Atomic variant

Hi everyone. I wanted to try this variant but I saw a very bad rule, at least in my opinion. Even if a player is in check, the opponent can continue the game if he has a chance to destroy the opposite king without worrying about getting his king out of check, thus winning the game. but what kind of rule is this? Only to me it seems stupid rule? ok, it's a variant, but if you are in check you have to save your king, not that you keep playing by checking and winning.

The rule makes sense if you look at it from the perspective of "you win if you're the first one to blow up your opponent's king". That's the objective of the game, and allowing to explode your opponent's king while you're in check does fit with that. Hypothetical moves after that point aren't really relevant because the game is over.

@ProgramFOX said in #2:
> The rule makes sense if you look at it from the perspective of "you win if you're the first one to blow up your opponent's king". That's the objective of the game, and allowing to explode your opponent's king while you're in check does fit with that. Hypothetical moves after that point aren't really relevant because the game is over.

Yes, you are right but if the opponent has given you check, you should secure your king, instead you can not care if, in fact, you have the possibility to blow up the opponent's king. In my opinion it makes little sense, points of view of course.

> if the opponent has given you check, you should secure your king

Since exploding the opponent's king ends the game, it secures your king as well ;-)

Yes.
From my point of view, things are like this:
Check/checkmate: Attack the king
"Blow up" the king: Capture the king.

Capture>Attack
It's just my point of view, of course.

If the opponent has the ability to blow up your king, you were effectively at check before your move - if you're responding with a different check but not protecting your king, that's the equivalent of ordinary chess making a move that threatens the opponents king but does not remove your king from check.

Perhaps this threat of blowing up should be treated as actual check where leaving the opponent with the ability to kill your king on the next move would be an illegal move.

@ProgramFOX said in #2:
> The rule makes sense if you look at it from the perspective of "you win if you're the first one to blow up your opponent's king". That's the objective of the game, and allowing to explode your opponent's king while you're in check does fit with that. Hypothetical moves after that point aren't really relevant because the game is over.

I played a couple of games, I'm not very enthusiastic about it very sincerely

@Andros88 said in #1:
> Hi everyone. I wanted to try this variant but I saw a very bad rule, at least in my opinion. Even if a player is in check, the opponent can continue the game if he has a chance to destroy the opposite king without worrying about getting his king out of check, thus winning the game. but what kind of rule is this? Only to me it seems stupid rule? ok, it's a variant, but if you are in check you have to save your king, not that you keep playing by checking and winning.

It's not stupid. If you destroy the king first, you'll win because you've destroyed his king first.