It’s already both happened to me that I didn’t notice I couldn’t move a piece without exposing the king or that I won by accident. Had the game not announced this, I wouldn’t have known.

And perhaps the opponent might not notice my mistake either. Or it could just be a strategic high-risk scenario, rather than a mistake.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 days ago

    Can you explain how stalemates would be impossible if you could self-check? Functionally I don’t see how that’s any different from resigning.

    You could still stalemate by avoiding check and causing threefold repetition.

    • Akasazh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      If you self-check, your opponents next move is always to take the king and win. Check means ‘if it’s my turn I can capture your king’.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        17 days ago

        How is that different from resigning?

        The player can still draw by refusing to self check, right?

        • Player2@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          17 days ago

          If you refuse to make a move, you resign, you lose.

          If you are unable to make a move, it’s a stalemate, you do not lose.

          It just gives you an extra chance to avoid a total loss by having your opponent make a mistake.

          • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            17 days ago

            Got it.

            A game that would normally stalemate because the only move is self check becomes a loss because you have a self check available.