From: Jonathan Tisdall SN NO> Date: 22 nov 1996 Subject: Re: Rules Sam Sloan wrote: ... Finally, I have received a private e-mail asking that this discussion be taken off line because "no other subscribers have expressed any interest" in these "long-winded mails". I strenuously object to and resent this suggestion. My rules may not be the first nor the best. On the other hand, in my opinion, the most important subject for group discussion either is or should be how to bring about the spread of shogi and to get Westerners to play this game. Clearly an intelligible and easy to read set of rules is of vital importance to furthering this objective. Moreover, the rules of shogi have never been precisely and rigorously formulated, not even in Japan. The same is true of other games. There are several different recognized rules for the game of go. In Chinese chess, there is vast disagreement as to what the draw rule is or should be. Even in the fairly simple game of chess, there are constant changes and re-writings of the rules. The FIDE Rules Committee meets once a year and there are always proposed changes in the rules, some of which are adopted. There are also big differences between the FIDE Rules and the USCF Rules. The person who sent me this e-mail obviously thinks that he knows everything there is to know about the rules of shogi and that everybody else on this list is the same, but in that case I cannot see any reason why he should stay on this list. ---------------------------------------------- Calm down Sam, no reason to get so huffy. Especially since, at least as far as I know, rules in comprehensible form do exist. What's wrong with Fairbairn, published originally by the good ol' Ishi press? Not that something newer and clearer wouldn't be welcome. And I thought you had been "unasked" to take this offline. On another point, Fairbairn gives 24 points as the minimum needed not to lose. (ie 23 or under you lose). But maybe I am working from outdated material. Best, jt -- - o