Single Comment

Peter,<p> If a piece is on a3, a LL on a6 can capture it by leaping to a2 or a1 and having the choice is quite valuable to the LL--one square may be attacked while the other is safe, one square may set up the next attack while the other doesn't, etc. <p> Now let's look at the case at hand: LL on x3 to capture x2 on x1 or x0. The amended rule constrains the LL's choice of captures when it is already very hard for the LL to capture a piece on an edge square--the LL must reach the edge via another capture (either previous or subsequent) <i>of a piece adjacent to the edge</i>. Only the LL (or a Chameleon attempting to capture a LL) is so restricted: A King, Pawn, Advancer, Withdrawer, Swapper, or Chameleon capturing anything other than a LL can capture a piece on an edge square <i>from an interior square</i>. <p> So the LL is uniquely constrained in its ability to capture an enemy piece on an edge square by board geometry and the edge rules, and the proposed rule would constrain it yet more. I feel that this additional constraint is foreign to the original intent of making it harder to hide from LL's on the edge. The Withdrawer isn't so badly affected as it is restricted in only two of its five possible capture directions when capturing a piece on an edge square, but if the LL is to have free choice, the Withdrawer should for consistency.