is there such a thing as a "mad" peice?
Sort:
I have never heard of such a thing, but I came across this video, https://youtu.be/t1UEV-7KZEo
skip to the 2 min point and u will see what I'm talking about
Dec 24, 2019
0
#3
There is such a thing as a "Desperado" piece.
It works like this:
1) I attack one of your pieces.
2) Instead of moving or guarding your attacked piece, you attack one of MY pieces.
3) I reply by using my attacked piece to charge recklessly into your position... since if you capture it, I can always just capture the piece of yours that is still sitting under attack.
in the video it shows a king that is trapped, not mated just stalemated, but he still has a free rook, so the rook moves Directly in front of the opponents king and he says since his king is in a stalemate he now has a "mad" rook and it cannot be captured. ?
so is that video correct or b. s.? I would think it is incorrect, that wouldn't seem logical to me, if it was then you would be lucky to get your king trapped cuz then you would gain an invincible peice. I searched and only thing I found was info about an old term "Mad queen" but it isn't really relevant or related to my question.
mad chess pieces:
pardon my dumbness but I am still not sure, is this rule true or false?
I've heard of a hair piece.
OMG, my I was just hoping for someone else to see/hear what the guy is talking about in that video and come to a conclusion, is he A. from another dimension where chess has different rules. B. Some crazy Russian who doesn't know what he's talking about. C. I have slipped into another dimension where chess has different rules. hmm. . . maybe I'm better off not knowing.
Dec 26, 2019
0
#13
Rastasouljah wrote:
OMG, my I was just hoping for someone else to see/hear what the guy is talking about in that video and come to a conclusion, is he A. from another dimension where chess has different rules. B. Some crazy Russian who doesn't know what he's talking about. C. I have slipped into another dimension where chess has different rules. hmm. . . maybe I'm better off not knowing.
When he said the rook cannot be captured, he meant that it can't be captured without allowing stalemate; he wasn't saying that it's illegal to capture the rook. Black of course doesn't want to capture the rook with the king because Q vs R is normally a winning material advantage. But if Black doesn't capture it, White has a perpetual check, so it's a draw either way.
EDIT: Check out this Daily Puzzle showing this "mad rook" idea: A Long Way To Go For A Half Point.
