## Re: Help needed - chess

Expand Messages
• There are two major violations of the rules of chess involved in the illustrated game. 1) leaving a King in check and making an alternative move instead. 2)
Message 1 of 15 , Jul 25, 2007
• 0 Attachment
There are two major violations of the rules of chess involved in the
illustrated game.

1) leaving a King in check and making an alternative move instead.

2) one side (or color) moving many times in a row without alternating
moves with the other side (or color). The White Queen moves four times
in a row without Red moving any of the Red Pieces.

On the one hand, this clever puzzle may be TOO clever.

--- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, Arne Moll <arnemail@...> wrote:
>
> Yes. The rules state:
>
> "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king in
check."
>
> This is a crucial principe, for if this principle cannot be met, the
> game is simply over. However, in Carroll's problem, the check can, but
> is not, lifted. This is in direct violation to the rules.
>
>
>
>
> Quoting jenny2write <woolf@...>:
>
> > From a chess-technical point of
> >> view, his problem is not only in violence with the laws of the game,
> >> but also, I'm sorry to say, quite silly and primitive.
> >
> > What exactly is wrong with them? I know that the colours are sometimes
> > reversed but he points this out himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true. What happens is that "... the alternation of Red and White
is perhaps not so strictly observed as it might be...."

In other words, White moves 4 times in a row without Red making a
move. This is contrary to the rules. Actually, this would be a
ruination of the whole idea of a game in which players alternate moves
or plays, such as chess, checkers and almost all two person card games
and more.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Is he incorrect in saying that
> > the rest of the game can be played according to the laws of chess?
> >
> >
> >
>

I have no idea, and no desire to trouble my mind to find out, given
the several violations of the rules as expressed earlier. There may be
times when a clever man is entirely too clever.
• OK, I am going to wade into this chess discussion with only a basic knowledge of the game (enough to be able to play the game, not enough the play it well).
Message 2 of 15 , Jul 26, 2007
• 0 Attachment
OK, I am going to wade into this chess discussion with only a basic
knowledge of the game (enough to be able to play the game, not
enough the play it well). Martin Gardner has a footnote in "The
Annotated Alice" that might help explain Lewis Carroll's odd chess
moves.

Gardner says that in a paper that Ivor Davies wrote on "Looking-
Glass Chess" it is suggested that Carroll may have drawn on a book
called "The Art of Chess-Play" by George Walker written in 1846.

Walker's Law 20 states a player must make his opponant aware that
his king is in check by saying so aloud, or else the opponent may
move as if the check was not made. The Red Queen does not
say "check" so perhaps the game goes on as if no check was made
(something like the UNO rules). The same footnote says that in
Walker's Law 14 a player may make a series of consecutive moves so
long as the opponent does not object.

Perhaps, since this is Looking-Glass Chess, it is these that Lewis
Carroll was playing by rather than the conventional ones.

I hope that helps somewhat.

Cheers
Deb

>
> 1) leaving a King in check and making an alternative move instead.
>
> 2) one side (or color) moving many times in a row without
alternating
> moves with the other side (or color). The White Queen moves four
times
> in a row without Red moving any of the Red Pieces.
>
> On the one hand, this clever puzzle may be TOO clever.
>
>
> --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, Arne Moll <arnemail@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes. The rules state:
> >
> > "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king
in
> check."
> >
> > This is a crucial principe, for if this principle cannot be met,
the
> > game is simply over. However, in Carroll's problem, the check
can, but
> > is not, lifted. This is in direct violation to the rules.
>
• Deb, I do think that that is very interesting. It would be reasonable to expect LC to frame the game in Looking Glass by the rules of chess as he knew it.
Message 3 of 15 , Jul 26, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Deb,
I do think that that is very interesting.  It would be reasonable to expect LC to frame the game in Looking Glass by the rules of chess as he knew it.  Was he ever a serious player?
J

----- Original Message ----
From: pleasanceone <pigbaby@...>
To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 26 July, 2007 3:20:11 PM
Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Help needed - chess

OK, I am going to wade into this chess discussion with only a basic
knowledge of the game (enough to be able to play the game, not
enough the play it well). Martin Gardner has a footnote in "The
Annotated Alice" that might help explain Lewis Carroll's odd chess
moves.

Gardner says that in a paper that Ivor Davies wrote on "Looking-
Glass Chess" it is suggested that Carroll may have drawn on a book
called "The Art of Chess-Play" by George Walker written in 1846.

