Check out Atomic Chess, our featured variant for November, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later
Rules of Chess (part 6). Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
[email protected] wrote on Mon, Dec 30, 2002 01:33 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
On the black side there is no Knight or Bishop to the left of the Black
player. The Pawns for B-k and king Knight are missing. The B-k is in that
posission and the B-q is in the B-bishop square. I placed the W-q in the
B-k 4 square for check. B-k was moved to B-q square. I then checked from
B-bishop 3 and he moved back to B=k 1. I then moved back to B-k 4 and he
kept repeating the move instead of blocking with the B-q. By doing this
the W-q could take the B-castle and put the B=k in check again. 
After making 10 of these moves the B player said it was a 
draw. I said no that his moves were not legal as he could have blocked
with the Queen. Who is right. Please answer to my e-mail address. I have
spent hours trying to find the answer and it is no where. 
I want to thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Charles H. Thibodeaux

Ben Good wrote on Mon, Dec 30, 2002 05:17 AM UTC:
charles, i'm not sure i understand exactly what happened in your game.  if
you can give us a more accurate notation of the moves (if you're not
familiar with notation check it out at
http://www.chessvariants.com/d.chess/chess.html), i'm sure somebody can
answer your question.

Jianying Ji wrote on Mon, Dec 30, 2002 07:10 AM UTC:
I think the question is essentially, if a player has a choice of 
perpetual check, or a different move. Can s/he chose the perpetual check
instead of the other move. which is covered:

http://chessvariants.com/d.chess/eternal.html

So I think the answer is yes and charles's friend is probably right.

Mike Nelson wrote on Mon, Dec 30, 2002 02:51 PM UTC:
Charles' friend is very likely right but for the wrong reason. While at one time, the FIDE laws recognized pepetual check as a draw condition in its own right, that is no longer true. Perpetual check is not now defined in the laws. The reason for this is that all perpetual check situations lead to triple repetition (or in theory, overstepping the fifty move rule--in practice all perpetual checks become triple repetitions). Since the laws permit the player on move the free choice of legal moves, it is permissible to intentionally make moves leading to triple repetition and the resulting draw. See the official laws for the technicalities of the triple repetition rule.

NEO wrote on Thu, Nov 11, 2004 06:05 AM UTC:
Question to all:  Is it allowed to move to the space right next to the
king?

bob wrote on Mon, Aug 8, 2005 10:59 AM UTC:
when in check, can the king capture the peice that is putting himin check?

📝Hans Bodlaender wrote on Mon, Aug 8, 2005 11:17 AM UTC:
All pieces, except the enemy king, can move to the space next to the king.

A king can take a piece that checks it.

7 comments displayed

Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.