[Retros] Solidarity chess (=SC)
Eric.Angelini at kntv.be
Wed Dec 19 18:37:05 EST 2012
> I was asking for clarification on which
convention is intended here.
... yes Noam, you (and a few others who wrote
to me in private) are right. I've noticed
that when there are two ways to win
a game [as here or in my last proposition a few weeks ago when you win
by capturing two (or three, or four...) pawns
of the enemy], conflicts might arise (in
parrying a King's threat, for instance).
I have to admit I didn't explore this
domain -- as I've been always reluctant
to go deeply in such considérations.
I'll explain why hereunder in a minute
--apologizing already because I've much, much less than you experience
in fairy conditions.
Here is my point:
-if I add a second way to kill a game
(capturing a pawn / breaking the enemy
lines) _I don't want to warn the other
side_ [this is, to say "you are in check now
and if you don't parry my check (or
move your King on a safe square, or,
I'll capture your King on my next move,
and the game will be lost for you"].
Why should we add complicated "equivalents" to a "check" when we add
a rule?! I might be wrong but I don't
see, at first glimpse, any possible
conflict when I say: "Cutting the lines
of the ennemy ends the game"...
But, again, I have to carefully re-read
and re-play the examples given by
Noam (and the others) to be sure there
might be a conflict.
(there is for sure a conflict between my
iPhone typing pad and my big fingertips, sorry for the bad typography
of this answer)...
Envoyé d'un aPhone
Le 19 déc. 2012 à 20:11, "Noam Elkies" <elkies at math.harvard.edu> a écrit :
> Joost writes:
>> Oops, misread your mail. 3.d4 is illegal since it splits white's position.
> Right, I was trying to be too fancy and use the same opening to ask
> two different questions. Still, in the example from the webpage
> 1 e3 Nf6 2 d4 Nc6 3 Bc4 e5 we can ask: Is the threat of 4...Nxd4
> "check" -- e.g. in a proof game would White be obligated to parry
> this threat next move? As for Qxe8, some fairy conditions retain
> orthodox check/mate and others apply also to the K's virtual capture
> (as with Circe vs. Circe Rex Inclusive -- though I suppose in the
> rex-inclusive version the capture need not be virtual if the King
> is reborn!). I was asking for clarification on which convention
> is intended here.
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
More information about the Retros