[Retros] Exact chess? (Re: Variant PG wanted)
joose_norri at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 28 01:43:39 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?
> 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.
I suppose we thought that the purpose of the game is to force the opponent to play a move that leads to a dualistic proofgame. If the opponent is checkmated, he has no move at all, so is not forced to play a losing move (=is stalemated). So two different games in fact.
> Not sure why this is relevant; the notion of a "threat" doesn't seem
> all that useful in this game to begin with.
Yes, it's not.
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Retros