Re: [math-fun] Slight change in the rules of chess
At this point, I aqree with what Gene wrote below. Or at least with the consequences of this kind of thinking: whoever *can* take the other's king first is the winner. --Dan Gene wrote: << 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.
_____________________________________________________________________ "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi." --Peter Schickele
this is actually an issue in the chess variant played with two kings (and no queens), in which both of the opponent's kings must be captured to win the game. (if you've never played this, try it. it has more strategy than original chess.) anyhow, you can "check" an opponent's king using a pinned piece if you still have both kings, since the loss of one of your pieces is not fatal. erich
whoever *can* take the other's king first is the winner.
participants (2)
-
Dan Asimov -
Erich Friedman