Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [lewiscarroll] Re: A few illogicalities

Expand Messages
  • John Tufail
    Doesn t the same rule apply today! I played competitive chess at county level up until the late 1980s and I always assumed that calling check was essential.
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 14, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Doesn't the same rule apply today!
       
      I played competitive chess at county level up until the late 1980s and I always assumed that calling check was essential.  Indeed I can recall two occasions where failure to call check resulted in continuation of the game as though the King had not been entrapped.
       
      The adjudicators on both occasions did not rule the game void.
       
      regards
       
      JT
       

       
      On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:01 AM, oldjoesoap <oldjoesoap@...> wrote:
       

      I am not convinced that the failure to call check was a violation in Carroll's day.
      Hoyle (1830) says:

      "7. Whenever a player checks his adversary's king, he must say Check, otherwise the adversary need not notice the check....."

      This seems to imply that the game can continue legally without violating the rules.
      j



      --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "guy_d_barry" <guy.barry@...> wrote:
      The most serious violation of the rules comes at Red's 8th move, where the Red Queen puts the White King in check with neither side noticing.


    • Keith
      ... So if the opponent fails to remove his king from danger, is it an illegal move for the first player to take the king at his next move? Keith
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 15, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "oldjoesoap" <oldjoesoap@...> wrote:
        >
        > I am not convinced that the failure to call check was a violation in Carroll's day.
        > Hoyle (1830) says:
        >
        > "7. Whenever a player checks his adversary's king, he must say Check, otherwise the adversary need not notice the check....."
        >
        > This seems to imply that the game can continue legally without violating the rules.
        > j

        So if the opponent fails to remove his king from danger, is it an illegal move for the first player to take the king at his next move?

        Keith
      • guy_d_barry
        ... A contributor to another forum has suggested the following alternative explanation: The first fit doesn t imply enmity between the Butcher and Beaver. The
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 15, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In lewiscarroll@yahoogroups.com, "Keith" <keith@...> wrote:

          > How are these two verses to be reconciled? If the Beaver changed his mind then why are we told "EVER after that sorrowful day..."?

          A contributor to another forum has suggested the following alternative explanation:

          "The first fit doesn't imply enmity between the Butcher and Beaver. The Beaver is simply worried because the Butcher has declared that he only kills beavers. For his part the Butcher never actually shows any inclination towards the act but the Beaver is understandably nervous.

          In the fifth fit they become friends but it doesn't necessarily mean that the Beaver isn't still nervous. He could still look away from his friend, worried that his beaver-cidal tendencies might surface."

          I'm not sure if I buy this myself - I can't see how it's possible to become someone's friend and constant companion if you're perpetually worried that they might kill you. But it's a possibility.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.