[Retros] Solidarity Chess (=SC)

[Eric Angelini]

> the set of legal moves following  

a checking move X+ is not the same (in general) as the set of
legal moves following a non-checking move X.

... yes, thanks Nicolas, this is especially clear to me now 
that François has provided his example on the first row.

So I'll come back with a (hopefully) sound and clear definition
of a "check" in SC -- the special case where side A threatens to
"cut" side B's lines. I hope too that no conflict will arise 
between the orthodox check rule we keep in SC and the "new"
"cutting"-check...

Many thanks to all again,
É.



-----Message d'origine-----
De : retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] De la part de Nicolas Dupont
Envoyé : jeudi 20 décembre 2012 17:59
À : retros at janko.at
Objet : Re: [Retros] Solidarity Chess (=SC)


> I understand more clearly now why it

> is important to have a "check" concept

> in some fairy variants: because it is more

> fun!


A fairy condition is defined only if the legal moves (under this  
condition) are. And to define the legal moves, it is necessary to know  
which are the checking moves. Indeed the set of legal moves following  
a checking move X+ is not the same (in general) as the set of legal  
moves following a non-checking move X.

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