Comments by GerdDegens

"A Bishop on a4 could move along c5-d6-e7-f8 but not b5-c6-d7-e8. For a Bishop on 4 the reverse would be true. But that also means a Bishop on a4 can only be captured from c5 -d6-e7-f8 and not from b5-c6-d7-e8.

If this is true the ...."

This is absolutely correct when considering the squares of a switch as separate squares. This looks different if the switch is seen as a unit. But that's a convention that needs to be met. I have already described my intention, but it is not an absolute requirement.

"The issue of teh Knight is really an independent one. If the Knight's move is defined 'subtractively', by excluding moves that a Queen can do, its mobility is reduced in the vicinity of the switch, as Q gets extra moves there. In a 'constructive' definition of the Knight move, it would benefit from the switch topology to get extra moves as well."

Exactly this consideration speaks for a separation of the fields 4/a4. A knight starting from 4 via a5, a6 lands on b6. With a switch as a unit, b6 is on the same line. With 4 as a separate square, b6 is not on the same line. For a4 vice versa. That would be my consideration. I'm thinking of novice players who will notice exactly this inconsistency.

A really constructive discussion, thanks for that. I believe most has been discussed and a broad agreement could be achieved.

It's a pity that reasons for programming are decisive for my variant being downgraded. It is also a pity that the name I have chosen should give way to another name. Does that mean my variant is history? Or have I misunderstood something?

"This will treat each space as a fully separate space, and the main feature of a switch that I'll retain is that spaces in the switch share some routes to and away from them, and movement from the narrow end can go in either of two different directions."

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand that.

"...once you have settled on the rules and have described them clearly."

With respect for the great job you are doing, but I can't accept that I haven't set the rules and described them clearly. You can have different perspectives, for example regarding the functionality of the switches. It is also possible to designate parts of it as non-essential. But it is not decisive what can be programmed with the available possibilities. It's a question whether the game can be played with my rules and that the rules are consistent. I had to move concerning the access to the switches because my rules weren't clear. That's it from my point of view. Had to be said. :)

I'm excited to see what happens with my other variants (Chees 69, an addition to Chess 66 and Avatar Chess).

I am very impressed, the changed look in Game Courier is a real enrichment. I am sure that many things can be better represented on this basis. I hope that I am not going too far out on a limb when I say that a variant such as Avatar Chess can be better conveyed. A very interesting upgrade.

If I may intrude into the discussion of how pieces are named and refer again to my variant 'Chess 66'. We have discussed Chess 66 and clarified inconsistencies. For my part, I have taken up the suggestions in my description by adding explanations and clarifying examples. The functionality of the switches as I imagine it is not compatible with Fergus 'Reroute 66' (occupied switsches can be skipped, switching between fields of switches is possible). This should be discussed. Therefore I would have the request to publish my variant 'Chess 66'. Are there any reasons against it?

Thanks Ben for the questions, here it should be clearer in the description (although it is already described between the lines, but that is probably not enough).

When capturing on a switch, first assume that there can be only one piece on a switch (here I differ from Fergus Duniho's Reroute66, a variant of my idea). So, for example, if a rook or queen starts from a1...a3 or from rank 4 and the switch is not occupied, then either square 4 or square a4 can be occupied in the switch.

But there is no choice if the switch is occupied by a piece. If a rook or a queen moves from a1...a3 or from rank 4 into the switch, then the piece in the switch must be captured (because two pieces on the switch are not possible). If the piece was on square 4, then the opponent's piece is on square 4 after the move has been executed (applies to a4 in the same way).

Furthermore, an occupied switch cannot be jumped over and a direct change from 4 to a4 (vice versa a4 to 4) is not possible - differently in Reroute66.

Have I understood the question correctly and hopefully answered it correctly? I would be glad.

To start with point (2): This is clear that a rook on a8 cannot move to a3...a1 if a switch is occupied.

Regarding point (1), I already had doubts yesterday. According to my imagination so far, the squares of a switch (e.g. 4 and a4) can only be reached from a1...a3 or from rank 4. In my description I assume that a bishop starting from e8 can only reach square 4 of the switch and not a4. This affects a rook/queen on a8 in the same way.

But in this case it means that a move into the switch cannot be done if a piece is on a4, because then the squares 4 and a4 would be occupied together - which would not be in accordance with the rules. But this does not seem very logical.

