Let us redefine a check in the following manner:
A king is checked by the figure iff this figure can capture the king in the next move.
This seems pretty innocent, but gets funny when we are dealing with forked figures. For instance, if we have a black King on A1, black Rook on B2, white King on C2 and white Bishop on, let us say, G7, black to move:
1. the white King is not in check, since the Rook is forked
2. Black has two legal moves: Ka2 and Kb1 (sic!). Curiously, both of them are checks:
2a. if Black plays Ka2, the rook is no longer forked, therefore it MAY capture the white king
2b. Black may play Kb1 because this field is protected by the Rook, which also won't be forked anymkore. Now, both the King and the Rook check white King.
3. In both variants, Kxb2 is a checkmate.
What do you think of the idea? Can you come up with any funny puzzles for this variant?
A king is checked by the figure iff this figure can capture the king in the next move.
This seems pretty innocent, but gets funny when we are dealing with forked figures. For instance, if we have a black King on A1, black Rook on B2, white King on C2 and white Bishop on, let us say, G7, black to move:
1. the white King is not in check, since the Rook is forked
2. Black has two legal moves: Ka2 and Kb1 (sic!). Curiously, both of them are checks:
2a. if Black plays Ka2, the rook is no longer forked, therefore it MAY capture the white king
2b. Black may play Kb1 because this field is protected by the Rook, which also won't be forked anymkore. Now, both the King and the Rook check white King.
3. In both variants, Kxb2 is a checkmate.
What do you think of the idea? Can you come up with any funny puzzles for this variant?