| Author |
Message |
Frank Paul Strong (Fps)
New member
Username: Fps
Post Number: 6
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Monday, March 26, 2007 - 8:02 am: | |
(loss-condition (Red Black) repetition) is completely wrong, because in CChess, most repetition leads to draw!!
But sometimes repetition is one side's loss, even if the player who makes repetition is not him. Perpetual check and perpetual threatening are examples. The player who is checking or threatening will be lost is these situation.
So how can I define these? |
Sean Duggan (Dream)
New member
Username: Dream
Post Number: 72
Registered: 9-2000
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 9:36 am: | |
Could you clarify what the situation is, exactly, for your cases of perpetual check and perpetual threatening? Is this a 2-move repetition? Something greater? It's possible that this might be out of the scope of Zillions, but it is worth a try. |
M Winther (Kalroten)
New member
Username: Kalroten
Post Number: 10
Registered: 1-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 10:35 am: | |
This could be a case when you must use extraneous dummy-pieces, and, depending on circumstance, add, or change-type, a different dummy-piece. You can also effectuate a draw or win by capturing an extraneous, invisible, dummy-piece and have draw-conditions and win-conditions set according to the capture, or absolute-config, of this or that dummy-piece. I had to do this type of thing in some games, such as 4-handed Chaturanga, and 4-handed Shatranj. /Mats |
|