Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

King's Leap Chess. Variants with Chancellors (Knight+Rook) and old Russian Queens (Knight+Queen).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

💡📝David Paulowich wrote on Wed, Mar 30, 2005 11:50 PM UTC:

(count-condition (total-piece-count 2)) ; is an old attempt to add an 'automatic draw rule' to Zillions. But I found that it can create problems in Zillions chess games, and decided not to implement it. Here is an example with 4 pieces set up on an empty board:

diagram

VariantName=Chess (Black Queen c1) (Black King a2) (White King b4) (White Rook d3)

1. Rook d3 - a3 
1. King a2 - b2
2. Rook a3 - b3
2. King b2 - a2
3. Rook b3 - a3
3. King a2 - b1
4. Rook a3 - b3

Apparently Zillions was worried about the sequence 1... Queen x Rook check 2. King x Queen 'automatic draw'. I have not seen Zillions actually play an illegal move when the count-condition line is added to a ZRF, but this example does show Zillions failing to win a game because it reacts to the apparent threat of a future illegal move. This lack of a command to automatically end a game of chess when only the two kings remain is a minor inconvenience. But there is a (MAJOR) problem with the 'bare king rule' in every Shatranj related ZRF that I have tested. See the Shatranj Page Comments for more details.

💡📝David Paulowich wrote on Sat, Mar 11, 2023 08:38 PM UTC:

My 2005-03-30 Comment on the Shatranj page ended with: Also every Shatranj related ZRF that I have tested will record a 'bare king victory' without giving a chance to make a final move resulting in a 'two bare kings draw'.

The good news for Shatranj fans is: Peter Aronson's ZRF for his variant Gothic Isles Chess uses a complicated coding to correctly handle the rule: 'Bare King counts as a win, provided that your King cannot be bared on the very next move.'

Noteworthy that the Modern Shatranj Comments section continued to discuss both bare king victory and stalemate victory in 2017/2018. Diagrams were included.

💡📝David Paulowich wrote on Sat, Mar 11, 2023 11:38 PM UTC:

I recently read an old discussion on the Modern Shatranj page concerning the existence of a forced "Stalemate by a Bare King" in a legal game. So I am dusting off my [2007-04-16] comment to Wildebeest Chess.

Endgame Position White: King c1, Knight e1 and Black: King a1, Pawn a2, Rook e2.
        +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      4 |   |///|   |///|   |///|   |///|
        +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      3 |///|   |///|   |///|   |///|   |
        +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      2 | p |///|   |///| r |///|   |///|
        +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      1 |/k/|   |/K/|   |/N/|   |///|   |
        +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
      a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h

1.Nc2 check Rxc2 check and Black has won in Shatranj by the Bare King rule, which has only one stated exception. The Zillions Rule File for Shatranj (correctly) scores the game as a win for Black.

2.Kxc2 stalemate draws the game in my two recent 'Shatranj Kamil' variants. R. Wayne Schmittberg has just confirmed that White wins in Wildebeest Chess. And so we all agree to differ.

H. G. Muller wrote on Sun, Mar 12, 2023 08:37 AM UTC in reply to David Paulowich from Sat Mar 11 11:38 PM:

Why not use [fen ] tags to show diagrams, rather than cumbersome and ugly ascii diagrams? Like

([fen ]8/8/p3r3/k1K1N3[/fen ], without the space in the tags)

4 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.