From the wikipedia article on fairy chess pieces. They are crazy. To be a leaper you have to be able to leap over pieces. The king cannot do this. Castling can be disregarded as it is a special weird one time move.
"Some pieces can be described as combined leapers, i.e. as pieces having the movement capabilities of multiple leapers. The king in orthodox chess (ignoring check restrictions) is an example of a combination of a (1,1)-leaper and a (1,0)-leaper."
Originally posted by homedepotov From the wikipedia article on fairy chess pieces. They are crazy. To be a leaper you have to be able to leap over pieces. The king cannot do this. Castling can be disregarded as it is a special weird one time move.
"Some pieces can be described as combined leapers, i.e. as pieces having the movement capabilities of multiple leapers. The king in orthod ...[text shortened]... ring check restrictions) is an example of a combination of a (1,1)-leaper and a (1,0)-leaper."
The King moves through the squares if it is not controlled by the opponents piece. It is the Rook that can be described as a leaper on this particular move by leaping over the King and landing on the other side of the King. 😏
I want a special "god leaper" piece that attacks all 64 squares. That would mean every game would be a draw since both kings would be checkmated before the game started.
Originally posted by homedepotov From the wikipedia article on fairy chess pieces. They are crazy. To be a leaper you have to be able to leap over pieces. The king cannot do this. Castling can be disregarded as it is a special weird one time move.
"Some pieces can be described as combined leapers, i.e. as pieces having the movement capabilities of multiple leapers. The king in orthod ...[text shortened]... ring check restrictions) is an example of a combination of a (1,1)-leaper and a (1,0)-leaper."
I see the article has been tagged for correction. It's funny that they created a category for Royal pieces, yet put the orthodox King in the 'leaper' category. 😛
Originally posted by homedepotov I want a special "god leaper" piece that attacks all 64 squares. That would mean every game would be a draw since both kings would be checkmated before the game started.
Not quite true.
The game does not start till White makes a move.
Now suppose the g1 Knight and the g8 Knights are God Leapers.
[fen]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1[/fen]
The game does not start till White makes a move.
Now suppose the g1 Knight and the g8 Knights are God Leapers.
White plays 1.Ne3+
[fen]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/4N3/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1[/fen]
Black can get out check using his God Leaper.
[fen]rnbqkb1r/pppppppp/8/8/8/4n3/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 1[/fen]
(check).
😉
But why would white play 1.Ne3+ when he could play 1.Nxe8? 🙂
The starting position with god-leapers isn't legal. You can't have the move when your opponent is in check. [And both Kings can't be in check at the same time.]
I suppose you will have to have some rule that stated you can only have
a God Leaper if you promote a 'Royal Pawn' the d or e-pawns.
Or 'Atheist Kings' which means God leapers could not check them.
Almost forgot. The Godleaper would even attack the square it is on, so that if it was captured and removed from the board it could then capture the capturing piece and replace it on the board on its next move.
Originally posted by homedepotov Almost forgot. The Godleaper would even attack the square it is on, so that if it was captured and removed from the board it could then capture the capturing piece and replace it on the board on its next move.
This would result in a never ending game in GPs example because the god leapers would continually capture eachother over and over again.
Originally posted by tomtom232 This would result in a never ending game in GPs example because the god leapers would continually capture eachother over and over again.
But none of this matters if the position isn't legal.
The king is a leaper??
29 Aug '12 15:02
Back to Top