Carlos Cetina wrote on Thu, Jul 19, 2012 05:52 AM UTC:
Fergus,
I would like to know your opinion about this variant. I find it interesting enough but feel the rules need some clarification.
I'm playtesting it with Nicholas Wolff and Jochen Mueller. With both have rise to some differences of interpretation in some points.
If we [all those involved in playing and studying CVs] do not get a consensus on its rules, will we declare it unplayable?
If it is playable, it would be possible to enforce the rules to the preset?
Why this variant is not more known and popular?
The following position correspond to the game I'm playing with Jochen.
White to move. 23rd turn.
1) Is the pawn on d5 checking White's king?
2) Is the knight on h6 checking White's king?
Nicholas, Jochen and me have agreed in moving knight first one orthogonal step followed by one diagonal [outward] step. If the passing by orthogonal square were inexistent, the knight will follow moving orthogonally to the next existent square; if the landing diagonal square were inexistent, it will move to the next diagonal [outward] existent square.
This way of movement differs from the mentioned by Charles Gilman in his first comment, where the knight would move like nightrider if the square (1,2) away from the starting one were inexistent.
Both ways are logical and playable... which of them we will choose as the legal? Which we will consider the best, the most reasonable?
Regarding if the d5-pawn is checking to White's king or not, my opinion is that not. From the Red viewpoint it's check but from White's does not, because for White e4 is existent and therefore the [capturing] action of the pawn does not reach to f3.
Thanks Kevin Whyte for putting our neurons to work!
Christine, Joe, Charles (Gilman), Hans (Bodlaender)... what do you say?
I would like to know your opinion about this variant. I find it interesting enough but feel the rules need some clarification.
I'm playtesting it with Nicholas Wolff and Jochen Mueller. With both have rise to some differences of interpretation in some points.
If we [all those involved in playing and studying CVs] do not get a consensus on its rules, will we declare it unplayable?
If it is playable, it would be possible to enforce the rules to the preset?
Why this variant is not more known and popular?
The following position correspond to the game I'm playing with Jochen.
White to move. 23rd turn.
1) Is the pawn on d5 checking White's king?
2) Is the knight on h6 checking White's king?
Nicholas, Jochen and me have agreed in moving knight first one orthogonal step followed by one diagonal [outward] step. If the passing by orthogonal square were inexistent, the knight will follow moving orthogonally to the next existent square; if the landing diagonal square were inexistent, it will move to the next diagonal [outward] existent square.
This way of movement differs from the mentioned by Charles Gilman in his first comment, where the knight would move like nightrider if the square (1,2) away from the starting one were inexistent.
Both ways are logical and playable... which of them we will choose as the legal? Which we will consider the best, the most reasonable?
Regarding if the d5-pawn is checking to White's king or not, my opinion is that not. From the Red viewpoint it's check but from White's does not, because for White e4 is existent and therefore the [capturing] action of the pawn does not reach to f3.
Thanks Kevin Whyte for putting our neurons to work!
Christine, Joe, Charles (Gilman), Hans (Bodlaender)... what do you say?