Option 2b: the turn pass can be made by any piece (or any piece w/ a pseudo‐legal move) on the passing side. And is thus, for mate‐detection purposes, equivalent to the intersection of all such moves.
This has the advantage of needing less off‐board state to be maintained: you only need to record what the opponent's last move was, not your own (as with e.g. en‐passant or lion anti‐trading); also a Joker cannot then give check as a piece no longer on the board, which I find a mildly surprising behaviour, and the position in Greg's diagram is unconditionally checkmate. It also matches my proposed update‐on‐touch‐move semantics, which covers castling out of or moving through check, even in the presence of multiple differently‐moving castling‐capable royals, as well as a possible rule for interacting w/ e.g. Orphans
Conversely, opt. 1 has the advantage of being considerably easier (I imagine) to implement, and probably to explain, at the expense of in some ways exhibiting more surprising behaviour. And Daniel's equation of it with a double move makes some sense (though given the context of actual double‐move variants there are possible quibbles). I imagine it'd be the most popular option.
I agree that of the options H.G. listed, 1 seems most natural; I find my opt. 2b a touch moreso, but opt. 1 is not far behind, so people's mileage may (and probably will!) vary
Option 2b: the turn pass can be made by any piece (or any piece w/ a pseudo‐legal move) on the passing side. And is thus, for mate‐detection purposes, equivalent to the intersection of all such moves.
This has the advantage of needing less off‐board state to be maintained: you only need to record what the opponent's last move was, not your own (as with e.g. en‐passant or lion anti‐trading); also a Joker cannot then give check as a piece no longer on the board, which I find a mildly surprising behaviour, and the position in Greg's diagram is unconditionally checkmate. It also matches my proposed update‐on‐touch‐move semantics, which covers castling out of or moving through check, even in the presence of multiple differently‐moving castling‐capable royals, as well as a possible rule for interacting w/ e.g. Orphans
Conversely, opt. 1 has the advantage of being considerably easier (I imagine) to implement, and probably to explain, at the expense of in some ways exhibiting more surprising behaviour. And Daniel's equation of it with a double move makes some sense (though given the context of actual double‐move variants there are possible quibbles). I imagine it'd be the most popular option.
I agree that of the options H.G. listed, 1 seems most natural; I find my opt. 2b a touch moreso, but opt. 1 is not far behind, so people's mileage may (and probably will!) vary