[Retros] Two-pawns chess

[werner]

I don't see where the discussion about the 'checks' comes from. I think
Eric was clear about the rules. I quote: 'orthodox rules + just one
unorthodox rule: if your opponent captures a second pawn (of yours), you
have lost the game.' Obviously there is no mention of so called
'checks', so 1.e4,d5 2.e5 seems perfectly legal to me.

And about Yefims 5 points:

Quoting'
There are numerous flaws with this kind of chess. Some are below.
1. The one Joost de Heer said (Is a treat to capture a pawn like a
check...)
2. Is a checkmate (stalemate) still in a effect?
3. If a side captures a pawn AND this leads to a stalemate is this a win
or a draw?
4. Is the check of the legality of a position in a effect?
The offered position is illegal in the orthodox chess, but is legality
needed? Imagine the position where a pawn has been definitely captured
earlier. Is it illegal in this kind of chess? (assuming the pawn
captured immediately stopped the game)
5... Anyone offering new kind of chess cannot simply refer to the
orthodox rules. He should define new strict rules! (or avoid obvious
conflicts with the orthodox rules). 
'

Here are my answers (according to Erics rules)

1. No, what makes you think so? As I stated before 1.e4,d5 2.e5 is not
in contradiction to Erics rules
2. Sure, as Eric said: orthodox rules.
3. This is a good point, I think. I would say that the capture of a pawn
wins the game, but I admit that there is room for a different view. I
wonder what Erics view would be.
4. I assume legality is needed, otherwise things would become very
complicated
5. I can't disagree with this one. 

Werner