From: Benjamin Good ANDREW CMU EDU> Date: 27 oct 1996 Subject: Re: Chu-shogi Excerpts from mail: 26-Oct-96 Chu-shogi by R J Hare TECHNION TECHNI > I am not absolutely sure of the details of the jump parts of the moves of > the kakuo and the hiju. If aanyone can confirm or correct my interpretation > of the material I have, please feel free to do so. > in gf hodges rules for tenjiku shogi, it states that "lion power" also applies to the kakuo and the hiju. additionally, in a sample opening, white jumps his horned falcon over the pawn in front of it to the '2' square. i'd say it's a safe assumption that the kakuo and hiju in chu shogi move the same way. Excerpts from mail: 26-Oct-96 Chu-shogi by R J Hare TECHNION TECHNI > At last (!) my chu-shogi pages are complete what about the special rules? like the exchanging of lions and the promotion of pawns and go-betweens. i know they exist but i don't know what they are. if someone can fill me in i'd appreciate it. previously i asked 2 questions about tenjiku shogi. (i have more now, which are below). #2 has been answered for me, it was: question 2: the diagram for the honju, the free eagle, does not make sense to me. it has arrows extending in all 8 directions from the piece, indicating that it can move indefinitely in these directions. it also has x's in the squares 2 away in the orthogonal directions, indicating that it can jump to these squares in the event that there is an interposing piece. but these are also circles (meaning that the piece can step to these squares) in the squares 1 and 2 away in the diagonally directions. but these squares are already covered by the arrows in those directions, so aren't necessary. and it's not the same as the fire demon, the lion hawk, or the vice general, where they are necessary to indicated that these pieces can also reach these squares by an alternate route. there's no other mention of the free eagle in the instructions. so is the this just an unnecessary redundancy by gf hodges or is there more to the free eagle? can someone please clarify for me? i forget who responded, but he said that he had the same question and he wrote to gf hodges, who responded that yes, it's redundant, but that's how it is in the original source, hence the diagram in the leaflet. thanks to whoever that was who responded. my first question was less important, but still unanswered: question 1: can a piece still do the "igui" move if it is pinned between the players own king and an attacking piece? i'm guessing this is not likely to occur in actual play, but i thought i'd ask. question 3: if you move your fire demon to a position where it burns enemy pieces, can you not burn them if you don't want to? this could be important if you wanted to capture certain pieces, but there were other adjacent pieces you didn't want to capture could it would open up paths for your opponent to capture pieces of yours that you didn't want to lose. (i'm guessing the answer is no, that if you move your fd then all adjecent pieces are toasted, but i thought i'd ask). question 4: the heavenly tetrarchs. in the gf hodges leaflet, a piece can move to a square w/ an o in it if the path to that square is clear. a piece can move to a square w/ an x in it, jumping if necessary. an ht on 1e has an x at 3e and an o at 4e. the ht cannot move to 2e (altho it can do the igui thing at 2e). the question is, can the ht move to 4e if 3e is empty but 2e is occupied? (my guess is yes, but either answer works). ok, that's all i can think of right now. if i think of more i'll send them out. thanks, ben bg18 andrew cmu edu