though the implementation of every piece being that they can only see where they can move to is fine (excellent idea), but the king though can't move beyond one block in every direction, he has to see who is calling check on him?

There's a hypothesis that as cameras (and batteries, and drones) cheapen, liberal democracies may want, need, or be unable to avoid adopting unprecedented levels of transparency in government, defense and industry. The civic benefits of transparency are obvious, the drawbacks are subtle, and stopping it will only become more politically difficult over time.

It's conceivable that a state in this condition will essentially be unable to keep secrets, even (or especially) for military matters, making it vulnerable to non-transparent adversaries.

If radical transparency is to grow from the US, a transparent society would start with a wealth advantage, and it is likely that the advantage would only grow over time due to the economic benefits of transparency (it aids the spread of information, it speeds discovery, it cuts out middlemen, it cuts down intracompany siloing).

This gives us an actually interesting game scenario: One player has a significant piece advantage over the other, but they can't see all of the opponent's pieces, and the opponent can see all of theirs.

I've been wanting to try a chess variant that simulates this, for a bit, to maybe begin to develop a sense of the tactical cost of transparency. So it's cool to see you're basically developing the tech. I hope that I've been able to convince you that this question of who would win in a war between a helplessly transparent state and opaque state is a materially interesting enough to try it out as a game mode.