![]() ![]() ![]() This means that no matter how check is defined, he cannot make any move if his king meets that condition. (I will point out the significance of 'results' soon) Therefore, one player makes the initial move which transitions from the state of no kings being in check to some king(s) being in check.Īccording to the rules, this move is not allowed if that player's king results is in a check. Only one player can make a move at a time. I think you have proven that the scenario of both kings being in check (not necessarily the scenario of the board I showed) cannot exist by contradiction. I did some thinking and came up with this analysis: Is this how the actual game is ruled though? It seems an easy solution to the problem faced when programming the game logic, but I'm not sure if it is correct or not. If our king is in reach of the enemy knight's usual attack range, we consider it a check and must resolve it. ![]() Okay, so maybe we assume that reach always counts regardless of the enemy's check status. Go to step 2 (no matter how many times you have already).We realize that since we cannot actually move our knight, the enemy king is not actually in check, therefore he is freely able to use his knight to attack our king.However, we notice that we cannot do this because it will place us in check with the enemy rook.Then we realize, free from check, that we are now able to move our own knight to the enemy king forcing him to move from check and preventing further his choices.He does not have our king in check after all. Then we realize that the knight does not have an available move into our king's square because he will be placing his king in check with our rook.First, we say that our king is in check from the enemy knight so we are limited from moving our own knight because we must escape.If we assume that the definition of possible moves must prevent check based on enemy possible moves, then the logic recursively alternates. When computing checkmate for a king in chess, do you determine the other players possible moves against your king? Or do you consider merely their unit's reach? If you say it's the former, then there is a contradiction like "this statement is false" Consider this image with two kings a square apart and their knights protecting from above rooks. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |