[Retros] Exact chess? (Re: Variant PG wanted)

[joose norri]

I played this quite a bit with Unto Heinonen a decade ago; I think we agreed that checkmate and stalemate are draws. Isn't that more logical? In such positions there's no threat, and proof game chess is certainly direct play.
Joose
  27.01.10, 19:25, "Noam Elkies" <elkies at math.harvard.edu>:

Nicolas.Dupont at math.univ-lille1.fr writes:


> A couple of years ago, I had a related idea : playing "exact chess".

> This goes as ordinary chess, but the first player who makes a move

> such that the resulting position is not exact loses the game !


I've seen this already under the name "proof game chess";
there a move that left a non-uniquely-reconstructible position
was deemed illegal, and the first person to have no legal move
in this sense loses -- which can also be the case as a result of
checkmate or conceivably stalemate.  I have a dim recollection that
this was used to get a PG with 6 Bishop promotions where 5 was the
orthodox record.

I think there was also a suggestion that if the game was actually played
then White should have an easy win.  If there were nevertheless a
standard opening book then any opening in it would automatically
satisfy Andrey's condition :-)

NDE
_______________________________________________
Retros mailing list
Retros at janko.at
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros



-- 
Здесь спама нет http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20100128/3b251d72/attachment.htm>