Anonymous wrote on Mon, May 27, 2002 08:53 AM UTC:
1) Why not use '(checkmated King)' in the loss-condition?
'(captured King)' allows to ignore checks.
2) When a checkmate by a regular move occurs the checkmated player can
answer with an illegal move, and if this illegal move will result
in a checkmate he will win, contrary to your remark (rule side)
'Note that you cannot play an illegal move to escape from
checkmate, because checkmate ends the game immediately.'
Try the following example (White to move):
White: Kh8, Rf1, Ng7, Ph7;
Black: Ka8, Rg2, Pa7, Pb7.
Now 1. Rf1-f8# should end the game (result 1-0),
but the zrf allows 1... Rg2xf8# (result 0-1)
Alfred Pfeiffer (apfde@yahoo.de)
1) Why not use '(checkmated King)' in the loss-condition? '(captured King)' allows to ignore checks. 2) When a checkmate by a regular move occurs the checkmated player can answer with an illegal move, and if this illegal move will result in a checkmate he will win, contrary to your remark (rule side) 'Note that you cannot play an illegal move to escape from checkmate, because checkmate ends the game immediately.' Try the following example (White to move): White: Kh8, Rf1, Ng7, Ph7; Black: Ka8, Rg2, Pa7, Pb7. Now 1. Rf1-f8# should end the game (result 1-0), but the zrf allows 1... Rg2xf8# (result 0-1) Alfred Pfeiffer (apfde@yahoo.de)