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

Noam Elkies elkies at math.harvard.edu
Thu Jan 28 00:59:06 EST 2010

joose norri <joose_norri at hotmail.com> writes:

> 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?

I don't think so: if one just declares that you win if your
opponent has no legal move that retains uniqueness then
checkmate and stalemate become wins automatically.

> In such positions there's no threat, and proof game chess is certainly

> direct play.

Not sure why this is relevant; the notion of a "threat" doesn't seem
all that useful in this game to begin with. One can easily play
badly enough to lose by Zugzwang even without any pressure from the
opponent, e.g. 1 Nh3 2 Rg1?, which is quite are in ordinary chess.
Also, if I'm in check then I must find a move that both gets out of
check and maintains uniqueness, else I lose -- why should it matter if
I don't even have a move that gets out of check if we ignore the
uniqueness rule?


More information about the Retros mailing list