Walker's Law 20 states a player must make his opponant aware that
his king is in check by saying so aloud, or else the opponent may
move as if the check was not made. The Red Queen does not
say "check" so perhaps the game goes on as if no check was made
(something like the UNO rules). The same footnote says that in
Walker's Law 14 a player may make a series of consecutive moves so
long as the opponent does not object.

Perhaps, since this is Looking-Glass Chess, it is these that Lewis
Carroll was playing by rather than the conventional ones.

I hope that helps somewhat.

Cheers
Deb

>
> 1) leaving a King in check and making an alternative move instead.
>
> 2) one side (or color) moving many times in a row without
alternating
> moves with the other side (or color). The White Queen moves four
times
> in a row without Red moving any of the Red Pieces.
>
> On the one hand, this clever puzzle may be TOO clever.
>
>
> --- In lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com, Arne Moll <arnemail@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes. The rules state:
> >
> > "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king
in
> check."
> >
> > This
is a crucial principe, for if this principle cannot be met,
the
> > game is simply over. However, in Carroll's problem, the check
can, but
> > is not, lifted. This is in direct violation to the rules.
>

• Hi Deb - I think you might be onto something. I ve been trying to find something about the game of Asher - Persian Chess. There was a book written in 1854 or
Message 4 of 15 , Jul 26, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Hi Deb - I think you might be onto something. I've been trying to find something about the game of Asher - Persian Chess. There was a book written in 1854 or thereabouts, called Persian Chess, by Nathaniel Blunt. Asher is the Game of Life, in fact chess could probably been seen as the game of life. I don't know enough about the history of chess to know whether there's any connection to Persia that has been corroborated, I think the jury is still out as to where it originated. I know that a lot of chess historians say that it started around the Black Sea area, but others say it started in China, so I don't know. But I've been trying to get hold of Blunt's book for ages, to no avail.

Kate L

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:20 AM
Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Help needed - chess

OK, I am going to wade into this chess discussion with only a basic
knowledge of the game (enough to be able to play the game, not
enough the play it well). Martin Gardner has a footnote in "The
Annotated Alice" that might help explain Lewis Carroll's odd chess
moves.

Gardner says that in a paper that Ivor Davies wrote on "Looking-
Glass Chess" it is suggested that Carroll may have drawn on a book
called "The Art of Chess-Play" by George Walker written in 1846.

Walker's Law 20 states a player must make his opponant aware that
his king is in check by saying so aloud, or else the opponent may
move as if the check was not made. The Red Queen does not
say "check" so perhaps the game goes on as if no check was made
(something like the UNO rules). The same footnote says that in
Walker's Law 14 a player may make a series of consecutive moves so
long as the opponent does not object.

Perhaps, since this is Looking-Glass Chess, it is these that Lewis
Carroll was playing by rather than the conventional ones.

I hope that helps somewhat.

Cheers
Deb

>
> 1) leaving a King in check and making an alternative move instead.
>
> 2) one side (or color) moving many times in a row without
alternating
> moves with the other side (or color). The White Queen moves four
times
> in a row without Red moving any of the Red Pieces.
>
> On the one hand, this clever puzzle may be TOO clever.
>
>
> --- In lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com, Arne Moll <arnemail@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes. The rules state:
> >
> > "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king
in
> check."
> >
> > This is a crucial principe, for if this principle cannot be met,
the
> > game is simply over. However, in Carroll's problem, the check
can, but
> > is not, lifted. This is in direct violation to the rules.
>

• It s always seemed to me that, whether or not CLD had this in mind (and there s no evidence that he did), the chess game works reasonably well if you see it as
Message 5 of 15 , Jul 26, 2007
• 0 Attachment

It's always seemed to me that, whether or not CLD had this in mind (and there's no evidence that he did), the chess game works reasonably well if you see it as viewed from the perspective of the pawn - who one might suppose would be, by the nature of her rank and physical limitations (only able to look straight in front), unaware of both the overall tactical plan and the movements of other pieces outside her immediate vicinity.  Hence the apparent apparent succession of moves by White (and the unusual circumstance of the Queen's pawn remaining unmoved so late in the game)  - the pawn is simply unaware of the preceeding and intervening moves as they take place outside her visible/strategic horizon.

I'm sure there are details which still don't work (the failure to move out of check for one), but I've always thought this made pretty good sense as a general scheme.

