[Retros] Two-pawns chess

Joost de Heer joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl
Fri Sep 14 14:39:45 EDT 2012


On 14-9-2012 20:33, Nicolas Dupont wrote:

>> For the sake of composition (in particular proofgames): Is threatening

>> to capture the second pawn considered to be a check?

>

> As far as the game is lost when a second pawn is captured, threatening

> such a capture is actually the definition of a check, no ?


My interpretation is that it's a check too. But apparently in Extinction
chess (which shows some similarities to two-pawn chess) there is no such
thing as check, mainly because the inventor didn't define it (or perhaps
forgot it?). So it should be properly defined for 2-pawn chess: Is the
threat enough, or should the capture actually take place? And is the
capture of the second pawn obligatory if it's possible?

E.g. in the 1-pawn variant: Is 1. e4 d5 2. e5 a legal game?

Bernd Gräfrath could say more about this, I remember having a discussion
with him and Dirk Borst over a proofgame in Extinction Chess that was
published in Probleemblad.

Joost


More information about the Retros mailing list