From: Nick Bardsley ICC CO UK> Date: 18 nov 1999 Subject: Re: Capturing a Chu Lion [move to empty (1) square and then capture of Lion on adjacent (1) = square] Colin>No. But it is illegal, because having first moved to an empty = square, Colin>you can only then move back to the origin. Why so? I think it is one of these moves (common, it seems to me, in = Shogi and its variants) that is legal (because it isn't defined as = illegal) but simply would not be executed by any rational player. Colin>I am too used to explaining to beginners who can't be bothered to = read Colin>the rules for themselves, that the Lion move is a jump to the = second Colin>square, or two king moves. In fact, it is not, but I have begun to Colin>believe my own propaganda :-) Yes, well. I shouldn't have replied at first without reading the rules. = I have now and I need pretty good reasons for regarding any possible = moves as illegal simply because they haven't been explicitly defined as = permissible in MSM. Having read and reread MSM, I am happy to report that I am now clear on = what igui is. ;-) Colin>In Chu, I think they are equivalent, but in Tenjiku, not so, as = you Colin>might be able to promote to a Lion Hawk. Yes, I see your point there. Colin>The two interpretations for a pass move though are different. The Colin>former is definitely correct. Well, having read up properly (I hope). It seems clear that a pass move = is a move to a (1) square and back to origin square and cannot, = therefore, be executed if, for some reason, the Lion is unable to make = the 1st part of the move to a (1) square. (I did read the stuff a bit = back re passing moves being like a jump - it made no sense at all then, = and now seems just ludicrous) Colin>It was only the latter case that was illegal. I was confusing = myself. Colin>The fact remains that rule 4 does not indicate whether a Lion on a = 1 Colin>square can be captured without igui if it is protected. I think it = is Colin>safe to assume that it is meant, though, as otherwise igui becomes = a Colin>special case. So I have decided to assume it for my computer = program. Well, we differ on the move to an empty (1) followed by capture on = adjacent (1) square case being _strictly_ illegal. We don't mind much, = because no-one would use that move. As for rule 4 and not indicating = whether a Lion on a (1) square can be captured by displacement if it = protected.... I just don't see that this is controversial. Rule 4 clearly points out = that there are restrictions when the enemy Lion is on a (2) square. It = does not say that there are restrictions if the enemy Lion is on a (1) = square: therefore there are no restrictions. Why would there be? The = rules are intended to discourage and hamper early Lion exchanges, not = make Lion exchanges nigh on impossible. Nick Bardsley PS. ;-) remember the 'hidden protector' in your program - I noticed last = night (while setting up positions) that Steve Evans' ShogiVar doesn't = take note of it and allows a Lion to capture an enemy Lion on a (2) = square in the hidden protector case. (But then it also lets you capture = a Lion on a (2) square by double-capture involving a pawn or a = go-between...Sorry, Steve ;-] The program is still great.)