Mike

>
> Deb,
> I do think that that is very interesting. It would be reasonable to expect LC to frame the game in Looking Glass by the rules of chess as he knew it. Was he ever a serious player?
> J
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: pleasanceone pigbaby@...
> To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 26 July, 2007 3:20:11 PM
> Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Help needed - chess
>
>
>
> OK, I am going to wade into this chess discussion with only a basic
> knowledge of the game (enough to be able to play the game, not
> enough the play it well). Martin Gardner has a footnote in "The
> Annotated Alice" that might help explain Lewis Carroll's odd chess
> moves.
>
> Gardner says that in a paper that Ivor Davies wrote on "Looking-
> Glass Chess" it is suggested that Carroll may have drawn on a book
> called "The Art of Chess-Play" by George Walker written in 1846.
>
> Walker's Law 20 states a player must make his opponant aware that
> his king is in check by saying so aloud, or else the opponent may
> move as if the check was not made. The Red Queen does not
> say "check" so perhaps the game goes on as if no check was made
> (something like the UNO rules). The same footnote says that in
> Walker's Law 14 a player may make a series of consecutive moves so
> long as the opponent does not object.
>
> Perhaps, since this is Looking-Glass Chess, it is these that Lewis
> Carroll was playing by rather than the conventional ones.
>
> I hope that helps somewhat.
>
> Cheers
> Deb
>
> >
> > 1) leaving a King in check and making an alternative move instead.
> >
> > 2) one side (or color) moving many times in a row without
> alternating
> > moves with the other side (or color). The White Queen moves four
> times
> > in a row without Red moving any of the Red Pieces.
> >
> > On the one hand, this clever puzzle may be TOO clever.
> >
> >
> > --- In lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com, Arne Moll <arnemail@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes. The rules state:
> > >
> > > "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king
> in
> > check."
> > >
> > > This is a crucial principe, for if this principle cannot be met,
> the
> > > game is simply over. However, in Carroll's problem, the check
> can, but
> > > is not, lifted. This is in direct violation to the rules.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
> now.
>

• Brilliant ... From: mikeindex2001 To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:11 AM Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Help needed - chess It s
Message 6 of 15 , Jul 26, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Brilliant
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Help needed - chess

It's always seemed to me that, whether or not CLD had this in mind (and there's no evidence that he did), the chess game works reasonably well if you see it as viewed from the perspective of the pawn - who one might suppose would be, by the nature of her rank and physical limitations (only able to look straight in front), unaware of both the overall tactical plan and the movements of other pieces outside her immediate vicinity.  Hence the apparent apparent succession of moves by White (and the unusual circumstance of the Queen's pawn remaining unmoved so late in the game)  - the pawn is simply unaware of the preceeding and intervening moves as they take place outside her visible/strategic horizon.

I'm sure there are details which still don't work (the failure to move out of check for one), but I've always thought this made pretty good sense as a general scheme.

Mike
>
> Deb,
> I do think that that is very interesting. It would be reasonable to expect LC to frame the game in Looking Glass by the rules of chess as he knew it. Was he ever a serious player?
> J
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: pleasanceone pigbaby@...
> To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Thursday, 26 July, 2007 3:20:11 PM
> Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Help needed - chess
>
>
>
> OK, I am going to wade into this chess discussion with only a basic
> knowledge of the game (enough to be able to play the game, not
> enough the play it well). Martin Gardner has a footnote in "The
> Annotated Alice" that might help explain Lewis Carroll's odd chess
> moves.
>
> Gardner says that in a paper that Ivor Davies wrote on "Looking-
> Glass Chess" it is suggested that Carroll may have drawn on a book
> called "The Art

• Well, yes, what you say adds some interesting new information. However, it makes the effort of making sense out of the game even less appealing, because no
Message 7 of 15 , Jul 26, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Well, yes, what you say adds some interesting new information.

However, it makes the effort of making sense out of the "game" even
less appealing, because no insight into why one player would elect to
"pass" several times in a row appears evident.

There may be a clever solution, but it is too clever for me.

