Larry Smith wrote on Sat, May 28, 2005 04:57 AM UTC:
In actuality, placing a King in a check position which the opponent cannot
remove in the next move would be a loss for the player moving the King.
Consider that in a normal flow of events, the checking player would not
previously have the opposing King under threat or it would have already
been a won game.
So in this game, checkmate would still be a loss. There just would be
little restriction to placing a King in a checked position.
The King would become a piece which the opponent needs to avoid, the
player could use the King to influence the opponent's moves. Removing
the check of an opposing King would be mandatory. But the player must
consider that the opponent must have the ability to remove this check.
So placing a King in threat against a Pawn on its initial position would
be illegal since that piece would not have the option to remove the
threat. Placing the other pieces into initial positions which limit
their mobility would take up most of the tactics in this game. For
example: the Rooks in their initial position would not be forced to move
if their Pawns are also in position.
Rather than controlling the center of the field, players might attempt to
control the outer cells.