From: Pieter Stouten <stoutepf <at> CHEMSCI5 <dot> dmpc <dot> com>
Date: 7 oct 1995
Subject: Re: King in check

At 1:39 95/10/07, WENDELL MARTIN wrote:

>if the computerized player is in
>stalemate, the program announces that the computerized player has lost.
>
This can easily turn into a philosophical issue. Well, let's go. Stalemate
as a concept does not exist in Shogi. Personally, I think it should not be
part of chess either as one player willingly puts himself in a bad
position, not in order to win, but only in order not to lose. A destructive
way of playing any game. I think we can easily do without the comfort of
draws. The best way I have seen the objective of Shogi described is: "The
goal is to capture the opponent's king. Generally, checkmate signals the
end of the game." No special stalemate rules necessary.

>It's an extremely rare situation, but it would be nice to know the "right"
>way to handle it.
>
Having absolutely no moves is different from stalemate, and I don't think
the rules postulate anything about this. But consider, how often has this
situation occurred? My guess is never. Will it ever occur? Only if a player
deliberately tries (and even then it is fairly hard to achieve). Such a
player should go to Shogi-L hell <g>. My personal point of view here is
that, although it is possible to regulate all situations, that in and by
itself does not generate a need to actually cover every contingency when
the estimated probability (based on past experience) is zero.

Cheers, Pieter.

--

Pieter Stouten                              ||  Nothing shocks me;
Computer Aided Drug Design Group            ||
The DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company     ||  I am a scientist!
P.O. Box 80353, Wilmington, DE 19880-0353   ||
Phone: +1 (302) 695 3515                    ||          --
Fax: +1 (302) 695 2813                      ||
Internet: stoutepf <at> chemsci5 <dot> dmpc <dot> com        ||    Indiana Jones