From: Nick Bardsley ICC CO UK> Date: 24 nov 1999 Subject: Capturing a Chu Lion [RE: unrestricted capture of Lion on (1) square by Lion] Nick> 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. Steve> 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. I have a lot of sympathy for this position but it is very dangerous = territory. We actually don't know the precise spirit of the rule. Is it: = 'Lion exchanges are generally bad for the game' or is it 'Early Lion = exchanges are bad for the game' or is it 'Lion exchanges should be made = difficult [as a principle in itself]'. I suggest we don't know which of = these similar but distinct positions is the correct one (and they are be = no manner of means exhaustive). Steve> 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. I find this interpretation deeply problematic. It gives too much power = to the player moving his Lion onto a (1) square relative to an opposing = Lion that could capture on next move. I personally think that a player = who puts his Lion on a (1) square relative to his opponent's Lion is = forcing the issue. (And we should remember that it is unlikely that the = opponent's Lion would not be able to escape...if it can't I suggest the = first player has used considerable skill to arrange such a situation). = This is very different to the opportunistic exchanges that would be = possible if the restrictions on jump exchanges (i.e. capture on (2) = square) were not in place. Steve> 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). I doubt it is an oversight. I think the focus of the anti-exchange rules = is opportunistic exchanges by weak players who can't handle the presence = of the Lions on the Chu board and want them out of the way as soon as = possible (bet you it happened a hell of a lot in the classical period of = Chu play before the restrictions came into force - btw, yes I'm on = dangerous territory too, now...but what the hey). In favour of this I cite you the further restriction against Lion = capture on (2) square by way of double-capture. The rule against using a = pawn or go-between as the first capture in such a move is clearly = designed to stop Lion exchanges against and around the early front-line = of pawns and go-betweens. No doubt it was common for players to try and = trap the enemy Lion behind the pawns (with no escape) and then exchange = off (simply to get rid of this troublesome pair of pieces - for the weak = mind, that is). Steve> 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. Typical Japanese disdain for catering for every situation is probably = the reason for the latter point. As I am unwilling to make a definite = judgement as to what the 'general tenor' of rule 4(a) is, I will not = comment...which is comment enough. If it is legal to capture a Lion on a (2) square by double-capture that = entails capturing another piece first (not P or GB), why would it be = illegal to capture a Lion on a (1) square by a double-capture entailing = capturing another piece first? (I believe including P and GB in this = case.) The suggestion breathes amazing illogicality into the situation = (contrary to appearances - I think the Lion move is actually fairly = simple, but then....) Steve> 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. = :-) Understood. My belief (and I accept there is an element of grandma and = egg-sucking here) is that we Chu players (I'm borderline that but soon = properly - just had confirmation that Santa has acquired a Chu set for = me...) need some kind of rules conference (at the tourney Peter B is = organising?) to iron out these ambiguities. Steve> I'd be interested in George Hodges' thoughts on this. As would I. Nick Bardsley