From: Colin Paul Adams <colin <at> COLINA <dot> DEMON <dot> CO <dot> UK>
Date: 16 dec 1999
Subject: Chu shogi promotion rule, and B27 and C11

>>>>> "Nick" == Nick Bardsley <nbardsley <at> icc <dot> co <dot> uk> writes:

 (Nick was writing about when a piece can promote, after it has
declined to do so earlier)

    Nick> If I might explain myself, the rule as demonstrated, is not
    Nick> to my mind the natural interpretation of the rule as stated
    Nick> in MSM. Whatever your opinion on that, the MSM wording is

My opinion is the same as yours. Indeed, in a letter to George Hodges,
just over 3 years ago, I said:

"Now despite all this, I still find the natural interpretation of Rule 3. to be my
original interpretation. It may be that some other people will also so
interpret it. Therefore I propose the following reading:

`Should a piece not be promoted, it cannot do so on its next move, unless it makes
a capture.'"

George apparently did not agree with me that this is not the natural
interpretation, but did agree that it is correct, and said he would
probably include a clarification in supplement 3. Apparently he forgot
to do so.

Problems B27 (and C11) prove that this is the correct interpretation.

    Nick> very ambiguous. Indeed, Steve Evans (by the evidence of what
    Nick> ShogiVar allows..although that is shaky evidence) and Roger
    Nick> Hare (definitely, see his explanation of the promotion rules
    Nick> - you might want to ask him to amend it as you endorse his
    Nick> explanation by linking to it on your site...) would seem to
    Nick> own to the immediate interpretation I made.  So it was
    Nick> apparent to me that there was/is a difference of opinion.

Perhaps Roger could update his web site?
--
Colin Paul Adams
Preston Lancashire