[Retros] Solidarity Chess (=SC)

[Kevin Begley]

Hi Eric,

It is worth considering that your fairy condition might simply redefine the
nature of check.

This is done, for example, in the Extinction Chess, and Anti-Kings
conditions.

In the former, Kings are considered non-royal units (subsequently, King
promotions become legal!), and check is defined as any threat to capture
one side's last of a particular set of the starting unit types (e.g., a
threat to make extinct white Kings, Queens, Rooks, Bishops, Knights, or
Pawns, for example, when starting from an orthodox position).

In the latter, the Kings remain royal units, but they are considered only
to be in check when NOT attacked.

Either option would suffice to alter movement, because no player may
legally move into self-check.

If you redefine check, there is no need for new symbols.
The "+" symbol would become redefined, according to your condition, as
would the "#" and "=" symbols.
So, such a definition -- according to altered rules of check -- might
greatly simplify your intent... while still preserving good possibilities
for problem chess.

Hope this helps.

-Kevin



On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Eric Angelini <Eric.Angelini at kntv.be>wrote:


>

> > 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

> _______________________________________________

> Retros mailing list

> 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/20121220/3468300f/attachment.htm>