[board] Trying out a new naming convention in the check methods

I've been bothered by certain instances where the color has already been unwrapped
from an Option<Color> but a subsequent call takes an Option, so you have to rewrap
it to call the method. I might be overthinking this…

For the Board::*_color_is_in_check set of methods, try out this naming convention:

active_color_is_in_check()
: Operates directly on the Board's active color, no unwrapping required
color_is_in_check()
: Takes an Option<Color> and unwraps it with the active color if None is given
unwrapped_color_is_in_check()
: Takes a Color and operates on it. This method is called by the two above, but
is also public.

board/src/check.rs

@@ -7,11 +7,16 @@ use chessfriend_core::{Color, Piece};
 impl Board {
     #[must_use]
     pub fn active_color_is_in_check(&self) -> bool {
-        self.color_is_in_check(self.active_color)
+        self.unwrapped_color_is_in_check(self.active_color)
     }
 
     #[must_use]
-    pub fn color_is_in_check(&self, color: Color) -> bool {
+    pub fn color_is_in_check(&self, color: Option<Color>) -> bool {
+        self.unwrapped_color_is_in_check(self.unwrap_color(color))
+    }
+
+    #[must_use]
+    pub fn unwrapped_color_is_in_check(&self, color: Color) -> bool {
         let king = self.king_bitboard(color);
         let opposing_sight = self.opposing_sight(color);
         (king & opposing_sight).is_populated()
@@ -34,7 +39,7 @@ mod tests {
             Black Rook on F3,
         );
 
-        assert!(board.color_is_in_check(Color::White));
+        assert!(board.unwrapped_color_is_in_check(Color::White));
     }
 
     #[test]
@@ -44,6 +49,6 @@ mod tests {
             Black Rook on B4,
         );
 
-        assert!(!board.color_is_in_check(Color::White));
+        assert!(!board.unwrapped_color_is_in_check(Color::White));
     }
 }