Therefore, I think that a pragmatic solution for switches should be used.

If the switch should not be occupied, it is possible to move into the switch from above, from below or from the side, whereby either field 4 or a4 respectively 5 or h5 can be occupied.

In case the switch is occupied, the piece in the switch must be captured when the opponent's piece moves into the switch; the opponent's piece takes the place of the captured piece.

This means for your point (1): The rook on a8 can capture the piece on a4, and then it stands on a4.

This also means that a bishop on e8 can reach either square 4 or square a4. If a4 is chosen, then the next move can be towards f8 or towards d1. I think that such an procedure simplifies the rules and makes the game easier to play. What do you think?

Perhaps a remark about 'Avatar Chess'. The variants you mentioned (Lumberjack, Smess) were not known to me before. In normal chess, a piece has a fixed skill level, which means that during the game two kings, two queens, four rooks, etc. define the game. In Avatar Chess it is possible that up to 6 queens, 12 rooks etc. are in play - of course rather theoretically and then only for a short time. I think that this could be interesting.

After contact with Ben Reiniger - see comments below - I have adapted my description of the variant 'Chess 66'.

New is that in switches can be operated as follows: It is possible from below, from above and from the side equally to move into the switch and that independent of the direction of the move the squares of a switch can be reached separately (4 or a4 respectively 5 or h5).

It would be nice if the editors of CVP would read my description again crosswise to finally arrange for a publication. If 'Chess 66' should be published, then 'Chess 69' seems to be published as well.

Thank you H.G., that's how it will be for sure. Sounds to me like from another star. It means to me that I will not be able to do it on my own.

Does no one have an idea? I do not want to disturb, but why does no one comment? Lack of interest or there are neither positive nor negative comments? Am open for any criticism. My last comment on the subject for now.

Thank you Christine and thank you Greg,

let me be a little provocative: In normal chess, the board is - please don't be bad - a hole nut. The board is where the game happens, but where the board has almost no influence on what happens in the game.

In Avatar Chess, the pieces are only substitutes and the board determines the rules. This means at the same time that the structures of Avatar Chess are no longer comparable with normal chess.

Especially the mechanism of the pawns, which you mentioned, is cancelled. Pawns have a barrier function in normal chess, in Avatar Chess pawns acquire pieces to maintain the playing power.

Perhaps you can say it like that: Normal Chess is a top down game, where the pieces dominate and where the board plays no role.

Avatar Chess is the opposite, namely a bottem up game with rules from the underground (a little theatricality must be). Maybe a little less predictable, but a little more exciting.

From Magnus Carlsen's environment I got the indication that the game could be chaotic. Maybe that's true, maybe not.

But one thing has to be mentioned: In normal chess there is a tendency to protect strong pieces (e.g. queen). This tendency does not exist in Avatar Chess.

An avatar on a queen square that is captured can easily be replaced by another avatar on the same or similar square. The sturcture of Avatar Chess is quite different.

I hope I haven't upset or hurt anyone.

There is nothing to add to this!

Does a royal moving as orthodox king also trigger a promotion when it moves to 8th rank?

No, this is not intended.

Securing a 'rapid-promotion factory' (e.g. a few white avatars in the trapezoidal region d7-e7-f8-c8 shuttling between 7th and 8th rank) might become the main strategic goal in the game.

The function of the opponent's pawn row is precisely to increase the dynamics of the game. The assumption that this results in a 'rapid-promotion factory' is only valid ceteris paribus, i.e. when the rest of the game is left aside. And even if it does, it is supposed to 'speed up' the game and make it more interesting.

I had already thought about 'forbidding' the return from the opponent's base line to the pawn row. But that would complicate the game and would certainly be inconvenient for programming - if it should come to that.

But I am quite with you, H.G., that the number of avatars that can be won during the course of the game must be limited. Here I will change the description and will include a limit of 5 avatars. This should be enough for the intended effect.

...how many avatars would be needed to force checkmate on a bare royal (moving as orthodox King)?

Black Royal on e8, white on e6, b4, a1-a8 (or h1-h8/b6-b8/b3-b8/c5-c8/c4-c8/c3-c8/f6-f8/f5-f8/f4-f8/g6-g8/g5-g8/g3-g8). It takes 3 avatars to checkmate the royal in this example.

