[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Single Comment Alice Chess. Classic Variant where pieces switch between two boards whenever they move. (8x8x2, Cells: 128) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Fergus Duniho wrote on 2004-06-04 UTCFirst, let me mention that the ambiguity I wondered about is now resolved. Turning to Larry's puzzlement over the logic behind Parton's rules, I think the logic lies in what makes for best gameplay. There are two extremes that each seem more consistent than Parton's choice. One extreme is to count check only on the completion of a move, and the other is to never allow any move that leaves a King in check before the transfer of a piece to the other board. In contrast to these two internally-consistent options, Parton chose to count check only when a move puts a King in check before the transfer is made, and to not count check when the King is already in check and the pre-transfer move does not eliminate the check. I think Parton made the right choice, and here's why I agree with it. The first option I described, of counting check only when a move is completed, would make it too easy for a King to escape check. The second option, of always counting check before the transfer, would make it too difficult to escape check. In fact, it would remove all possibility of blocking a check. Any move that blocked a check before the transer was complete would fail to actually block the check, because it would be transferred to the other board, where it no longer blocked the check. To make it neither too hard nor too easy to escape check, the right choice is to not allow any move that puts one's own previously unchecked King into check, while allowing moves that merely postpone the elimination of a pre-existing check until the end of the full move.