From: Nick Bardsley ICC CO UK> Date: 8 nov 1999 Subject: Re: Chu shogi rules question See below... ---------- From: Peter Banaschak[SMTP:Peter.Banaschak T-ONLINE DE] Sent: 08 November 1999 07:31 To: SHOGI-L TECHUNIX TECHNION AC IL Subject: Re: Chu shogi rules question Ahoi! Frankly, I do not really understand the question. I do _not_ think it's a question of bare kings. I think it is... > 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? In a position like this, it a simple mate (as demonstrated below by Colin, and regardless whether there are other pieces on the board). The FK gives check, the black K cannot retake -- Game Over. ...because, unless we really do want to Westernise the game, Chu, as I = understand it from several sources, has no concept of check as = understood for Western Chess - it is perfectly legal for the Black King = to take the FK. Then, as I think I agree, the white King's retake = renders it a win for white. (I understand however that I'm arguing with = someone who has a fair bit more knowledge of the ancient texts than = many.) > In [the case of a rule change as discussed] 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 In fact I doubt that the second of these moves is legal. If it were, the third move makes it clear: the result is a loss for black. Quite. But surely the second move is legal. Does the legality of a King = moving into 'check' switch on and off according to whether the King in = question has a Crown Prince on his side? Surely not. Rather, aren't we = saying that if the King moves into a position where he is threatened = with capture on the next move (and has no Crown Prince) he essentially = forfeits the game. Such suicide isn't sensible...but actually illegal? = (And if it were illegal even with a CP on one's side some scope for = interesting tactical play would be lost.) Illegal moves, strictly, forfeit the game...but does that mean that = moves which forfeit the game are always illegal? There's a logical = absurdity lurking there but no need to pursue it. Nick Bardsley PS. Colin, hope I'm not being forward, but although I live near London, = my ancestral home is in Cleveleys, Lancashire, so maybe when I've learnt = to play Chu at least halfway competently there's scope for a game or two = face-to-face?