(Quick note: the chess notation changes in Avatar Chess; the initial letters of the pieces are no longer necessary).

I must have answered too quickly and was apparently asleep. Only the moves from a1 to a8 or from h1 to h8 are relevant. Please forget everything else.

Let's take the starting position with the black royal on e8 and white on e6 and b4. The white move a1 to a8 or h1 to h8 checkmates the royal. Or am I wrong? If not, it took 3 avatars to checkmate the royal.

"But why would the King ever move to e8 on the preceding halfmove?" I can't answer and only refer to the gameplay, which causes the initial situation I described, namely black royal on e8 and white on e6 and b4. Then follows the white move a1 to a8 or h1 to h8.

I did indeed overlook the lack of rotational symmetry of the board. I changed that - as well as the max. number (5) of avatars that can be added. Thanks for the input.

Thanks Ben for your posting.
But is there still interest for that idea? And if so, in which 
direction does it go?

That sounds plausible.

@ Aurelian: Possible, indeed. It may be that Avatar Chess is not similar to the usual variants. But what does that tell us?

Anyway, the classic of this genre is still smess, if anyone asks me!

Nobody seems to do that.

@ Fergus Duniho

Thor Slavensky wrote on 2022-10-23 CEST   Good ★★★★
This is a great idea with those switches. Together with the twisting of the files it makes a very interesting board and game. The switches give instantly the game a dynamic tension which is enjoyable. And a very sophisticated solution that 2 squares together constitute 1 field on which there can only be 1 piece. There is no mentioning of pawn move/capture (maybe it could be helpful), but it must be implied that 'normal' forward movement and diagonal capturing are in place, that will often be first 'battle' around the switches.

What is better than 2 switches? That has to be 4 switches! The inventor, Gerd Degens, has also such a game, Chess69, which can be viewed through the link at the top, or for CVP members through the link in the comments. I will try to make a comment about it later. But I can only recommend to the editors that this game also is published properly. It is even more interesting because here the ranks are also twisted, very delightful for us fans of 'unusually shaped boards'. It already has a old post from 2003 here on CVP with a broken link in the Alphabetical Index and the Topic Index, so that will have to be displaced.

Chess 69 is the follow-up to Chess 66; Chess 66 has already been published properly. Thanks in advance.

Since captured pieces get back into play by taking their position on the baseline, it is implied that opposing pieces on the baseline cannot be captured.

Here my description was not sufficient, sorry. It should read: 'Capturing of opponent's pieces on the baseline is excluded'. Therefore a move Ra2xa7 is not possible.

I have adjusted my description.

For example, Nc3. But what about Ne3 Ra3? Then we have a stalemate between Ra3 and Nb1 or Ra3 and Bc1. One could end the round robin with a counter. But since no one has an interest in that, reason wins out and the game continues with other moves. At least one would think so.

Maybe my gobbledegook can be unraveled.

Regarding your question: 1.Nc3 Ra3 2.Rb1 Rxc3... What happens? The knight falls back to its starting position b1. My answer was: For example, Nc3 - which means that the knight can immediately hit back. Or to say it another way: the rook attack goes nowhere.

The following was a new example and I thought you could see that (surely my mistake). I asked: But what about Ne3 Ra3 - here I made a typo, because it should be Na3 Ra3. In this case we would have a stalemate between Na3 and Ra3; this applies equally to Ra3 and Ba3. That's what I wanted to point out. I expect that no one wants to stay in the stalemate and that other moves will take place. Here I had mentioned the counter, but I'm not sure if this is a solution.

P.S.: Comments should not be written with the mobile phone.

Okay, that doesn't sound very logical. You could still say that a captured piece falls back to the baseline, a square can be chosen, but that doesn't make things better. The concept needs to be rethought.

It may be that my concept is garbage. But it could also be that it could work. Am grateful for any suggestion.

Now, based on these, it would be legal for a Queen (or Bishop) on g6, as illustrated below, to move to either h5 or 5. Is this correct?

That is absolutely correct. The move possibilities of the queen are shown completely.

After the discussion at that time I have adapted my description. In summary it says:

• Finally, you can move into a switch from below, from the side or from above. If the switch is not occupied, then you can choose whether the piece that moves into the switch is on 4 or a4 respectively on 5 or h5 after the move. If the switch is occupied, then the piece in the switch must be captured; the opponent’s piece takes the place of the captured piece.

