Re: A few illogicalities
- --- In email@example.com, "oldjoesoap" <oldjoesoap@...> wrote:
>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?
> 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.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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.