From: Nick Bardsley ICC CO UK> Date: 26 nov 1999 Subject: Re: Capturing a Chu Lion Colin>> Because the rules say so: (Lion rules (a) and (e) on page Colin>> 6) Nick> Well no, they don't (explicitly). The rules set out what the Nick> Lion can do and give either the only way it can do it or the Colin> The rules are quite clear - if a piece moves to a (1) square = without Colin> capturing, then it may remain where it is, or may return to the Colin> original square. NO OTHER CASES ARE MENTIONED, and therefore are = not Colin> legal. For the benefit of those interested (not many perhaps), I will repeat = what I have said in private to Colin. My point was aesthetic, rather = than one of concern that possible gameplay options were being lost with = no (in my view) good justification. The moves concerned have end-result = equivalents that are legal so I'm not worried as a player if the above = move and related moves are declared _strictly_ illegal. Maybe its my humanities background and lack of ability with computer = code that makes me indulge in private aesthetic theories about games. = Maybe my belief that when it comes Japanese sources omissions cannot be = taken to imply the same thing as similar omissions in Western texts is = wrong (after all, my knowledge of Japanese is limited to shogi-related = kanji gleaned from Reijer Grimbergen's site). I just repeat my very = personal feeling that it is odd for two consistent routes to the same = end result to have differing legal status. However, I'll live with it. I am glad that omission has not put a dead-hand on the Lion's ability to = capture a Lion on a (1) square and that is more than compensation. Nick> Can you say what the clarification of the bare king rule is? Colin> When one side has a King (or Crown Prince), and one other piece, = and Colin> the other side has a King (or Crown Prince) and a (presumed Colin> unpromoted, as a tokin is not mentioned) Gold General, then the Colin> instant that the other side captures the first side's other = piece, the Colin> game is over, with a win for the second player. I confess myself to be a little confused. This seems to confer a special = status on the Gold General. In the event that the first side's K or CP = is sitting on one of the enemy Gold's blind squares and could execute an = immediate retaliatory baring of the enemy K or CP normally achieving a = draw, this rule overrides that and gives the win to the player with the = Gold. Why? (Colin, please don't tell me this is for historical = reasons...;-] ) Nick Bardsley (Prop: Rules Disputes 'R' Us)