From: Nick Bardsley <nbardsley <at> KEYNOTE <dot> CO <dot> UK>
Date: 11 aug 2000
Subject: Re: Regarding Shogi Impasse

> Also the current rule calls for alternate strategies than mating,
> and I am not sure I prefer those.

To a degree... but how could you plan a strategy calling for both kings to
be in their enemy's camps and for one to retain a certain number of pieces
over and above that retained by the enemy? Possible but hellishly difficult
(hence mating becomes preferable).

But an definite alternative to mating, centering on one fixed square is,
intuitively, much easier to plan (though who knows if mating is easier or
not?).

>
> But I agree that it is bad to use different rules in parrallell if
> they imply different strategies. As it is normally much easier to
> reach a normal mate I do not think it would have much impact on
> normal play, that is before someone has to run up the board with
> his King.

But you simply do it before you must... Still it would lead to interesting
theory - peripetatic castles for one thing...

> In one of the tournament games I was forced to try this. I did not
> succed, but the I was close enough for it to make an interesting
> game. In this case I think it made the game more interesting by
> forcing a fight, as my opponent would not have time to go for the
> other possible option and enter his king.

This answers a question in my mind - the rule works with only one king
entering, which definitely makes it a very attractive alternative to mating.
(and if it was modified to call for both kings entering the reason for the
rule is defeated, as you make clear).

Anyhow it should always be remembered that these cases are relatively rare -
and compared to Chess, very rare.

Nick