmate. It's like temporarily being stunned prior to the death of their king, but then they are OK on the move after?)

But all are OK with me.

I don't know what this meant in Tomato's notation: "O_O" (it can't be a castle).

So here is a board update (without my move):
21.Qx(-1,14)+...K(6,8)
22.(19,3)

I'm packing now for some travel, and hope to play my move about 1 day from now (I believe within the 3 day limit, and if not I'll see a warning next time I logon.

(>'_')>(^'_'^)<('_'<)

I never learned all those emoticons. I almost thought it was chess notation for castling.

Back to the game - sorry for the delay. Still busy with travel and other work. Finally here is my move in bold.

21.Qx(-1,14)+...K(6,8)
22.(19,3)...Rx(13,2)