K(7,9) I came just in time to be smacked around like putty.
Four-Player Infinite Chess - The Battle of Morgarten!
Sort:
24. B(16,5)
Vickalin, where are you?
The new castling rule has such little impact on the game right now. :(
The best idea is to 0-0-0-0 to the other king 
So you can defend both of them.
Two days
I was going too do that, but what's the sense in timing out my teammate?
Mar 31, 2018
0
#209
Vickalan, get in, please, the train wants to leave soon and everyone is waiting for you. But of course we will wait, even if we will leave late.
Sorry for slow play. I'm still travelling, but will be home tomorrow. Here is a board update. I'll play my move tomorrow morning when I'm home. Thanks for waiting, but my conditions for careful thinking aren't too good right now.
23.Q(5,8)+...K(7,9)
24.B(16,5)
HorribleTomato wrote:
K(7,9) I came just in time to be smacked around like putty.
Not sure why, but Luke_Hands wasn't replying to me, or using move ideas that I sent him. If you have move/strategy ideas send them to me by PM. I'll be home in about one day. Maybe there is still a game here.
@LukeHands
Sorry for slow play. I'm home now and trying to catch up on lots of stuff. Things should be back to normal soon. My move:
24...Rx(13,1)
Let me know if this is correct on our voting for one king (of the two) being in checkmate. Using options (A), (B), and (C) as summarized by McGoogan
(A) "The king is immediately removed from the board."
Votes: 1 (hitthepin)
(B) "The player may not move the king, but may move any other piece (by virtue of the other standing king)."
Votes: 3 (vickalan, captaintugwash*, HorribleTomato**)
* Post #150: "The latter (B) is probably better imo, but the former (A) is brutally simple".
** Post #193: "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)"
(C) "If a player's king is in checkmate, then their turn is skipped."
Votes: 2 (Martin0, McGoogan)
So do we agree to play with Rule (B)?
If non-players don't vote, then we have this:
(A) Votes: 1 (hitthepin)
(B) Votes: 2 (vickalan, HorribleTomato)
(C) Votes: 1 (McGoogan)
Apr 2, 2018
0
#216
I do not want to argue "formally legal" and seek a consensus. But actually, a real vote wasn't called until my posting #176. Before, it was just a discussion with various opinions, but without any real decision-making authority.
After the vote, the result looks like this:
(A) Votes: 1 (hitthepin #177)
(B) Votes: 2 (vickalan #178, HorribleTomato #193)
(C) Votes: 2 (Martin0 #179, McGoohan #192)
My suggestion: We could split the game from now on (move 25) into the two variants B and C. We might then have a very exciting investigation into the consequences of the two very controversial rules B and C.
Of course, only if I'm not the only one who likes this idea. Otherwise, I think we're playing with rule B.
vickalan wrote:
Martin0 wrote:
vickalan wrote:
Current rule (already agreed):
Kings still cannot be left in check, or placed into check
vickalan wrote:
Expanded rule (to remove ambiguity):
When a team has two kings on the board, and one player has a king in checkmate, the player may not move the king, but may move any other piece.
If it was already agreed that kings cannot be left in check, then no piece should be able to move when a king is checkmated. It would be a rule change, not a clarification.
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.
Martin0 wrote:
@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?
Reposting this question. What I want is the same rules for when a king is in check and in checkmate. If a move by any piece is allowed to leave a king check while a player is checkmated, then I think the same should apply when a player is put into check. The part that confuses me is:
"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 this is applied to normal checks as well, then only king moves that does not leave the king in check is allowed. So pieces that are pinned to the king are allowed to move for example.
I don't really want to cast a vote for which rule it should be since I am not playing the game.
McGoohan wrote:
...My suggestion: We could split the game from now on (move 25) into the two variants B and C. We might then have a very exciting investigation into the consequences of the two very controversial rules B and C.
...
This idea is fine with me. But we should play rule (B), and then rule (C) after. Playing two related games at the same time can be confusing for me.
Tomato and I might lose both ways, but I'm willing to sacrifice my reputation as a skillful chess player for the sake of answering this question.
Martin0 wrote:
Reposting this question. What I want is the same rules for when a king is in check and in checkmate. If a move by any piece is allowed to leave a king check while a player is checkmated, then I think the same should apply when a player is put into check. The part that confuses me is:
"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 this is applied to normal checks as well, then only king moves that does not leave the king in check is allowed. So pieces that are pinned to the king are allowed to move for example.
This game has a special sitution where one team has a checkmated king, and a standing king. It's not possible to transfer any rules from normal chess to this situation because it is unique to this game (two two kings per army).
My viewpoint is that one king standing king takes over, when all other options have been been exhuasted. Kings can't sacrifice themselves, and checkmated kings cannot move. But if there is another standing king (while one is in checkmate), then the standing king gives the right for other chess pieces to play normally.
The reason I disfavor skipping a turn, is that a captured king should have the same penalty as a king in checkmate. One is not worse than the other.
From my point of view, if a king is captured, either the entire army goes dead, or the other king takes over. My viewpoint is the other king takes over.
Interested to hear if this does not make sense.
23.Q(5,8)+