💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Fri, Jun 13, 2008 04:45 PM UTC:
Thanks to all for their comments.
I have added a paragraph to the end of the rules section in an attempt to answer Doug Chatham's question.
With regard to the 'no pawns' loss condition, I see it as akin to the 'bare king' state which is used as a loss condition in several variants. It seems reasonable to me that a side without attacking potential should be deemed to have lost.
Thanks to all for their comments.
I have added a paragraph to the end of the rules section in an attempt to answer Doug Chatham's question.
With regard to the 'no pawns' loss condition, I see it as akin to the 'bare king' state which is used as a loss condition in several variants. It seems reasonable to me that a side without attacking potential should be deemed to have lost.