Using alternating horizontal lines in both colors in half of 4 and 5 instead of a dividing line seems to be a good solution.

Does a Pawn on a2 or h7 have an option concerning which space it goes to in a double move?

Yes, that is how it should be. A pawn must also have a unique position in the switch - 4 or a4 / 5 or h5. I think it is logical if this applies to all pieces in the game.

If so, details about this and the effect it has on en passant should be included.

You mean the description? If so - I want to wait for more tips, and then revise the description.

The concept is expandable. At the maximum, it could look like this:
 

In this level, 16 new squares would be created. The game could then be called Chess 80, or in another notation Chess 64/16. Of course, intermediate levels between Chess 66 and Chess 80 are conceivable.

In the following example, moves can be made not only forked as in Chess 66, but triple-forked moves become possible.

Such an extended concept certainly leads to the question of playability. But it might be interesting to think about it.

An extension in your sense is not the subject of discussion.

You can certainly scrap the entire concept. Agreed, but which concepts in the CVP stand up to your inspection?

Mind games should be able to be discussed. Or do you have a different opinion?

Diagonal movement is allowed through the corners of spaces that do not share any sides, and diagonal movement in the same direction goes through the corners at opposite ends of spaces.

Let me understand this correctly: A bishop on e8 moves in the direction of switch A4/a4. Further down in your description you say that in this case the bishop can only reach A4. But the bishop reaches the same corner of A4 and a4; therefore the bishop can decide whether to stop on A4 or a4.

So, in principle, a move into the switch, no matter from which direction and valid for all pieces, must result in a decision between the two squares of the switch - provided that the switch is not occupied.

My description for this is:

• Finally, you can move into a switch from below, from the side or from above. If the switch is not occupied, then you can choose whether the piece that moves into the switch is on 4 or a4 or 5 or h5 after the move. If the switch is occupied, then the piece in the switch must be captured; the opponent’s piece takes the place of the captured piece.

2. While some paths can lead to either Switch, others lead to only one space or the other in a Switch. For example, a Bishop on e8 can go to A4 or h5, and a Bishop on d1 can go to a4 or H5.

See the comments above.
A bishop on e8 or d1 can move to A4 or a4 respectively to h5 or H5.

Also, a Bishop on A4 can move away on either light or dark spaces, but one on a4 can move away only on light spaces.

But a bishop on A4 cannot move to f8. For that he would have to be on a4.

3. ... or one is occupied by an enemy piece. If a piece moves to the empty space in a Switch, and the other space is occupied by an enemy piece, that piece is considered captured.

A piece can only be captured on the square it stands. Therefore, in an occupied switch, you cannot move to the empty square and capture the piece on the other square of the switch. After the move into the occupied switch, the capturing piece stands on the square of the captured piece.

The Knight can leap directly to any space that could be reached in two one-space moves except for those reachable by two in the same direction. 

I am not sure if the rule is correct. In my description I use a definition which comes from Alfred Pfeiffer (Chemnitzer Schachverband e.V.):

• The knight moves to one of the squares that a king can reach from the square in two moves, but which are not on the same row, line or diagonal. It does not move across squares that lie in between.

No, it cannot. Let me break the move down into steps. First, the Bishop on e8 moves to d7. At this point, movement in the same direction must go through the opposite corner is just passed through. This is the corner that d7 shares with c6. Continuing in the same direction, it can go to b5. At b5, it can move diagonally to A4, because b5 and A4 share a corner but no sides. Also, this is in the same direction that the move from e8 to b5 was in. However, b5 and a4 do share a side, which means that movement from one to the other is not diagonal. So, a move from e8 to a4 would be illegal.

This is a very special consideration. Do you think that such can be communicated to potential players?

Why do we leave out consideration of equal/different corners and sides? Can't we agree that switches can be entered from all sides and a choice must be made between the fields of the switch? Surely that would be much easier for everyone.

In the discussion at the time, I just took your position, but ran into a wall looking for a simple solution. I came to the conclusion that switches have a special status, which must lead to a choice between the fields of a switch from all sides - from above, from below and from the side.

No, that is completely the opposite of how I understand the rules.

A bishop on e8 or d1 can move to A4 or a4 respectively to h5 or H5.

This is unintelligible. If you mean what you said above, it is contrary to my understanding of the rules.

