Single Comment

Amalgamated Chess. Incorporates some aspects of historical variants, but uses only usual equipment. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

💡📝James Gryphon wrote on Sat, Jan 18, 2014 08:27 AM UTC:

That's a very good question.

There's considerable Chess precedent in the idea that the King may not be left in check at any time, so your post brings up a real dilemma. However, after considering this problem, I would officially state that the Prince capture is, as stated in the rules, still mandatory, and ends the game with a win for the King's side.

Here's my reasoning for this: Normal Chess implicitly acknowledges the common-sense possibility of pinned pieces theoretically being able to capture the opposing King, even though doing so would put their own King in immediate risk. If absolute pinned pieces deliver check and can take part in checkmates, then it's implied that they could capture the opposing King if it were allowed to enter that square. Unlike the Chess King, the Prince is allowed to enter that square. Thus, the pinned piece can (and, under the rules of this game, is actually required to) capture the Prince.

As far as the apparent risk to the King after the pinned piece's capture: this game immediately ends with the capture of a Prince. After the game ends, the newly Prince-free opponent can make no more moves. So, with the absence of any legal moves that can attack it, the unprotected King is no longer in danger. I would go so far as to say that capturing the Prince in this situation not only wins the game but also delivers your King from check. ;-)

I think having it this way is more fun, more clear (since the rule says that the Prince capture is required), and makes for a better game.