Actually every move should be marked as illegal for a player that has no royal in a game where royals are defined. It is just that the absence of royalty is only tested when a piece with special (royalty, baring, anti-trading) properties is captured, as the AI assumes royalty still exists before the move, or the search branch would already have been terminated earlier. So it only tests it when it could have changed.
I guess the current AI would choke on tsume positions without King.
[Edit] For the purpose of highlighting the legality test now assumes a royaltyCount of 1 in the current position when in reality royaltyCount <= 0. In terms of scoring this fakes a single royal for the side that has none.
Actually every move should be marked as illegal for a player that has no royal in a game where royals are defined. It is just that the absence of royalty is only tested when a piece with special (royalty, baring, anti-trading) properties is captured, as the AI assumes royalty still exists before the move, or the search branch would already have been terminated earlier. So it only tests it when it could have changed.
I guess the current AI would choke on tsume positions without King.
[Edit] For the purpose of highlighting the legality test now assumes a royaltyCount of 1 in the current position when in reality royaltyCount <= 0. In terms of scoring this fakes a single royal for the side that has none.