What can I say? I think my position is quite logical. At the beginning of the discussions, I was of the opinion that switches work differently when they are operated from below, from the side, or from above. I have abandoned this opinion and changed it in favor of a pragmatic solution, in that a switch must be handled the same regardless of the direction.

Are you saying that a piece cannot capture a piece in a Switch unless it can move to the space the piece is on? Or are you saying that when a piece can move to either space in a Switch, it can move to the Switch and capture the piece, and then it must occupy the space the piece was on?

This seems to me to be much simpler than you make it out to be.
After all, a piece can only be captured where it is. Why should this be different for a switch?
Why should a piece be able to move to A4, and thereby capture a piece on a4 quasi en passent? That only happens with pawns. But that's where it should stay. The basic principle should be that pieces are captured on the square on which the pieces were placed. Pragmatic solution, isn't it?

They are the same, but I removed the ambiguities in his description and used some technical language. Since the King cannot move into check, and a Knight is not subject to the same restriction, I replaced the reference to two King moves with one to two one-space moves. Since I would normally refer to ranks and files rather than to rows and lines, and since I have been using these words in an algebraic sense rather than a geometric sense, I rewrote it to not use them. To "leap directly" is technical terminology that implies that a move "does not move across squares that lie in between."

I think I have understood that.

...because paths to and from Switch spaces are no longer symmetrical with each other. This would allow one King to attack another, and the following position would count as checkmate.

I can't see anything other than a checkmate situation. The legal moves of the black king are vertically a5 and a3, horizontally b4 and diagonally b5 and b3. The move to c5 is excluded and only with that can the black king free itself.

We had such a situation in the discussion below and it involved a bishop on A4.

Also, a Bishop on A4 can move away on either light or dark spaces, but one on a4 can move away only on light spaces.

But a bishop on A4 cannot move to f8. For that he would have to be on a4.

That is correct, and I didn't say anything to the contrary. The light path from A4 goes through b3, c2, and d1.

If the bishop on A4 cannot move towards f8, then the king on A4 cannot move to c5? On the other hand, the white king can capture the black king on A4. This is undoubtedly an asymmetry that, as I understand it, cannot be avoided when handling a switch.

I guess I didn't understand your question correctly. I'll try my best to answer.

The switch is occupied, so the black pawn can move diagonally into the switch. In my opinion, the black pawn does not have a choice between A4 and a4, but moves directly to A4 and captures the white pawn there.

I took the discussion from earlier to heart and to that extent I thought about it and adjusted the rules. The result:

I find the idea that a bishop on d1 can only move to a4 or to H5, or a bishop on e8 can only move to A4 or h5, to be completely illogical.

You can bend it with corners and sides so that it seems logical, but basically, from my point of view, it leads to complicating the rules.

The rule that a switch is a place of decision to occupy the squares of a switch uniquely, no matter from which direction the switch is occupied, seems to be a clear rule that everyone can understand. I do not think that such a rule complicates the course of the game.

The concept implies that unsymmetrical move sequences cannot be excluded. I cannot express it in any other way. 

I now understand that a bishop from d1 can only reach H5 - sometimes it takes a little longer, sorry. G4 shares a side with h5 and so a move to h5 is not diagonal. But why can't a bishop from d1 move to A4 and what am I still overlooking here? B3 shares neither a side with a4 nor with A4. In this respect, a move from b3 to a4 is just as diagonal as a move from b3 to A4. If A4 is not possible, then a color change of the bishop from d1 via A4 to e8 is also not possible. Only the color change from e8 via A4 to d1 would be possible. The situation with the switch h5/H5 applies vice versa. What do I not realize here?

Should the description consider the following knight moves?
Knight on b3, is the move to a5 possible, because on the same diagonal? Or a knight on a3, are the moves to a5 or b5 possible, because on the same line?

Have read your explanations in Reroute66 and am now calmed down that from d1 a4 and A4 can be reached (was completely unsure for me before). In this respect, the color change of the bishop from d1 via A4 to e8 takes place (vice versa the situation from e8 to H5).

In the following constellation you show the possible moves of a knight in Reroute66.

Is it possible that the move to d5 is missing here? 

Okay Ben, sorry for the short rules section.
I added the rule about excluding capturing pieces to the rules section. If there is anything else missing from the rules section, please let me know.

