From: Nick Bardsley ICC CO UK> Date: 29 nov 1999 Subject: Re: Forget the bare king rule! (willingly...but it seems a lot of Rikard> Forget about the bare king rule! There is in practice no bare king rule. Rikard> At least the bare king rule would never be used and it is very specific. Rikard> I had a discussion with Mr Hodges about this and he stated that the bare Rikard> king rule was only applicable if a king and a gold faced a bare king. Rikard> This is it. This rule would never be used. In case of theoretical Rikard> endgames the gold could win anyway against a bare king (promotion to Rikard> rook and a simply rook mate...). Yes, well. I happen to believe that the rule applies with promoted Chu Pawns (I more and more believe that they cannot be regarded as 'Tokins' in the modern Shogi sense), i.e. once promoted they are regarded as Gold Generals (except, of course, they cannot promote further - they can still force a win though...). I have enormous respect for George Hodges as the one man who has done more than anyone else to popularise Shogi and particularly the variants in the West. His views should clearly be treated with respect. But they are open to question. This is particularly so when his views appear to be predicated on a literal reading of texts which it may well not be safe to read literally. It has to be understood that this is a problem and that any group wishing to hold tournaments have the right to decide collectively on an interpretation with which they or a majority of their group can agree. (I must say, I am beginning to wonder if the early and clear codification of modern Shogi and the apparently enduring confusion and ambiguity surrounding Chu Shogi provides an answer to the mystery of Chu's death in Japan...) Rikard> In the chapter by Mr Schmittberger in Rikard> MSM, he has misinterpreted this rule and thus he writes that a promoted Rikard> ferocious leopard would win against a bare king. Well no, he doesn't say that. He says that a promoted Ferocious Leopard (Bishop) could not win by force but the bare King rule (as he understands it) means that it is a win anyway. (I may say that if this is the way they play in the US, and I understand there is quite a network of Chu players and a tournament or two, it has obvious implications for us in Europe...) Rikard> This is not true. This would be a draw (this also according to my discussion Rikard> with Mr Hodges). So the solution to the question about the bare king rule is simple. Rikard> Forget it. Your solution is therefore to state that for tournament and club purposes the bare King rule does not apply. I myself would be quite happy with that (though I worry about the US position). What I, and others I believe, seek is a clear view on this question. (And I completely agree that the question could be moot for a long time. Although someday there might be a body of top class players who will practically require this clear view, that's the hope, isn't it?) You know, I'll probably never be any good at this game but I find it fascinating and compelling. I've got the bug; I've fallen in love with it. I would like to see it become a justly popular game and I see the new age of cheap real-time communication that is almost upon us as a golden opportunity for the promotion of the game. But it simply won't happen if nobody can agree on how to play the game. That is my concern and I would like the widest possible debate so that a legitimate majority decision on rules can be arrived at. Nick Bardsley