Comments by mthomas

Some years ago I read about a similar variant proposal in a forum of a game site. The author named it 'stale chess':

Win by stalemating the opponent; it is forbidden to give check.

I wonder if it would suffice to check the legality of the newest move only.

As I understand it, every time a player makes a move a program containing all previous moves is built, with the newest move at the end, then executed. Usually the legality is checked in the post-move part, thus all older moves are checked again and again, after every move made by a player.

Wouldn't it be enough to test the legality of a move only once, directly after it is made, in the post-game part, just assuming that all previous moves are legal?

I take it that a hunter can't be adjacent to an opponent's hunter, thus can never capture another hunter. But hunters are natural predators of other hunters. Does that mean that you don't control a red square by a hunter if the opponent still has a hunter?

Do you control a red square by, say, a cat when the opponent has no cat and no dog but has a mouse that may later promote to cat or dog?

I'm not happy with this King swap. I think I should think up something else.