From: Pieter Stouten EU PNU COM> Date: 12 apr 2000 Subject: Checkmate and other rules Hello Shogi fans, I have seen several postings that claim mate is strictly speaking not the end of the game, but that the king needs to be captured. I know my memory is not perfect, but I am almost completely sure that NSR has stated that "mate is the end of the game." I think a discussion of *tournament* rules is very good, but we should accept the rules of the *game itself* that NSR has decided on. If there is no complete set of rules available, maybe we should ask NSR specific questions about specific rules. Back to checkmate: if neither player detects the mate and the mated player makes a move, then it is just an illegal move that is not detected. This may be quite an academic situation, but a player remaining in check because he does not notice it, may be of more practical relevance. Remaining in check is an illegal move and the opponent can claim the game immediately without having to capture the opponent's king before his own time expires (according to my recollection of information from NSR; it would be good to get this confirmed, too). Of course, capturing the king is the easiest way of demonstrating the opponent remained in check, but the point is that strictly speaking this is not required. As to George's rule 9 about changing the result of a game when a game has been written down, I am fairly sure that NSR states that the first event that ends the game determines the result: - mate - illegal move - resignation - exceeding time None of these takes priority. The chronology determines the result. Now, the issue of whether an illegal move should still be "detectable" on the board for a player to be able to claim a game is another issue. I would think NSR has an opinion on this and we should just ask them specifically. Since keeping score is not mandatory and score sheets have never received any official status, I would think they should not be permitted as evidence to claim an illegal move and the game. As to swap-capture (i.e., bishop-takes-bishop by putting one's own bishop beside the board and turning the opponent's around; this really applies to any piece that captures the same type of piece, though), this *is* an illegal move (as confirmed by George Fernandez and Hugo Hollanders). It has been suggested to only issue a warning in such a case. However, the fact remains that it is an illegal move and an illegal move loses the game immediately. NSR is quite clear about that. I agree that it is cool to swap-capture (I used to do it myself whenever I could before I knew it was illegal) and since the resulting position is exactly the same as after regular capture, it is an illegal move of a different kind than all others. But in my opinion issuing warnings is not the best way to approach the issue. It is principally wrong (after all, an illegal move is an illegal move) and it may lead to complicated, less-than-transparent rules (always bad), as we need to formalize rules that answer questions such as: How many warnings must a player be issued before he loses a game? More than once per game, per tournament, per year? When can the rule be regarded known and can we consistently apply the rule that an illegal move loses the game? I think the real problem is that the rule is not widely known, but rather than implementing contrived rules about issuing warnings (that will not help much making players aware of the fact that swap-capture is illegal!), it seems better to educate players. Until the rule is thoroughly known, one can explain it at the beginning of each tournament, just like at most any tournament the most important rules are recapped. Based on the discussions, it seems indeed that rules need to be written down. I would suggest that USSF and FESA produce a proposal after getting some specific answers about rules that we are not 100% sure about and subsequently get the proposal ratified by NSR. Just my $0.02. Ciao, Pieter