The game would end when any king is captured so having more than one (as opposed to making the pawn a queen) would be a strict disadvantage. I'd allow it.

[–] Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 11 points 8 months ago

Incorrect, the game ends when a king cannot avoid capture. As such, your statement is wrong and I feel betrayed.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

I misunderstood the rules and shoved my king into my mouth, with a deadpan expression.

Too bad they cut that out of a clip of Queen's Gambit.

[–] Tier1BuildABear@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Swap it for an enemy pawn.

[–] iiGxC@slrpnk.net 5 points 8 months ago

[–] pancakes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago

Or a bionicle

[–] DrRatso@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Granted, but checkmate on either of the kings = loss

E: And now that I think about it, forking the kinds would also have to be a loss.

[–] Alivrah@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Can't be promoted to player either

[–] GrabtharsHammer@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Pawns were players and players were pawns, once upon a time. Now that it's the opposite it's twice upon a time.

[–] odium@programming.dev 5 points 8 months ago

Bet