Single Comment

I agree with Jeremy regarding check. The paradox he mentions can be resolved by distinguishing ordinary attacks from actual attacks within the context of the game's special rules. We may say that any space attacked by an enemy piece in the ordinary way, i.e. in the way it would be attacked if this were an ordinary game of Chess, does not exist for any non-royal piece the player may move. We may assume that the effects the current player's pieces would have on the ability of the opponent's pieces to move does not recursively feed back into determining which spaces do not exist. Otherwise, we could get endless loops and paradoxes.

With regard to check, it seems we should refer to actual attacks within the context of the game, i.e. it is check when a piece actually attacks the opponent's King.

With regard to the Knight, Nightrider leaping might make more sense. In Wormhole Chess, I specifically had the Chinese Chess Horse in mind as a model for how the Knight would move. But I don't think the creator of this game did. If we think of the Knight as a simple leaper analogous to the Pawn, we may do the same thing as we would for the Pawn. When the space a Pawn might move to does not exist, it moves to the first space in its path that does. Analogously, when the space a Knight would leap to does not exist, it might leap to the first space that does exist in a Nightrider path.