Atomic chess

http://www.freechess.org/Help/HelpFiles/atomic.html

I'm implementing it using the set of rules above.

I'm reading that and wondering why a distinction is made between direct and indirect attacks, where direct attacks have to be countered (like checks) and indirect attacks don't . I guess you're just following it to the letter?

I like to think that it's similar to how in the old days of chess, it was legal to not move your king out of check, but you'd lose as you'd be taken on the next turn.

I kind've like this quirk of atomic chess as it's less trivial to know if you're indirectly in check, so both players need to pay more attention to find winning combinations instead of being forced to make one that isn't losing.

Clarkey is a good chess player.

Clarkey, I agree. But what I'm pondering is why players should be forced to move out of direct attacks on their king, but not indirect ones?

Because direct attacks are obvious due to their similarity to the normal rules of chess, but indirect attacks aren't necessarily obvious, making discovering them part of the game.

I wish the Lichess had all the variants that exist!!!
:)

Clarkey, I'm inclined to agree; however, as an endgame enthusiast I think that enforcing direct attacks could miss out on some fascinating endgames:
http://www.moltenstudios.com/atomic/endgames/joinedkings.html

My preference would be for a rule set where direct attacks do not apply when kings are adjacent. (That is, remaining in check or even moving into check could be legal as long as kings are adjacent, since no piece could legally capture the king.)

@Toadofsky: That's sort of a corner case. While I see your point, adding more rules will only make the game more complicated for newcomers, especially when it _is_ such a corner case.

I still want bughouse, we don't need more varients of essentially the same game (suicide chess)