Re: [math-fun] Slight change in the rules of chess
Gene, that's a worthwhile point, but I don't feel Black "can capture" the White King with the pinned Black Bishop, since that piece is temporarily immobilized. Suppose we elaborate on this example, so that the Black Bishop, which is pinned (because of a potential discovered check to the Black King), were *also* able to discover a checkmate against the White King (from some other Black piece -- let's say the Queen). That, too, would in principle end the game right there, likewise keeping White from exploiting the clear view to taking the Black King. It's easy to cook up such an example. But that's not permitted, since the Black Bishop is deemed immobile. --Dan Gene wrote: <<<< I wrote: << I'm wondering if the following potential change in the rules of chess would make sense, or if it has hidden pitfalls. Suppose one player (say Black) has a piece (say a bishop) that's pinned because if it moved, it would discover a check to Black's king. And suppose it's White's turn. Then I propose that it should be legal for White to put his own king in "check" from that bishop, since for the moment that bishop cannot really theoretically take White's king.
If White puts his King in check, then on the next move, Black can capture the White King, and the game is over. Thus White never gets the opportunity to exploit that discovered check on Black's King.
_____________________________________________________________________ "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi." --Peter Schickele
I guess I don't see the benefit of an inconsistent set of rules, that one may sometimes place one's King in check, but sometimes not. Perhaps a more sensible modification to the rules would be to always permit moves that put one's own King in check, and then also permit a player to actually capture the opponent's King. -- Gene ________________________________ From: Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:06:04 PM Subject: Re: [math-fun] Slight change in the rules of chess Gene, that's a worthwhile point, but I don't feel Black "can capture" the White King with the pinned Black Bishop, since that piece is temporarily immobilized. Suppose we elaborate on this example, so that the Black Bishop, which is pinned (because of a potential discovered check to the Black King), were *also* able to discover a checkmate against the White King (from some other Black piece -- let's say the Queen). That, too, would in principle end the game right there, likewise keeping White from exploiting the clear view to taking the Black King. It's easy to cook up such an example. But that's not permitted, since the Black Bishop is deemed immobile. --Dan Gene wrote: <<<< I wrote: << I'm wondering if the following potential change in the rules of chess would make sense, or if it has hidden pitfalls. Suppose one player (say Black) has a piece (say a bishop) that's pinned because if it moved, it would discover a check to Black's king. And suppose it's White's turn. Then I propose that it should be legal for White to put his own king in "check" from that bishop, since for the moment that bishop cannot really theoretically take White's king.
If White puts his King in check, then on the next move, Black can capture the White King, and the game is over. Thus White never gets the opportunity to exploit that discovered check on Black's King.
_____________________________________________________________________ "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi." --Peter Schickele _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (2)
-
Dan Asimov -
Eugene Salamin