Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 11:09:04 01/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2002 at 14:03:10, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Ah, this must have been what Andrew meant. This does make sense, and seems to be the solution I overlooked. Thanks! Russell
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.