[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [pbmserv] Interesting ethical issue: perpetual check
- To: pbmserv-users@gamerz.net
- Subject: Re: [pbmserv] Interesting ethical issue: perpetual check
- From: Lyman Hurd <lhurd@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:31:09 -0800 (PST)
- Authentication-results: play.gamerz.net From=lhurd@yahoo.com; domainkeys=pass (testing)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=a0p2e5f9uAPG5jnP85jq0yD0MFeD511cnZ7OHmfw1WKOV73FuFjI1Qi22zbVKElWA4EC5ZmaEbFcuzTNL8SFsPXi9GZ8JOKT2JnNyniHYDcR7fzIPfD8D4eAXnXYWA2NOvEPoymVfFvrsA2BBwIxFpCPrD3PMCfzhbSViv25GJE= ;
- In-reply-to: <43FB9F9D.7040902@xmission.com>
- Reply-to: lhurd@yahoo.com
- Sender: owner-pbmserv-users@gamerz.net
On the now theoretical issue, I would say that unless
the rules state to the contrary infinite check should
be a draw as there does not seem to be a reason to say
that someone must willingly put oneself in jeopardy.
Just my two cents.
Cheers,
Lyman
--- "Gregory A. Swarthout" <gregorys@xmission.com>
wrote:
> Ezequiel Mart�n C�mara wrote:
> > Hello fellow PBeMers.
> >
> > In this terrace game 149, I am in a hopeless
> situation, with a sure
> > loss in two moves. But...
> >
> > But I also have my opponent's key piece locked in
> such a way that I
> > can perpetually attack it and avoid the loss for
> as long as I want.
>
> Actually, I responded in my last move that I have
> devised a way out
> of perpetual check, rendering the instant issue
> moot.
>
> Greg
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net
> with
> unsubscribe pbmserv-users@gamerz.net
> as the BODY of the message. The SUBJECT is ignored.
>
>