Single Comment

Relativistic Chess. Squares attacked by the opponent are considered not to exist. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Carlos Cetina wrote on Thu, Jul 19, 2012 11:50 PM UTC:

There are certainly similarities between RC and WC. The agreement that Nicholas, Jotchen and I have taken regarding the knight is to move it like in WC; then I agree with the knight on h6 is checking the king.

The fine point of the matter is the case of the pawn on d5. What you say,  "the rules only specify that the King is exempt from the rule that attacked spaces don't exist for pieces, not that it's attacks on spaces do not make them non-existent", is exact but it does not refute White's argument.

There are two opposite arguments:

1) From Red viewpoint it's check because e4 is inexistent;

2) From White viewpoint it's not check because e4 is existent.   

Like an arbiter, I would give the reason to White because the status of the board [regarding existency or inexistency] is changing move by move; after Red move 22... fxd5, White faces a NEW situation in which he sees there is an adversary pawn placed on e5, and sees there is an intermediate square between that pawn and his king. In other words, is the viewpoint of the player to move will determine the legality or illegality of a given move.