this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
145 points (95.6% liked)

AnarchyChess

5690 readers
25 users here now

Holy hell

Other chess communities:
!Chess@lemmy.ml
!chessbeginners@sh.itjust.works

Matrix space

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Spuddaccino@reddthat.com 50 points 2 years ago (5 children)

The official answer is that you cannot promote a pawn to a king, so this situation would never arise. However, this is Anarchy Chess, so let's set that aside.

If this situation did happen, and it is Black's turn, it is not checkmate, because Black's bishop takes the queen. It could not be White's turn, because there is no way to arrive at this board state on Black's turn without one or both kings being in check at the beginning of the turn, and so Black's move would have needed to remove their king from check.

Therefore, this board state is not checkmate.

[–] Kanda@reddthat.com 40 points 2 years ago (4 children)

The bishop is on strike as modern religious conditions makes his day-to-day services auxiliary and thus he will not attack until he gets paid

[–] Spuddaccino@reddthat.com 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

One of the kings could still pay the bishop, so still not checkmate.

[–] kittehx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Except that the bishop won't actually receive the funds until the next business day, which would be too late. Now of course this wouldn't be an issue if the payment could be made in cash, but due to the distance between the bishop and the kings, the only option is an electronic transfer.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Since it's anarchychess the bishop rejects their Mastercard, but it would accept Bitcoin. However the kings lost their Bitcoin to a scammer the week before.

[–] Kanda@reddthat.com 6 points 2 years ago

They could, but you have to think about the bottom line and how it would affect the shareholders

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)