It is possible for example that the player before you causes your king to be attacked by moving one of their pieces out of the way of a third player's piece, and even causes you to not have any moves that result in your king not being attacked, even though they are not even checking you with any of their own pieces. If your king is attacked and you have no move that will result in your king not being attacked, because it is not even your turn, are you checkmated? Apparently that was something you rejected, but then it becomes hard to say who checkmated you. When you try to use that definition in multi-player chess you will need to think about on which player's turns one can be checkmated. Indeed checkmate is usually defined in an operational way that is equivalent to full checkmate in two-player chess: your king is attacked and you have no move that will result in your king not being attacked. It is of course possible to try and use a definition of checkmate that is equivalent to the full checkmate described above in two-player chess also in chess with three or more players. These differences make it impossible to say with certainty when king capture is actually going to take place before it actually happens, thereby invalidating the reasoning which allowed us to eliminate king capture from the (end of the) game. (Very much the same thing happens when a player forfeits the game upon realizing that the game is lost and there is no point playing any further.)īut if there are three or more players a third party can intervene on behalf of a threatened king and (unless the game ends when the first king is captured) there may be more pressing matters than capturing an opponent's king left in check (like defending your own king). Because of this certainty of how the next two turns will play out (a doomed evasive move and a certain king capture), there is no point in actually playing those moves, so both can be (and have been in FIDE chess) eliminated from the game with no detriment to the game. In two-player chess checkmate is a situation where at the end of your turn all parties are certain that you will (be able to) capture the king on your very next turn (and in two-player chess there exist no reasons not to actually capture the king). So let's go back in time before the introduction of checkmate and reanalyse. The rest of this post is background and further analysis of checkmate, that informed my answer and may help to understand it:Īccording to Wikipedia, it was the Persians who abandoned king capture and introduced warning of check in order to not accidentally end the game. Under these rules, merely piling on a check while it was already checkmate would not cause checkmate. If at the start of your own turn you are checkmated, then your king is removed from the game and the opponent who last caused checkmate on you will gain control of your pieces. An opponent causes checkmate on you, if at the start of their turn you are not checkmated, but at the end of their turn you are.You are checkmated whenever your king is attacked and if it were your turn next, you would not have any moves that would result in your king not being attacked.I will need to make an educated guess as to what rules come closest to what you have described, and I think it is that:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |