Chess is basically "capture the king", ie the
checkmate rules are consistent in the sense that
they are just the "1-move closure" of the
"whoever captures the king first, wins" rule.
The stalemate rule is the exceptional one in my
opinion, because it says that a king
not in check but with no move available (including
other pieces) is a drawn position. It really
should be a win for the stalemater, but this would
throw out years of interesting endgame
theory, particularly the "opposition" theory, which
is nice
So in Dan's example, the pinned piece moves to
capture the king, exposing his own
king yes, but then, the game is over so that
doesn't matter
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:09 PM
Subject: [math-fun] A proposed new chess
rule
I don't think this comes up often in practice, but unless
I'm mistaken one's king may not be on a square that is attacked by any of the
opponent's pieces.
AFAIK, this even includes the situation when the
said opponent's piece is immobilized due to its being pinned against its own
king.
Thus a checkmate could occur even when the checkmate hinges on a
king's being forbidden to escape to a square "attacked" by an opponent's piece
that is at the time immobilized by a king pin.
Is this
correct? It won't change the course of chess very much, but if this is
possible I think the rule should be changed so that the king is allowed to
move to any unoccupied square unless the opponent could conceivably "take" the
king on that square on the very next
move.
Comments?
--Dan
_______________________________________________
math-fun mailing
list
math-fun@mailman.xmission.com
http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun