H. G. Muller wrote on Thu, Feb 1, 2018 10:23 AM UTC:
I would never have interpreted "the King can move two or more squares towards the Rook" as that it could also move on top of the Rook, or over it (in case the Rook would not start in the corner). Because it is so natural for an orthodox Chess player that moves of arbitrary length must stop when they bump into a friendly piece. I suppose this interpretation is possible, however, and even defensible by the argument that the Rook would leave that square in the same move (like in Fischer castling).
So it seems the wording of the rules of Gross and Grotesque Chess will have to be sharpened a little, to make it unambiguous whether this is allowed or not.
I would never have interpreted "the King can move two or more squares towards the Rook" as that it could also move on top of the Rook, or over it (in case the Rook would not start in the corner). Because it is so natural for an orthodox Chess player that moves of arbitrary length must stop when they bump into a friendly piece. I suppose this interpretation is possible, however, and even defensible by the argument that the Rook would leave that square in the same move (like in Fischer castling).
So it seems the wording of the rules of Gross and Grotesque Chess will have to be sharpened a little, to make it unambiguous whether this is allowed or not.