[Retros] Two-pawns chess

[Joost de Heer]

On 14-9-2012 20:33, Nicolas Dupont wrote:

>> For the sake of composition (in particular proofgames): Is threatening

>> to capture the second pawn considered to be a check?

>

> As far as the game is lost when a second pawn is captured, threatening

> such a capture is actually the definition of a check, no ?


My interpretation is that it's a check too. But apparently in Extinction 
chess (which shows some similarities to two-pawn chess) there is no such 
thing as check, mainly because the inventor didn't define it (or perhaps 
forgot it?). So it should be properly defined for 2-pawn chess: Is the 
threat enough, or should the capture actually take place? And is the 
capture of the second pawn obligatory if it's possible?

E.g. in the 1-pawn variant: Is 1. e4 d5 2. e5 a legal game?

Bernd Gräfrath could say more about this, I remember having a discussion 
with him and Dirk Borst over a proofgame in Extinction Chess that was 
published in Probleemblad.

Joost