Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:03:10 01/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2002 at 14:00:32, Russell Reagan wrote: >On January 29, 2002 at 13:38:49, Andrew Dados wrote: > >>Black Knight attacks white King, so it is a check. > >That is the point, according to the definition of the word attack, the knight >does not attack the white king, so it is not check according to the current >wording of the rules. > >>To restate those rules: Whichever side can capture opposite King _first_, wins. > >The knight cannot capture the white king. It cannot do anything to the white >king. It cannot move. It is not even threatening the white king. If it's black's >turn to move, can black capture the white king? No, therefore it is not check. If it is black to move black can capture the white king based on my definition. black cannot move with the knight to other squares based on my definition. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.