I have played the game many times and did not get the impression that the queen and rook play a decisive role in the final result of the game.

If someone should take the pity to program the game, it will turn out that the strategic component of the game cannot be determined by single pieces.

In the rules I have emphasized: In contrast to all chess variants, the capturing of opposing pieces is excluded. Only the king can be captured.
 

An honorable response, thank you.

... my hobby is programming computers, not playing games.

Would it cost you a lot of effort to program the variant? Maybe others would like to try the variant once. That would be then a beautiful conclusion.

I can understand that. It is a bit presumptuous of me to express such an idea.

But I'm glad to hear that the variant is treading a path that can hardly be compared. That also has something - at least for me. It was worth a try.

If the King can be captured, what stops the first player from using his Queen to capture the King and winning right away?

Winning in Borderline is like winning in classical chess. If the king is in check and cannot move away from it or use a piece of its own to protect it, it is checkmate and the game is over. If the situation is not checkmate, it is in the player's interest to move the king out of check (or use another piece to protect it), otherwise it will be captured on the opponent's next move and the game will be lost.

In Borderline, the king can be moved instead of one of your own pieces. It is not possible to move the king into your own check; such a move is not legal. The king can only be moved into check by another piece, not by a move of the king.

If the king is in check and could only be "saved" by a move into its own check - which is not possible/legal - then the player obliged to move has lost.
(here I have adapted my description again).
 

Impressive how the whole thing sounds from your point of view. Chapeau.

@Fergus

Before the queen can capture the king, the queen must first have put the king in check. And it can only do this when it has crossed the borderline. White queen (here blue) can only do this on ranks 5-7, black queen (here red) analogously on ranks 1-3.

Well, you must move the King into the other camp to be able to give check and checkmate. 

Is that so? As soon as white has reached ranks 5-7 or black ranks 1-3, check or checkmate can be given. The king may not have moved until then.

Is it that a piece must be located on certain ranks to attack the King? Or is it that crossing the borderline results in a promotion that allows the piece to attack the King from anywhere on the board?

The former is the case. The possibility to attack is only possible beyond the borderline. Crossing the borderline has nothing to do with a promotion, which then applies to the entire board. The possibility to attack corresponds exclusively with the ranks 5-7 or 1-3.

While playing, I noticed the following:

Example 1
1st Rg5 Bf4 2nd Ne3 Bb4 (Rg5 is gone) 3rd Ra5 Nc5 (Ra5 is gone) 4th Qa4 Qd5 5th Nc3 Ne5 6th Nb5 Ne4 (Nb5 is gone) 7th Qc6 Nc4 (Qc6 is gone) 8th Nf5 Ne3 (Nf5 is gone)

Example 2:
1st Bb4 Bf4 2nd Bc5 Qd5 (Bc5 is gone) 3rd Qa4 Bb4 4th Qc6 Nc5 (Qc6 is gone) 5th Ne3 Ne5 6th Nf5 Ne4 (Nf5 is gone) and so on.

Works! Great, thank you.

Plays well. For a game in between!

So its strength lies entirely in its ability to see possible checkmates a number of moves in advance.

@ H.G.
I think the topic is through. You have very clearly pointed out the strategically 'inferior' approach to the game and you have reduced the only strength of the game to the possibility of a staggered preview of check and mate situations. I can agree with that.

But what if:
What about a variation of the rule that only the king can be captured. So what if the king was given the possibility to capture other pieces? Ceteris paribus, everything remains the same. Captured pieces go to 'their' base place on the base line - rooks, knights and bishops could choose their base places?

The strategic importance of the king is not raised to its level in normal chess; nevertheless, it would be associated with a strategic upgrading. What do you think?
 

Should I presume that in variant 1, a King may move to or stay on an attacked space, and in variant 2, a King may not move into or remain in check?

This is how it should be.
In variant 1, a captured king is assimilated by a king of the other side in the worst case, and the game continues until one side has captured all pieces.
In variant 2, the capture of the king ends the game.

I have now reduced the name and call the variant simply 'Conquer' - some other terms are occupied, e.g. 'Assimilation Chess', 'Fusion Chess', 'Take Over Chess'.

Following your recommendation I have not used the phrase 'starting position' in my description now.

Then thank you for pointing out that perpetual recaptures may become possible. In the description I have included a rule against perpetual recaptures.