Thanks,

Jim

--- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "pleasanceone" <pigbaby@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> OK, I am going to wade into this chess discussion with only a basic
> knowledge of the game (enough to be able to play the game, not
> enough the play it well). Martin Gardner has a footnote in "The
> Annotated Alice" that might help explain Lewis Carroll's odd chess
> moves.
>
> Gardner says that in a paper that Ivor Davies wrote on "Looking-
> Glass Chess" it is suggested that Carroll may have drawn on a book
> called "The Art of Chess-Play" by George Walker written in 1846.
>
> Walker's Law 20 states a player must make his opponant aware that
> his king is in check by saying so aloud, or else the opponent may
> move as if the check was not made. The Red Queen does not
> say "check" so perhaps the game goes on as if no check was made
> (something like the UNO rules). The same footnote says that in
> Walker's Law 14 a player may make a series of consecutive moves so
> long as the opponent does not object.
>
> Perhaps, since this is Looking-Glass Chess, it is these that Lewis
> Carroll was playing by rather than the conventional ones.
>
> I hope that helps somewhat.
>
> Cheers
> Deb
>
> >
> > 1) leaving a King in check and making an alternative move instead.
> >
> > 2) one side (or color) moving many times in a row without
> alternating
> > moves with the other side (or color). The White Queen moves four
> times
> > in a row without Red moving any of the Red Pieces.
> >
> > On the one hand, this clever puzzle may be TOO clever.
> >
> >
> > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, Arne Moll <arnemail@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes. The rules state:
> > >
> > > "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king
> in
> > check."
> > >
> > > This is a crucial principe, for if this principle cannot be met,
> the
> > > game is simply over. However, in Carroll's problem, the check
> can, but
> > > is not, lifted. This is in direct violation to the rules.
> >
>
• One might think that there are other parts of the book that stretch reality a tad as well.
Message 8 of 15 , Jul 26, 2007
• 0 Attachment
One might think that there are other parts of the book that stretch reality

> However, it makes the effort of making sense out of the "game" even
> less appealing, because no insight into why one player would elect to
> "pass" several times in a row appears evident.
• Hi Kate, it could be an interesting theory if Carroll knew that book. Otherwise, it seems too far fetched. As a chess player, I look at the chess problem like
Message 9 of 15 , Jul 27, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Hi Kate,

it could be an interesting theory if Carroll knew that book.
Otherwise, it seems too far fetched.

As a chess player, I look at the chess problem like this. I think
Carroll\'s problem is simply incorrect because he didn\'t know the
exact rules of the game. Even if his problem was not incorrect, it
would still be a very weak and (from a chess perspective)
uninteresting chess problem. Maybe he had some deeper meaning to it,
like everything is slightly wrong in Looking-Glass world (the Martin
Gardner theory), so that is also the case for the chess problem - but
it\'s mere speculation.

Anyway, it\'s not surprising. There were not many people in those days
that did know how to play chess - it was a very elitist game, and even
the top players of the world (Staunton, Andersen) made many mistakes
that nowadays are considered completely elementary for amateurs. The
level of play in tournaments and world championship games was very
very low indeed. There was basically only one good really player in
those days, the American Paul Morhpy, but sadly he retired after only
a few years of chess at the highest level.
So, in conclusion, I think it\'s fair to say that it\'s no surprise
there are mistakes in Carroll\'s problem - there were also many
mistakes in official chess theory books of those days, and anyway, the
rules of the game were not stated to firmly yet as is now the case. It
was just a game, like cards, not a \'sport\' yet.

Best regards,
Arne

Quoting Lyon <lyon@...>:

