[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item ⇩Latest ⇩Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Amalgamated Chess. Incorporates some aspects of historical variants, but uses only usual equipment. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Cameron Miles wrote on 2014-02-09 UTCOkay, thanks for the reply. I suppose that interpretation makes the most sense, but now am wondering whether (by the same logic) the King can make a capture that reduces the opposing side to just its Prince... even if the Prince defends this last piece. A similar question could be raised concerning which side would win if a Prince (rather than a King) were to make such a capture (although this is less relevant, as such a situation is not likely to ever occur in practice). While I'm at it, I may as well point out that the rules regarding stalemate are somewhat contradictory. It is briefly mentioned that "the player causing the stalemate loses!" ; however, the rule to eliminate draws is said to apply "whenever a draw would occur in regular Chess", which implies that stalemate should result in a tallying of points to determine the winner. I'm guessing that "Any scenario [not already addressed by the previously stated rules] where a draw would occur in regular Chess" is what was meant, but I always prefer to not have to speculate on the rules' intended meaning when playing new chess variants. I do, in fact, have a game of A.C. in progress right now on Game Courier, but cannot yet give any meaningful rating or feedback. Many aspects of the actual gameplay are still unclear, and will remain that way without further playtesting. Most significantly, I am quite curious what the endgame is like, or whether an endgame phase even exists (A.C. is a very un-Chess-like game - that much is certain). James Gryphon wrote on 2014-01-18 UTCThat's a very good question. There's considerable Chess precedent in the idea that the King may not be left in check at any time, so your post brings up a real dilemma. However, after considering this problem, I would officially state that the Prince capture is, as stated in the rules, still mandatory, and ends the game with a win for the King's side. Here's my reasoning for this: Normal Chess implicitly acknowledges the common-sense possibility of pinned pieces theoretically being able to capture the opposing King, even though doing so would put their own King in immediate risk. If absolute pinned pieces deliver check and can take part in checkmates, then it's implied that they could capture the opposing King if it were allowed to enter that square. Unlike the Chess King, the Prince is allowed to enter that square. Thus, the pinned piece can (and, under the rules of this game, is actually required to) capture the Prince. As far as the apparent risk to the King after the pinned piece's capture: this game immediately ends with the capture of a Prince. After the game ends, the newly Prince-free opponent can make no more moves. So, with the absence of any legal moves that can attack it, the unprotected King is no longer in danger. I would go so far as to say that capturing the Prince in this situation not only wins the game but also delivers your King from check. ;-) I think having it this way is more fun, more clear (since the rule says that the Prince capture is required), and makes for a better game. Cameron Miles wrote on 2014-01-17 UTCWhat happens if one side can capture the opponent's prince, but their own king is in check? Can that side win immediately, by ignoring the check and simply capturing the enemy prince? Or would such a move be considered illegal, because checks must ALWAYS be answered? 3 comments displayed⇩Latest ⇩Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.