From: Steve Evans <trout <at> NETSPACE <dot> NET <dot> AU>
Date: 19 nov 1999
Subject: Re: Capturing a Chu Lion

Nick Bardsley wrote:

> Case One: 'If a Lion is on a (1) square, can the Lion capture it and stay where
> it is? (I have always assumed yes, but in fact the rules only mention
> moving on (or back) after capturing).'
>
> Yes. I actually believe MSM to have a minor inaccuracy here. (This is no criticism of George Hodges, author of MSM - I'm an editor and only too aware of the perils of producing books accurately...)
>
> Rule 4c is the key passage and I reproduce it exactly as in MSM:
>
> '[4c] If your Lion is on an adjacent square to the enemy Lion, you may capture is (whether protected or not): in the normal way by "igui" (capturing without moving!), or by capturing it and moving on to another square (normal double move).'
>
> I really believe that the words 'in the normal way' should be followed by a comma. This would make clear that a single step-move capture, with the move ending on the square occupied by the displaced enemy Lion, is perfectly legitimate. I can think of no good reason why such a move should be illegal; it is neither here nor there with regards to Lion exchanges (the main point of the special Lion capture rules).
>

I agree that there is a problem with the wording of Rule 4(c). Taking it literally, it would not be possible to make a single step move with a Lion and capture an opposing Lion on an adjacent square. I don't believe this was intended, and as you say, I suspect it is simply a matter of a missing comma. Certainly the literal reading is not in the spirit of the reasons for having restrictions on Lion vs Lion captures, and I think it safe to presume that a Lion can always capture an
adjacent enemy Lion with a single step move.

>
> Case two: 'If a Lion is on a (1) square, can the Lion move to another (adjacent)
> (1) square, and then capture it? (This seems silly, but I am a writing
> a computer program, so this case also must be covered).'
>
> Legal. Bizarre, but legal. Has the same effect of case one above if the first (1) square is empty.
> However, it raises the following question: can a Lion capture an enemy piece on a (1) square and then capture an enemy Lion on an adjacent (1) square [not a (2) square] without restriction?
>
> I believe the answer is yes. The rules on capture refer to (1) and (2) squares relative to the Lion on its initial square. I do not believe they change status from (1) to (2) midway through the Lion's move. They actually reflect where the opponent has positioned his Lion relative to yours. If the opponent has placed his Lion on a (1) square it is, essentially, fair game.

I hadn't thought of this interpretation before, and I'm really in two minds about whether it should or should not be legal. In interpreting rules, where there is some ambiguity I generally go with an interpretation that fits with the intended purpose and spirit of the rule. While capturing a protected Lion on a (1) square via another square does not seem to be specifically ruled out, it doesn't (to my mind) seem to be in the spirit of the Lion capture restriction rules. If the
move of a Lion is the equivalent of one or two consecutive King-type moves, my inclination is to view the first square of a two square move as being the one that is free of restriction, and the second as being less powerful and therefore encumbered when it comes to Lion vs Lion combat.

In favour of your suggestion is Rule (4) Note (i) which indicates that the "hidden protector" rule only applies in relation to a Lion on a (2) square. There is no mention of this rule being applied in any circumstances for a (1) square Lion attack (although this could have been through oversight).

Mitigating against such a move being legal, is that it doesn't seem to be in keeping with the general tenor of rule 4(a), nor with the fact that rule 4(c) mentions the legality of capturing a Lion and then moving on, but not the reverse situation.

While on a literal reading it would seem that a Lion capture of an adjacent enemy Lion via another square is indeed and in all cases legal, I'm not totally comfortable with this idea as it clashes to some extent with my concept of what the capture restrictions are all about. But this, of course, might just be something I need to come to terms with. :-)

I'd be interested in George Hodges' thoughts on this.

> Last night I conducted a personal analysis that is pretty exhaustive. If anyone wants a copy (this sounds arrogant but it was simply an exercise in understanding this complex piece and I'm just happy to share it with anyone), I'll be happy to mail it them.

Yes, I'd like to see it. Thanks. :-)

Steve Evans
trout <at> netspace <dot> net <dot> au