> Hi Deb - I think you might be onto something. I've been trying to
> find something about the game of Asher - Persian Chess. There was a
> book written in 1854 or thereabouts, called Persian Chess, by
> Nathaniel Blunt. Asher is the Game of Life, in fact chess could
> probably been seen as the game of life. I don't know enough about
> the history of chess to know whether there's any connection to
> Persia that has been corroborated, I think the jury is still out as
> to where it originated. I know that a lot of chess historians say
> that it started around the Black Sea area, but others say it started
> in China, so I don't know. But I've been trying to get hold of
> Blunt's book for ages, to no avail.
>
> Kate L
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pleasanceone
> To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:20 AM
> Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Help needed - chess
>
>
>
>
> OK, I am going to wade into this chess discussion with only a basic
> knowledge of the game (enough to be able to play the game, not
> enough the play it well). Martin Gardner has a footnote in "The
> Annotated Alice" that might help explain Lewis Carroll's odd chess
> moves.
>
> Gardner says that in a paper that Ivor Davies wrote on "Looking-
> Glass Chess" it is suggested that Carroll may have drawn on a book
> called "The Art of Chess-Play" by George Walker written in 1846.
>
> Walker's Law 20 states a player must make his opponant aware that
> his king is in check by saying so aloud, or else the opponent may
> move as if the check was not made. The Red Queen does not
> say "check" so perhaps the game goes on as if no check was made
> (something like the UNO rules). The same footnote says that in
> Walker's Law 14 a player may make a series of consecutive moves so
> long as the opponent does not object.
>
> Perhaps, since this is Looking-Glass Chess, it is these that Lewis
> Carroll was playing by rather than the conventional ones.
>
> I hope that helps somewhat.
>
> Cheers
> Deb
>
> >
> > 1) leaving a King in check and making an alternative move instead.
> >
> > 2) one side (or color) moving many times in a row without
> alternating
> > moves with the other side (or color). The White Queen moves four
> times
> > in a row without Red moving any of the Red Pieces.
> >
> > On the one hand, this clever puzzle may be TOO clever.
> >
> >
> > --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, Arne Moll <arnemail@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes. The rules state:
> > >
> > > "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king
> in
> > check."
> > >
> > > This is a crucial principe, for if this principle cannot be met,
> the
> > > game is simply over. However, in Carroll's problem, the check
> can, but
> > > is not, lifted. This is in direct violation to the rules.
> >
>
>
>
>
• Hi Arne - The points you raise are valid ones. But for a long time, I ve been thinking about what was going on around Carroll at the time. There was Max
Message 10 of 15 , Jul 27, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Hi Arne - The points you raise are valid ones. But for a long time, I've been thinking about what was going on around Carroll at the time. There was Max Muller, for example, who was heavily involved in the debate that raged around Aryanism. Nowadays, we think of Aryanism as being synonymous with Hitler, but that actually wasn't the case. It was to do with the origin of myth, religion, and the identity of the British nation. People like Charles Kingsley wrote about it (Kinglesy in a series of Lectures he gave, which included Cyrus, Darius and Zoroastrianism); Matthew Arnold, etc.  Zoroaster came into it because it was thought to be the first monotheistic religion. I don't know whether CLD knew the book. A lot of people did, but that isn't saying anything. However, I have been wondering for a while. For example, The White Queen refers to Lily as  "My Precious Lily. My Imperial kitten." Now I've always though Imperial was a curious way to speak of a Royal daughter.  Maybe not so strange, but when you put the two together, you get the imperial lily. The Imperial Lily is Fritillaria imperialis - the Crown Imperial, which is actually persian in origin. The area of the Black Sea where all these various religions originated. Okay. Maybe nothing. But according to Max Muller, the Sacrted Books of Zoroaster were in a language called Pahlavi - akin to Persian, which was written  right to left i.e.backwards. There's a few other things too - like the duel between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, good and evil, which was supposed to continue until the end of the aen, when good would overcome evil. These were the light and the dark twins. And the Raven? Corvus - the Crow. One of the grades in the Mithraic mysteries. And Mithras derives from Mitra - Zoroastrian. And this is just off the top of my head, as I remember it. But look it up, if you're interested.

As I said - it may be something - or nothing.

Kate

----- Original Message -----
From: Arne Moll
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 12:53 AM
Subject: Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: Help needed - chess

Hi Kate,

it could be an interesting theory if Carroll knew that book.
Otherwise, it seems too far fetched.

As a chess player, I look at the chess problem like this. I think
Carroll\'s problem is simply incorrect because he didn\'t know the
exact rules of the game. Even if his problem was not incorrect, it
would still be a very weak and (from a chess perspective)
uninteresting chess problem. Maybe he had some deeper meaning to it,
like everything is slightly wrong in Looking-Glass world (the Martin
Gardner theory), so that is also the case for the chess problem - but
it\'s mere speculation.

Anyway, it\'s not surprising. There were not many people in those days
that did know how to play chess - it was a very elitist game, and even
the top players of the world (Staunton, Andersen) made many mistakes
that nowadays are considered completely elementary for amateurs. The
level of play in tournaments and world championship games was very
very low indeed. There was basically only one good really player in
those days, the American Paul Morhpy, but sadly he retired after only
a few years of chess at the highest level.
So, in conclusion, I think it\'s fair to say that it\'s no surprise
there are mistakes in Carroll\'s problem - there were also many
mistakes in official chess theory books of those days, and anyway, the
rules of the game were not stated to firmly yet as is now the case. It
was just a game, like cards, not a \'sport\' yet.

