H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, Sep 27, 2023 04:20 AM UTC:
Taking the King might also be bad simply because it was protected, and the piece checking it was too valuable to trade it for a King. After all, a spare King isn't all that valuable. On 8x8 it is already worse than a Rook, and on large boards it is likely worse than a Bishop.
An attack on one of a number of extinction royals is not a check, and doesn't have to be resolved. In Spartan Chess there is a special 'duple check' rule (so it is not regular extinction royalty): you must have at least one King that is not under attack. This is really like it is absolute royalty, but at the end of every turn you can appoint one of your King pieces to be the absolute royal for the next turn.
Taking the King might also be bad simply because it was protected, and the piece checking it was too valuable to trade it for a King. After all, a spare King isn't all that valuable. On 8x8 it is already worse than a Rook, and on large boards it is likely worse than a Bishop.
An attack on one of a number of extinction royals is not a check, and doesn't have to be resolved. In Spartan Chess there is a special 'duple check' rule (so it is not regular extinction royalty): you must have at least one King that is not under attack. This is really like it is absolute royalty, but at the end of every turn you can appoint one of your King pieces to be the absolute royal for the next turn.