In my mind there should either be rules to always allow players to leave their king in check or never allow players to leave their king in check. A checkmated king not being allowed to move into check, but a different move being allowed does not make sense to me.
Four-Player Infinite Chess - The Battle of Morgarten!
Sort:
captaintugwash wrote:
The knight move to put black in check while attacking the checkmating piece, that's a nice tactical aspect and I think it's something the checkmating player has to consider when deciding if checkmating the enemy king is indeed the optimal move. I like the fact that perhaps it isn't always optimal, though it nearly always will be.
And yes we just say that the king is not allowed to make illegal moves, ever, and "illegal" is defined in the classic chess sense. If a king is in checkmate, then the attacker can capture by force. So it wil always be the choice of the attacker to allow the king legal moves again, otherwise it wasn't checkmate.
The idea of removing a checkmated king immediately is probably the best default solution if no agreement can be found, since it's the simplest solution. But from a tactical point of view, I prefer the idea of capturing it, and therefore opening up the potential for a checkmate to be undone.
I don't even have a horse in this race, I don't even like 4p chess! I do quite enjoy watching it though.
Because everyone teams against you?
Because I'm not very good at it, and I don't like playing games I'm not good at.
I’m changing my stance. In classical chess the game is brought to a close directly after checkmate. The king should be removed from the board directly after checkmate, like Martin0 said.
I respect both your and Martin0's opinion, but I actually think this interpretation is the least faithful to the normal rules of chess.
In normal chess, a checkmate is the move prior to capture. No piece is actually removed from the board. If a piece is both attacked and removed from the board, it requires two moves to do that. Here is a diagram (from earlier) showing the two moves (not showing any move by White in between):
I looked for other examples, and there is a variant where one side has two kings. In Spartan chess, Black (the Spartans) has two kings. This is from the rules:
"The Persian wins once one of the Spartan Kings is captured and the remaining Spartan King is checkmated or when both Spartan Kings are placed under simultaneous attack (duple-check) and neither King can be removed from attack on the next move (Duple-Check and Mate)".
In this game, when the Spartans have two kings, one of the kings is allowed to fight as if it was a guard. The Spartans just aren't allowed to lose both of the kings (normal checkmate rules apply when there is only one king left). A link to the game is below if anyone is interested.
http://www.chessvariants.com/invention/spartan-chess
My main point is that you should either be allowed to leave your king in check or not be allowed to. It doesn't matter which piece that moves. So in the position given by vickalan above after Qd4, then if Nd1 is a legal move, then Kxd4 is also a legal move. And if those are legal, then the king should be allowed to be left in check, even when it is not checkmated (when there are more than 1 king for a team remaining). If you don't want the first king to be allowed to be put into check, then none of the moves should be allowed. If you want neither move to be allowed there are several ways to stop it, like ending the game in checkmate (game over), passing the move (no moves allowed while in checkmate) or removing the king.
vickalan wrote:
Win Condition: To win a team must capture one of the opponent's kings, and checkmate the other. Kings still cannot be left in check, or placed into check (so can't be moved for an exchange). The first checkmated king is subject to capture (and removed from board). The lone surviving king must then be checkmated by the winning team.
Saying kings cannot be left in check, or placed into check means that there are no legal moves when the first king is checkmated. With the rules written above strictly followed I would argue that after the first checkmate, there are no legal moves, but also not a win since the second king is not checkmated. Since there are no legal moves the games end in stalemate. 
Well, obviously that is a bad interpretation, but if the king cannot be left in check, then it should also apply to checkmates. My main suggestion if we want to keep checks is passing the move when no moves are legal, but I'm saying that removing a checkmated king from the board would also work as a solution.
Mar 16, 2018
0
#170
vickalan hat geschrieben:
I looked for other examples, and there is a variant where one side has two kings. In Spartan chess, Black (the Spartans) has two kings. This is from the rules:
"The Persian wins once one of the Spartan Kings is captured and the remaining Spartan King is checkmated or when both Spartan Kings are placed under simultaneous attack (duple-check) and neither King can be removed from attack on the next move (Duple-Check and Mate)".
In this game, when the Spartans have two kings, one of the kings is allowed to fight as if it was a guard. The Spartans just aren't allowed to lose both of the kings (normal checkmate rules apply when there is only one king left). A link to the game is below if anyone is interested.
The comparison with Spartan Chess doesn't really work because there is a big and fundamental contradiction between ours and the Spartan's rules:
Check Immunity: When the Spartan has two Kings in play a Spartan King is immune from check. Thus, the Spartan may move a King onto an enemy attacked square, leave a King under attack or move a piece that would expose a King to attack.
Three days have passed since McGoohan made his move.
And another day has passed since I made that message. Where is Luke_Hands?!
I sent a message to Luke_Hands, and still haven't heard from him. How about we wait one more day, and if he doesn't show up, HorribleTomato can take over? (he offered before).
Tomato is on the forums almost every day I think.
Mar 18, 2018
0
#174
I would ask everyone to state their definitive position on the checkmate handling rules in a short and clear sentence.
(A further explanation is not necessary, as probably all arguments for and against are already known.)
When a king is placed in checkmate, the king is immediately removed from the board and his teammate resumes control of his pieces.
McGoohan wrote:
I would ask everyone to state their definitive position on the checkmate handling rules in a short and clear sentence...
Good idea by McGoohan.
Current rule (already agreed):
Win Condition: To win a team must capture one of the opponent's kings, and checkmate the other. Kings still cannot be left in check, or placed into check (so can't be moved for an exchange). The first checkmated king is subject to capture (and removed from board). The lone surviving king must then be checkmated by the winning team.
Expanded rule (to remove ambiguity):
Win Condition: To win a team must capture one of the opponent's kings, and checkmate the other. Kings still cannot be left in check, or placed into check (so can't be moved for an exchange). The first checkmated king is subject to capture (and removed from board). The lone surviving king must then be checkmated by the winning team.
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.
When a team has two kings on the board, and one player has a king in checkmate, and no other pieces, then he skips his turn.
When a team has two kings on the board, and both kings are in checkmate, then the opponent has won (a double-checkmate).
Never allow a player to make a move into check (regardless what piece that moves or if it is checkmate).
If a player has no legal moves, then their turn is skipped.
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.
Is it time for Tomato to take over the green pieces?
The knight move to put black in check while attacking the checkmating piece, that's a nice tactical aspect and I think it's something the checkmating player has to consider when deciding if checkmating the enemy king is indeed the optimal move. I like the fact that perhaps it isn't always optimal, though it nearly always will be.
And yes we just say that the king is not allowed to make illegal moves, ever, and "illegal" is defined in the classic chess sense. If a king is in checkmate, then the attacker can capture by force. So it wil always be the choice of the attacker to allow the king legal moves again, otherwise it wasn't checkmate.
The idea of removing a checkmated king immediately is probably the best default solution if no agreement can be found, since it's the simplest solution. But from a tactical point of view, I prefer the idea of capturing it, and therefore opening up the potential for a checkmate to be undone.
I don't even have a horse in this race, I don't even like 4p chess! I do quite enjoy watching it though.