Ben Reiniger wrote on Fri, Sep 25, 2020 03:39 AM UTC:
On fools, the paragraph seems to mean that neither fools nor kings can move such that the fool "attacks" the king. The convoluted language comes I think in part because the fool cannot capture any pieces at all, and so the author is trying to avoid the word "attacks" or its variations.
Several of this author's pages say just "castling is free," which I can only attribute to the historical rule? I haven't read all of them to see whether they elaborate somewhere.
I'm also confused about the hunter movement:
...The hunter can't jump over any agent when it's travelling either diagonally or orthogonally. When travelling purely orthogonally, the hunter can never even jump any agent located on squares of opposite color. ...
The second sentence here seems to be redundant, unless diagonal movement is supposed to allow jumping over opposite-color squares?
On fools, the paragraph seems to mean that neither fools nor kings can move such that the fool "attacks" the king. The convoluted language comes I think in part because the fool cannot capture any pieces at all, and so the author is trying to avoid the word "attacks" or its variations.
Several of this author's pages say just "castling is free," which I can only attribute to the historical rule? I haven't read all of them to see whether they elaborate somewhere.
I'm also confused about the hunter movement:
The second sentence here seems to be redundant, unless diagonal movement is supposed to allow jumping over opposite-color squares?