31 Aug 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAll you had to do was fire up your favorite greedy, materialistic, and incomprehensible conglomeration of accursed ones and zeros, set up the position, and see if it would let you make the move. 😉
[fen]3k4/ppp5/8/8/8/3p4/PPP5/1K1R4 w[/fen]
is it legal for black to take the c pawn and put white into check as both will be in check, i know it sounds silly and probably is , i was just wondering and had no way of checking
31 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by irontigranWell, theoretically, if this is a war, since the other king died a bit later then first, while especting his own death he could nomine the new leader of the army, no ? So even if you could do such a move, it is logical that the first king to fall is the one who lose.
yeah, as when you think about it the black king would die 1 move sooner.
Other way to explain why this isn't possible is this simple dull chess rule ; you can't make any move that exposes your king to check.
31 Aug 08
Originally posted by Mad Rooklol, i have no favourites mad rook my friend, i hate them all with a vengeance bordering on religious fanaticism, it doesn't matter how much theory i learn, how much tactics i study, how much Bangiev i can cram into a day, even two or three tempi down and the damn things have still got chances, i mean they can differentiate to minute differences, 0.1 of a pawn etc etc,
All you had to do was fire up your favorite greedy, materialistic, and incomprehensible conglomeration of accursed ones and zeros, set up the position, and see if it would let you make the move. 😉
I play against my favourite little program, a java based program called supreme chess, I dont know how strong it is, but its stronger than me, time and again i get it into complications and difficulties and it always manages to squirm away like a yellow bellied son of a silicon beast that it is !
31 Aug 08
Originally posted by ivan2908thats what i was trying to say! 😀
Well, theoretically, if this is a war, since the other king died a bit later then first, while especting his own death he could nomine the new leader of the army, no ? So even if you could do such a move, it is logical that the first king to fall is the one who lose.
Other way to explain why this isn't possible is this simple dull chess rule ; you can't make any move that exposes your king to check.
31 Aug 08
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensBecause chess is a noble game. You annex territory and people. So, no need to slaughter them once you've won.
I never really understood why the game wasn't played to total analilation of the oppoaing force. Isn't the mark of a great leader one who leads the troops into battle?