From: Nick Bardsley ICC CO UK> Date: 29 nov 1999 Subject: Bare King (in Chu anyway...) [Apologies btw, to some list members - I should have realised that = Windows NT Messaging would cock up some people's view of my mails without hard returns. I'll = use hard returns from this point onwards.] Peter> According to my knowledge of the Japanese texts on Shogi and Shogi variants, well, I'm afraid there might be a historical reason for that... Peter> First of all, I personally would read the "Gold General" as meaning "less than a Gold General"..., thus a K or CP plus one other piece would actually mean "K or CP plus one piece worth more than a G" (even though MSM expressly mentions the G). Thus in given situation the side bared to K or CP plus FL, S, C, BT, GB, P would have lost. Firstly, I have no automatic problem with historical rules. My remark = was a naughty dig at Colin re the Tenjiku Lion Hawk (all the more naughty because I actually agree = with him that the 'historical' move of that piece [a promoted Tenjiku Lion] seems very = illogical - though what it should actually be is another question and I'm not sure his solution is = ideal). Second, the question of the bare King rule itself. What Peter has said = above only adds to my confusion. Indeed, I have read it once, twice, printed it out and held = it upside-down and up to the light and I still cannot work out the logic of the remarks. Unless Peter = had a brainstorm and typed "less" when he meant "more", it makes no = sense. Does it? I also don't know how you can get from having a King and a Gold (or = higher value piece) given the win against a bare King, to giving the win to King and Gold against = King and lesser piece. That is, Peter is redefining what a bare King is: according to his = interpretation a bare King can be a King on its own or a King with any of FL, S, C, BT, GB or P if the = enemy has a King and Gold (or higher). This makes it a very complicated rule (which will lead = to many, many disputes). I personally think we can do better than this. I agree that if the texts = say King and Gold against a King wins they are not intended to be taken literally (ancient texts = often cannot be taken literally with any safety and that applies to Latin, Greek and Hebrew as much as = to Japanese...). The problem then becomes one of determining what is intended. The first = question that springs to mind is whether the 'bare King rule' is intended as a rule in the = strict sense. Might it be a convention of polite play? Well, we can raise it to the status of rule = even if it was only a convention and I sense that most people want to do that. Then we come up against the real problems: 1) What constitutes a bare King? 2) What combination of pieces can be said to win against a bare King? 3) In the case of a King being bared, when is the win declared? 1) Until Peter's intervention I had thought that a bare King was just = that, a King and no other piece. I can't see that there is much sense in it being anything else. = Surely the point of the rule is that a bare King is defenceless and subject to the greater force of the = enemy King and its accompanying piece(s)? Most people seem to have been discussing the bare = King rule in the sense suggested by the term itself: a King on its own. I will proceed on = this basis, though I would be keen to hear of any further evidence that a bare King can be more = than just a King. 2) This seems to me to be the most problematic question. MSM states the = following: 'The ending of the game can come about by: one side capturing the other = side's King (AND Crown Prince, if it is on the board - see below), by one side resigning = at any time or by the game being reduced to a King and Gold versus a bare King, in which case = the latter is deemed to have lost.' - extract from rule 1, p8, MSM Read literally and rather strictly, this gives a special status to the = unpromoted Gold General which seems somewhat arbitrary. If it is the = rule and people accept it, all well and good. But it should be realised = that it could affect strategic thinking quite profoundly. However, MSM is by no means consistent on this subject as the following = shows: '5. Chess players should be aware of the drastic effects of three rules = that differ from Western Chess: (i) Perpetual check is illegal. [...] (ii) A stalemated King = loses, because of the bare King rule. This rule is not of much importance except in rare problem-like = positions. (iii) Reducing the opponent to a bare King position is deemed sufficient to win the game. = As a result certain endgames that could not ordinarily be won by force (King and Pawn versus = King, King and Go- between versus King, King and promoted Ferocious Leopard versus King) = are won nonetheless, as in Shatranj and many other old Chess variants. Incidentally, any = other combination of King and one or two pieces versus King seems sufficient, at least, to = stalemate an enemy King, which wins anyway; a fact that may be noteworthy in variants in which the = existence of a bare King rule is uncertain.' - extract from Wayne Schmittberger's chapter on Chu = Shogi strategy, 'The Endgame', p63, MSM This is published in MSM without any qualification by George Hodges and, = indeed, his preface to the chapter is nothing but approving of Wayne Schmittberger's remarks. = The thrust of it, of course, is that any combination of King and other piece (right down to = the humble Pawn) wins against a King on its own. This is an attractive position: it is very simple. I suspect that some = will take issue with it as being just as arbitrary as the literal King and Gold versus King position. = Well, not quite so, at least no single piece has special favour heaped upon it. I personally like this = position and would like to quote a further passage I found on Roger = Hare's Chu Shogi pages in support of it: 'The old texts say that a kinsho [Gold General] and osho [King] against = a bare osho wins. This is taken to mean that a bare osho loses because it is impossible to = have less than a kinsho (all pieces promote to at least a kinsho or better or have higher = initial power anyway) and it is not necessary to play out the sometimes difficult ending.' This is an interpretation that regards what is found in the old texts as = a form of shorthand for the bare King rule itself. But people might dispute this. 3) After some thought I have come to a purely personal view about when a = win by bare King should be declared. I believe it should be instantaneous. My justification for this comes from a simple analogy with mate. How = many times, in modern Shogi, do we see a player mated when they could, on their next move, = mate the opponent? It is safe to say that it happens a great deal more often than in = Western Chess. But is there a rule saying that a retaliatory mate results in a draw? Of course not. As = we know, Shogi is a race and the first to mate wins. Now in Chu you still get mutual mating races, even without drops, and I = now tend to think that we can look at baring the enemy King in the same light. Therefore, = the first player to bare his opponent's King should be declared the winner (whether a retaliatory = baring or demonstrable forced baring is possible or not). I have argued that the bare King rule should be encapsulated in the = following relatively simple formulation: 'It is a win for the side that is able to capture the enemy King (or = Crown Prince) or that first reduces the other side to a force consisting of the King (or Crown = Prince) alone: a bare King. In each case, the win is declared at the end of the move capturing the = King or its last remaining accompanying piece.' While I do respect historical rules, I believe this is a rule, intended = for club or tournament use, that can be easily understood and lead to the minimum of disputes. It = should also have a negligible impact on the strategic aims of any Chu player. As always, I = would welcome as much comment or debate as possible. Nick Bardsley PS. Two further thoughts: 1) Is it right to regard a promoted Chu Pawn = as a 'Tokin' in the modern sense? I am not so sure... 2) Does the interpretation of the bare = King rule in Chu have a bearing on the bare King rule in larger variants if the ancient = formulation is the same for those variants? Surely it does...doesn't it?