[Retros] Solidarity chess (=SC)

[Eric Angelini]

Eric (me):

>  I have to carefully re-read

and re-play the examples given

... ok, done. I am right (!), no
possible conflict (if I say so (!))
This is: If I don't say (in proposing
a new chess variant) that you must
parry a threat, then you don't have
to parry a threat. The result, if you
don't parry the said threat, will be
a lost game (for you) -- too bad (!)
You are of course right in asking,
or condidering threats and warnings,
but, as in orthodox chess, at the end,
who cares?! In the original orthodox
intended (?) chess rules, if I don't
see that my King is in check -- too
bad: it will be captured by my opponent
at the next move. I know that I am not
allowed to put delibarately my King
in check -- but how does this affect the
chess game where the only rule is:
- you win the game by capturing the
opponent's King, period?
(I'm sure that this topic is old hat -- but
I like to keep things clear and simple
when possible. So, as the tradition, in
orthodox chess, is to "warn" the opponent
by saying "check", and the tradition also
forbids to put one's King in check --
(BTW this happens in blitz games),
etc. -- ok, lets not re-invent the wheel
and keep what the tradition has given
to us (again, in orthodox chess).
But if an extra law is proposed, or
even if a completely new law (see
below) is proposed, why the hell
should we care about an equivalent
to the "check" thing?! (I admit that
asking the question is sound, of
course, and interesting, sometimes --
but in my mind it adds confusion
instead of light)
Now an example of "new law":
- starting array = the same as in
orthodox chess exept there are no
Kings;
- all rules = the same (but obviously
no castling :-))
- winner is the side which captures
one Rook of the other side.

That's it.

I think this is perfectly clear and leaves
no space to confusion, conflicts, obscurity in the rules, etc. (clocks have
not yet been invented, nor competition).

Do I have a point, here? Even if there
might exist draw positions?
;-)
Best,
É.



Le 20 déc. 2012 à 00:35, "Eric Angelini" <Eric.Angelini at kntv.be<mailto:Eric.Angelini at kntv.be>> a écrit :


Noam:
I was asking for clarification on which
convention is intended here.

... yes Noam, you (and a few others who wrote
to me in private) are right. I've noticed
that when there are two ways to win
a game [as here or in my last proposition a few weeks ago when you win
by capturing two (or three, or four...) pawns
of the enemy], conflicts might arise (in
parrying a King's threat, for instance).
I have to admit I didn't explore this
domain -- as I've been always reluctant
to go deeply in such considérations.
I'll explain why hereunder in a minute
--apologizing already because I've much, much less than you experience
in fairy conditions.
Here is my point:
-if I add a second way to kill a game
(capturing a pawn /  breaking the enemy
lines) _I don't want to warn the other
side_ [this is, to say "you are in check now
and if you don't parry my check (or
move your King on a safe square, or,
or...),
I'll capture your King on my next move,
and the game will be lost for you"].
Why should we add complicated "equivalents" to a "check" when we add
a rule?! I might be wrong but I don't
see, at first glimpse, any possible
conflict when I say: "Cutting the lines
of the ennemy ends the game"...
But, again, I have to carefully re-read
and re-play the examples given by
Noam (and the others) to be sure there
might be a conflict.
(there is for sure a conflict between my
iPhone typing pad and my big fingertips, sorry for the bad typography
of this answer)...
Best,
É.

Envoyé d'un aPhone


Le 19 déc. 2012 à 20:11, "Noam Elkies" <elkies at math.harvard.edu<mailto:elkies at math.harvard.edu>> a écrit :

Joost writes:


Oops, misread your mail. 3.d4 is illegal since it splits white's position.

Right, I was trying to be too fancy and use the same opening to ask
two different questions.  Still, in the example from the webpage
1 e3 Nf6 2 d4 Nc6 3 Bc4 e5 we can ask: Is the threat of 4...Nxd4
"check" -- e.g. in a proof game would White be obligated to parry
this threat next move?  As for Qxe8, some fairy conditions retain
orthodox check/mate and others apply also to the K's virtual capture
(as with Circe vs. Circe Rex Inclusive -- though I suppose in the
rex-inclusive version the capture need not be virtual if the King
is reborn!).  I was asking for clarification on which convention
is intended here.

NDE
_______________________________________________
Retros mailing list
Retros at janko.at<mailto:Retros at janko.at>
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
_______________________________________________
Retros mailing list
Retros at janko.at<mailto:Retros at janko.at>
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20121220/cf2816ef/attachment-0001.htm>