From: Nick Bardsley ICC CO UK> Date: 8 nov 1999 Subject: Re: Chu shogi rules question I notice that the example of a forced bare king over several moves uses = a promoted pawn rather than a gold general and is thus a correct example = of what Colin Adams is demonstrating, rather than the similar but = actually fatally flawed example in section 1.3.6 of Colin's book = 'Struggle for Survival' about Tenjiku. As the SfS example uses an = unpromoted gold it can evade a forced baring by promoting (and I believe = it is far enough into the promotion zone to satisfy all the rules in = Tenjiku - which are the same as Chu, aren't they?). Anyway, if that had = been a tokin rather than an unpromoted gold the example would be valid. = Hope this is taken as a friendly eye passing on a small mistake for = correction. (Though maybe I'm missing something?) Having said that, I think I disagree with the '(b) said player can = demonstrate a forced reduction of the opponent to a bare king, without first losing said player's own bare king' rule. Forcing a bare king over several moves differs from the ability of a = bare king to bare his opponent on the next move in a crucial respect: = the tempo difference. If you can execute a retaliatory baring immediately then the difference = in tempo is the same as that at the start of the game and there is = justice in this being considered a draw. However, if the bared king can only force a retaliatory baring after = even 3 moves (Japanese count) then the difference in tempo is greater = (or am I misunderstanding tempo...I can see that I might be but = anyway...) and really this should be regarded as a victory for the = player who bared his opponent first as he has conserved and even gained = tempo over the start position. Nick Bardsley (awaiting anti-aircraft fire) ---------- From: Colin Paul Adams[SMTP:colin COLINA DEMON CO UK] Sent: 06 November 1999 09:15 To: SHOGI-L TECHUNIX TECHNION AC IL Subject: Chu shogi rules question Rikard Nordgren asked this question of me by private email, but I thought it would be of wider interest: Rikard> I have a question about the rules in Chu Shogi. Rikard> Consider the following setup in the corner of the board: Rikard> Rikard> ! Rikard> !---!---!---! Rikard> ! ! ! FK! Rikard> !---!---!---! Rikard> ! ! +g! ! Rikard> !---!---!---! Rikard> ! k ! ! K ! Rikard> !---!---!---!--- Rikard> It is white (upper case letters) to move, and he takes the black Rikard> promoted gold with the Rikard> free king. What happens now? Is the bare king rule applicable = here (and Rikard> thus black gets a draw if he simply retakes) or is it simply = mate? OK. I presume that there are no other pieces on the board. Now the Bare King rule is a little vague in MSM - I assume this is reflecting the Japanese sources. Perhaps George could clarify this point. So there are (at least) two possible interpretations. The first, which is the one presupposed by your question (I think), is that the game is = won at the instantaneous moment at which a bare king appears. But in that case, White wins at the moment he plays FK x +g. The second interpretation, which I prefer, and is what we used in 1997 at M=FCnster, is a more common -sense view (? by all means argue!). The wording I used when I prepared the rules for M=FCnster was (inspired by the help text in Steve Evan's program): "if one player is reduced to a bare king (said player has only one piece on the board, and that piece is a king or a crown prince), then he immediately loses the game, except in the following circumstances: a) said player can reduce the opponent to a bare king immediately (i.e. with the very next move of the game). b) said player can demonstrate a forced reduction of the opponent to a bare king, without first losing said player's own bare king. In these two cases the game is to be declared a draw. c) Said player can immediately (i.e. on the very next move of the game) capture the opponent's sole king/crown prince. In which case the opponent loses the game." According to that formulation, the position you indicate would indeed be a draw. Which just shows that all my careful thought to get a water-tight formulation of the rules (necessary for a serious tournament, though not for casual play) was not careful enough. Clearly, rules a) and b) will need emending to say something like: "unless the opponent can then capture your bare king with his very next move." In which case, the result is then (properly - surely everyone will agree), a win for White, with the sequence: FK x +g, K x FK, K x K The b) rule is to cover positions such as: ! !---!---!---! ! K ! ! +p! i !---!---!---! ! ! ! ! j !---!---!---! ! k ! ! ! k !---!---!---! ! ! +P! ! l !---!---!---!--- 12 11 10 With black to play, then the sequence: 1. K x 11l, K - 11j can be demonstrated to yield a draw. As to whether this position should be considered a draw or not, well ... -- Colin Paul Adams Preston Lancashire