User Name: Password:
New User Registration
Moderator: WhisperzQ , Mort , Bwild 
 Chess variants (8x8)

including Amazon, Anti, Atomic, Berolina, Corner, Crazy Screen, Cylinder, Dark, Extinction, Fischer Random, Fortress, Horde, Knight Relay, Legan, Loop, Maharajah, Screen, Three Checks

For posting:
- invitations to games (you can also use the New Game menu)
- information about upcoming tournaments
- discussion of games (please limit this to completed games or discussion on how a game has arrived at a certain position ... speculation on who has an advantage or the benefits of potential moves is not permitted)
- links to interesting related sites (non-promotional)

Community Announcements:
- Nasmichael is helping to co-ordinate the Fischer Random Chess Email Chess (FRCEC) Club and can set up quad or trio games if you send him a PM here.


Messages per page:
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
Mode: Everyone can post
Search in posts:  

11. November 2012, 14:37:15
Atrotos 
Since there is checkmate in 3-checks chess, there is check also. So for check to be meaningful, it has to mean that the side that is in check, has to move his king out of check in the end of his turn.
So yes it's perfectly logical that you can't win by giving a 3rd check as you have to make a move that will remove the check from your king.

What you say would be logical if there was no check and one in order to win will have to either capture the king(and not checkmated him) OR threaten him(check him, but the term is ambiguous in this context) 3 times. Whoever manages to do one of the 2 first wins.
Then your 3rd threatening("check") on the king would win even if at the same time the opponent was threatening to capture yours.

It's like atomic Chess where even if your king is threatened exploding the king has a preference, so if you can leave your king hanging by delivering an explosion on the opponent's king, you win. But in atomic there is no checkmate.

What you propose is a different type of game with different strategy.

11. November 2012, 18:07:54
wetware 
Subject: Re: Three-check chess
Atrotos: Agreed.  In the Introduction to Popular Chess Variants, D.B. Pritchard wrote: "All the usual rules, but you also win if you check your opponent three times."

11. November 2012, 18:32:53
Justaminute 
Subject: Re: Three-check chess
wetware:
The variation I dont likei is extinction chess where you can put your opponentt in checkmate but still lose when your opponent takes, say a second bishop, because you have not taken his king. i would rather normal rules apply in this variation as well.

12. November 2012, 06:06:26
rabbitoid 
Subject: Re: Three-check chess
Justaminute: On another subject for the same variant: does anyone know how the system here handles a double check? does it count one or two checks?

22. November 2012, 22:58:02
Fencer 
Subject: Re: Three-check chess
rabbitoid: One.

Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Back to the top