[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?

> 

> I don't think so: if one just declares that you win if your

> opponent has no legal move that retains uniqueness then

> checkmate and stalemate become wins automatically.

I suppose we thought that the purpose of the game is to force the opponent to play a move that leads to a dualistic proofgame. If the opponent is checkmated, he has no move at all, so is not forced to play a losing move (=is stalemated). So two different games in fact. 

> 

> Not sure why this is relevant; the notion of a "threat" doesn't seem

> all that useful in this game to begin with.


Yes, it's not.
Joose 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20100128/9fd45c40/attachment.htm>