Best regards,
Arne

> Hi Deb - I think you might be onto something. I've been trying to
> find something about the game of Asher - Persian Chess. There was a
> book written in 1854 or thereabouts, called Persian Chess, by
> Nathaniel Blunt. Asher is the Game of Life, in fact chess could
> probably been seen as the game of life. I don't know enough about
> the history of chess to know whether there's any connection to
> Persia that has been corroborated, I think the jury is still out as
> to where it originated. I know that a lot of chess historians say
> that it started around the Black Sea area, but others say it started
> in China, so I don't know. But I've been trying to get hold of
> Blunt's book for ages, to no avail.
>
> Kate L
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: pleasanceone
> To: lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 2:20 AM
> Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Help needed - chess
>
>
>
>
> OK, I am going to wade into this chess discussion with only a basic
> knowledge of the game (enough to be able to play the game, not
> enough the play it well). Martin Gardner has a footnote in "The
> Annotated Alice" that might help explain Lewis Carroll's odd chess
> moves.
>
> Gardner says that in a paper that Ivor Davies wrote on "Looking-
> Glass Chess" it is suggested that Carroll may have drawn on a book
> called "The Art of Chess-Play" by George Walker written in 1846.
>
> Walker's Law 20 states a player must make his opponant aware that
> his king is in check by saying so aloud, or else the opponent may
> move as if the check was not made. The Red Queen does not
> say "check" so perhaps the game goes on as if no check was made
> (something like the UNO rules). The same footnote says that in
> Walker's Law 14 a player may make a series of consecutive moves so
> long as the opponent does not object.
>
> Perhaps, since this is Looking-Glass Chess, it is these that Lewis
> Carroll was playing by rather than the conventional ones.
>
> I hope that helps somewhat.
>
> Cheers
> Deb
>
> >
> > 1) leaving a King in check and making an alternative move instead.
> >
> > 2) one side (or color) moving many times in a row without
> alternating
> > moves with the other side (or color). The White Queen moves four
> times
> > in a row without Red moving any of the Red Pieces.
> >
> > On the one hand, this clever puzzle may be TOO clever.
> >
> >
> > --- In lewiscarroll@ yahoogroups. com, Arne Moll <arnemail@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes. The rules state:
> > >
> > > "A player may not make any move which places or leaves his king
> in
> > check."
> > >
> > > This is a crucial principe, for if this principle cannot be met,
> the
> > > game is simply over. However, in Carroll's problem, the check
> can, but
> > > is not, lifted. This is in direct violation to the rules.
> >
>
>
>
>

• Hello again, According to Martin Gardner s footnote in The Annotated Alice, Lewis Carroll had a copy of George Walker s The Art of Chess-Playing , so that he
Message 11 of 15 , Jul 30, 2007
• 0 Attachment
Hello again,

According to Martin Gardner's footnote in The Annotated Alice, Lewis
Carroll had a copy of George Walker's "The Art of Chess-Playing", so
that he would have been aware of chess rules that could account for
the unorthodox movement of pieces in Looking-Glass.

Perhaps this chessgame *is* being viewed from a pawn's perspective.
Perhaps too the chessgame being portrayed is not one of two chess
champions who follow the rules to a T, but rather a casual game
between an adult and a child. In such a game the rules can be
relaxed and illegal moves overlooked, or maybe even encouraged.

I don't think that the Looking-Glass chess scenario is an indicator
of Lewis Carroll's knowledge of the game, or skill at playing. I
think rather that the game provided a theme for the story.

Ciao Deb

> It's always seemed to me that, whether or not CLD had this in
mind (and there's no evidence that he did), the chess game works
reasonably well if you see it as viewed from the perspective of the
pawn - who one might suppose would be, by the nature of her rank and
physical limitations (only able to look straight in front), unaware
of both the overall tactical plan and the movements of other pieces
outside her immediate vicinity. Hence the apparent apparent
succession of moves by White (and the unusual circumstance of the
Queen's pawn remaining unmoved so late in the game) - the pawn is
simply unaware of the preceeding and intervening moves as they take
place outside her visible/strategic horizon.
>
> I'm sure there are details which still don't work (the failure
to move out of check for one), but I've always thought this made
pretty good sense as a general scheme.
>
> Mike
> >
> > Deb,
> > I do think that that is very interesting. It would be
reasonable to expect LC to frame the game in Looking Glass by the
rules of chess as he knew it. Was he ever a serious player?
> > J
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: pleasanceone pigbaby@
> > To: lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 26 July, 2007 3:20:11 PM
> > Subject: [lewiscarroll] Re: Help needed - chess
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, I am going to wade into this chess discussion with only a
basic
> > knowledge of the game (enough to be able to play the game, not
> > enough the play it well). Martin Gardner has a footnote
in "The
> > Annotated Alice" that might help explain Lewis Carroll's odd
chess
> > moves.
> >
> > Gardner says that in a paper that Ivor Davies wrote
on "Looking-
> > Glass Chess" it is suggested that Carroll may have drawn on a
book
> > called "The Art
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.