Talk:Checkless chess

Caps
Either the article should be at "Checkless Chess" or the article should read "Checkless chess". Hyacinth (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

what time is a good time?
"... since getting the king trapped in the enemy camp may subject it to an untimely checkmate." Exactly how does chess define "untimely"? 71.162.113.226 (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Rule clarification
According to the article, in one version of checkless chess, check may be given if there would be at least one legal response in orthodox chess and every such response would be a cross-check. However, what if at least one such cross-check would be a checkmate? Does the rule still apply?

For example, consider the position in the diagram. Is 1.Rg3 legal? If we accept what the article says, then it should be, since the only legal response to that move in orthodox chess would be 1...Kxg3#, which would be a cross-check. However, that cross-check would also be checkmate, and since the rule of checkless chess is that one cannot give check unless it is checkmate, it seems like it should be the case that Black would be able to play 1...Kxg3#. If that's the case, then Black would have a legal move, so the position wouldn't be checkmate, so 1.Rg3 is illegal. What's the answer here? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually, extending that logic further, we get this scenario.


 * "White can't play 1.Qae2, because it wouldn't be checkmate, because Black could play 1...Qxe2, because it would be checkmate, because White couldn't play 2.Qxe2, because it wouldn't be checkmate, [...] because Black could play 3...Qxe2, because it would be checkmate."


 * So I guess that, if it does work like this, then things could get really complicated. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)