Most of this makes sense. I'm not entirely sure -- the thread on talkchess was so long ago I don't really remember, but people much smarter than I argued the point -- but I don't really care either. I consider the Joker itself a bad idea, so I don't care exactly how it acts so long as I can implement it without making any significant changes to the architecture of the program itself. And I think that is doable... It makes the implemention of the ImmitatorRule a bit more complicated because it needs to track how each side's Jokers move individually, but that shouldn't be a big deal. I think attack detection should also be ok.
Aurelian, are you in agreement that this is how it should work? To be clear, let's make sure I understand... White moves a Queen. Then black moves a Knight. It is now white's turn again. At this instant, for purposes of determining if the white King is in check, black's Joker still moves as a Queen. White decides to move a Bishop. At this moment, for purposes of deciding if white's King is in check, black's Joker moves as a Bishop. If white's King is not in check, it is black's move again. At this instant, for purposes of determining if black's King is in check, white's Joker moves as a Knight.
with a lame Dababba (nD) on d1, could you play O-O? I would say 'no', because after the King steps to f1, the nD could capture it. But with the King still on e1 the nD cannot capture to f1.
Now this is an interesting question. I'm inclined to agree ... castling should not be allowed because the lame Dababba could theoretically capture the King as it moves through. That said, that is probably not how ChessV works at present. I guess the truly correct way to do it is to move the King to each square in sequence and ask "am I in check" at each step. But that's expensive. It would probably be adequate just to lift the King off the board before doing the attack detection on the squares.
Most of this makes sense. I'm not entirely sure -- the thread on talkchess was so long ago I don't really remember, but people much smarter than I argued the point -- but I don't really care either. I consider the Joker itself a bad idea, so I don't care exactly how it acts so long as I can implement it without making any significant changes to the architecture of the program itself. And I think that is doable... It makes the implemention of the ImmitatorRule a bit more complicated because it needs to track how each side's Jokers move individually, but that shouldn't be a big deal. I think attack detection should also be ok.
Aurelian, are you in agreement that this is how it should work? To be clear, let's make sure I understand... White moves a Queen. Then black moves a Knight. It is now white's turn again. At this instant, for purposes of determining if the white King is in check, black's Joker still moves as a Queen. White decides to move a Bishop. At this moment, for purposes of deciding if white's King is in check, black's Joker moves as a Bishop. If white's King is not in check, it is black's move again. At this instant, for purposes of determining if black's King is in check, white's Joker moves as a Knight.
Now this is an interesting question. I'm inclined to agree ... castling should not be allowed because the lame Dababba could theoretically capture the King as it moves through. That said, that is probably not how ChessV works at present. I guess the truly correct way to do it is to move the King to each square in sequence and ask "am I in check" at each step. But that's expensive. It would probably be adequate just to lift the King off the board before doing the attack detection on the squares.