From: Nick Bardsley ICC CO UK> Date: 10 nov 1999 Subject: Re: Chu shogi rules question Seems to be confusion creeping in about who typed in what. Think that = might be my fault. For the record, I didn't ever doubt that the K x FK move was legal - I = was and remain convinced that it is legal. I agree, obviously, that the = start position is a win for black no matter what white does. I'm still = doubtful that forcing to a mutual baring after several moves should be a = draw (indeed, allowed to proceed) but I do see where it's coming from. Having said all that, I've only skimmed through the MSM as yet and I = guess I need to concentrate on learning the basics properly before = getting hung up on rules that cover relatively rare (?) situations. Any = hints and tips on learning Chu gratefully received. Nick Bardsley From: Colin Paul Adams[SMTP:colin COLINA DEMON CO UK] Sent: 09 November 1999 07:19 To: SHOGI-L TECHUNIX TECHNION AC IL Subject: Re: Chu shogi rules question >>>>> "Nick" =3D=3D Nick Bardsley ICC CO UK> writes: >> FK x +g, K x FK, K x K Nick> In fact I doubt that the second of these moves is legal. If Nick> it were, the third move makes it clear: the result is a loss Nick> for black. It is legal. Nick> essentially forfeits the game. Such suicide isn't Nick> sensible...but actually illegal? (And if it were illegal Not sensible but legal. As you pointed out, the piece ought to be a promoted pawn, not a promoted gold. George answered my originally posting by private email to Rikard and myself. I wish he had answered here, as he had a lot to say on the subject. Nick> PS. Colin, hope I'm not being forward, but although I live Nick> near London, my ancestral home is in Cleveleys, Lancashire, Nick> so maybe when I've learnt to play Chu at least halfway Nick> competently there's scope for a game or two face-to-face? Certainly! And anyone else who wants to! -- Colin Paul Adams Preston Lancashire