[Retros] Exact chess? (Re: Variant PG wanted)

joose norri joose_norri at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 28 00:37:29 EST 2010

I played this quite a bit with Unto Heinonen a decade ago; I think we agreed that checkmate and stalemate are draws. Isn't that more logical? In such positions there's no threat, and proof game chess is certainly direct play.
27.01.10, 19:25, "Noam Elkies" <elkies at math.harvard.edu>:

Nicolas.Dupont at math.univ-lille1.fr writes:

> A couple of years ago, I had a related idea : playing "exact chess".

> This goes as ordinary chess, but the first player who makes a move

> such that the resulting position is not exact loses the game !

I've seen this already under the name "proof game chess";
there a move that left a non-uniquely-reconstructible position
was deemed illegal, and the first person to have no legal move
in this sense loses -- which can also be the case as a result of
checkmate or conceivably stalemate. I have a dim recollection that
this was used to get a PG with 6 Bishop promotions where 5 was the
orthodox record.

I think there was also a suggestion that if the game was actually played
then White should have an easy win. If there were nevertheless a
standard opening book then any opening in it would automatically
satisfy Andrey's condition :-)

Retros mailing list
Retros at janko.at

Здесь спама нет http://mail.yandex.ru/nospam/sign
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20100128/3b251d72/attachment.htm>

More information about the Retros mailing list