Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Of course they don't happen at the same time; the game ends the moment the bishop is captured. A pawn doesn't promote until its owner says what it promotes to.
extinction chess is also played on schemingmind.com & even links back to this very page here on CV .org Extinction Chess Rules Invented by R. Wayne Schmittberger and added here with his permission. More information on Extinction Chess is available on ChessVariants.org [ http://www.chessvariants.org/winning.dir/extinction.html ]
Anyway, here's the Game Courier preset I made for this.
I agree that such a position is very unlikely -- presumably it's unusual for a game of Extinction Chess even to last so long -- but it's not inconceivable. If the ruling had been for a draw, then one could imagine a game in which Black had no winning chances, but could force a draw by moving the Bishop to c8, forcing the Pawn to promote or die.
On the other hand, since the capture-promotion has been declared a win for White, it seems that the position as I stated it could arise only after an obvious blunder by Black. But of course the Black piece need not be a Bishop. One could imagine White pushing his last Pawn to the 7th rank, forking Black's last Rook and Knight.
Also, I've just thought of the following pathological possibility. Suppose that, after 41 moves of a game of Extinction Chess, White's only Pawn is on b7 and Black's only Bishop is on c8. If White then plays 42. bxc8=Q, Black's Bishops are extinct, but so are White's Pawns. So the game is clearly over, but what is the result?
'DEF,LargeCV': Excellent ideation, average playability. (The extinction-notion could apply to those CVs >71 (or >79) squares, the subject matter of this cross-thread.)
I am not 100% sure about how castling should be handled. The game carries very natural notions of check (last piece of a kind under attack) and checkmate (unavoidable check). So castling under check hurts the eye a bit, unless one has a second (promoted) king. But if one forbids castling under or through check, one should also forbid castling when the rook is attacked when it is the only rook on board. I played correspondence games in the NOST association and there castling under check was allowed, as Wayne Schmittberger recommends. Still, I would rather recommend to disable castling completely. But of course, the inventor gets precedence over my opinion :-) One must be conscious that another feature of not wanting to talk about check and checkmate is that stalemate becomes a win for the stalemating player, because the opponent is forced to commit suicide. This one doesn't bother me at all, since I dislike the stalemate rule anyway.
Thanks to R. Wayne Schmittberger for the following answer to the above question: I don't remember the castling question being asked before, or being settled. But I think that it would be in keeping with the spirit of the game to allow castling when in check, as well as to allow castling through check. For the same reason, it should be legal to move into check, even though your opponent can then win by taking your king. R. Wayne Schmittberger
Can one castle under or through check, now there is no check? (Zillions' own zrf keeps castling as usual, but it's no proof, since their zrf for Berolina Chess has no en passant.)
21 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
The rules in the article already resolve the dilemma according to that interpretation; the Rules section says:
I don't know if that is something that was added later. It is the opposit from what we have in Atomic Chess, where it is forbidden to blow up your own royal, even if that takes out the opponent's one. In Tenjiku Shogi it is also possible to destroy both royals in the same move, by capturing a King that stands next to a Fire Demon with your own King. The historic rules don't mention what would happen in that case (as it of course never happens in practice).