My previous point about e.p. as a solution of the problem of pawns 'escaping destiny' via a double move is still valid. I like the idea that a 'simple' rule-change -- "let's speed it up, let pawns make a double 1st move, if the player wants to" -- turns out to have knock-on effects.

Obviously, it completely altered the nature of openings and attacks -- compare chess with shatranj and other relatives, slower than modern chess.

But, crucially, such changes were desirable. They were part of what the inventors of the DPM (double pawn move) *wanted* to achieve. The pawn bypass, the situation where adjacent opposing pawns could just pass by, was less desirable -- so e.p. was designed to correct that single fault, without undermining the speed or attack factors.

Chess with no <ep>, btw, works out surprisingly different from the normal game. Plans change drastically. Look, for example, at a standard French Advance pawn chain (White pawns on c3, d4, e5, possibly also f4; black pawns on f7, e6, d5, c5 [attacking the base], or c4 and b5 attacking the further base at c3.

With no e.p. rule, Black can play ...f5 and block the game, especially attacks on the b1/h7 diagonal. In the actual game, ...f5 can be met with exf6(ep), just as if ...f6 had been played.

It affects *plans* and pawn structures much more deeply than one might think, judging only from the frequency of e.p. captures in actual games. This is why I think of e.p. as a clever workaround.

But it raises a question as to whether castling should also have a similar rule. (This has no direct link to your double-move king idea, but there are some parallels).

A normal King moves one square at a time -- except in castling, when it moves 2 squares left or right (and passes through a rook, but that's not relevant here). Is this King 'escaping destiny' too?

The rule about 'no castling out of check or through check' partly covers it. But, using e.p. as a template, one could argue that the king needs a similar 'curb'.

The White King 'passes through' f1 while playing 0-0. It is already the case that f1 may not be in check, therefore its presence there, in some momentary flickery virtual sense, is already in the rules: it doesn't leap like a Knight.

Therefore, I suggest "en passant checkmate" in otherwise normal chess. In a case where 0-0 is legal (ie, none of the squares e1/f1/g1 are attacked - it can be generalized to include 0-0-0 and the Black equivalents), but a King on f1 could be mated (in one), then the King may be replaced on f1 (or d1/d8/f8 as the case may be) and duly mated, if it tries to castle. The mate must be carried out on the next move, and must be a mate in one. The Rook stays on h1 (or a1/a8/h8) -- partly because it can't go to f1 with a King there, and partly because the rules ('touch King first when castling') *already* imply that the King-move aspect of 0-0 precedes the Rook move.

It should be easy to construct an applicable situation. Here is a basic one.

click for larger view

The last moves, let's say, were:

1.Qxa8+ Kxa8
2.h3 e3

White now attempts to play 3.0-0, which is legal -- we assume neither the Ke1 nor Rh1 have moved, White is not in check, and e1/f1/g1 are not attacked.

"Hold on" says Black. "By the <King en passant> or 'Kepler' rule, I must insist on halting your attempted castling and asking you to play 3.Kf1. My reply is 3 ... Qf2#"

"No, *you* hold on, buster" says White. "So far, in keeping with the rules, I've only touched my King. Touch-move, fair enough. But I can move it anywhere I like!"

"That's fair", says Black. "Off you go. Pick a legal square for your King."

"Hah! OK, lemme see here. Oh. Ohhh. Okay, there's only one. I play 3.Kd1 ..."

<Loophole>

click for larger view

White, to play, can legally castle -- but decides to keep his King in the centre and goes to play 1.Rf1+ instead. He picks up the Rook, puts it on f1, and lets go.

Case over? Nope. A nanosecond later he sees that he had a much better move. Thinking fast, he grabs his King and places it on g1, as if castling.

"Hold it", says Black. "You clearly moved the Rook first. Kindly replace your King and play a Rook move."

"Sure", says White, returning the King to e1 and playing 1.Rh8#.

They're still preferable, by and large, to some of the alternatives. Such as the familiar <Lights on but nobody home> scenario. Or the rarer <Lights on, somebody home, but they're hiding in a closet and won't answer the bell> ... but I digreffe ...

Much to ponder there ... I can't even start to talk books now, as I have some urgent work to do. I tried quoting Douglas Adams to my editor ("I love deadlines, I love the whooshing sound they make as they go by") but he was not amused.

Heh... I got mixed up with the London stories, a quick check-up just now set me straight. 'The Sea Wolf' is not one of London's dog books actually; 'Jerry of the Islands' is, and 'Michael, Brother of Jerry'.

I'm trying to find 'The Road' but haven't yet. It's included in my Hungarian translation of 'Love of Life & Other Stories', but is not in the English original - mustabeen added as a bonus from somewhere else.

But I just got home - currently the only menu to be considered is called "supper", or better yet, just eaten - why talk to food anyway?

But I believe that a text constructs its readers, usually simply by alienating those who don't get that sort of thing.

To my pleasant surprise here, however, every so often a lurker comes forward who's been getting it all along.

Well, the interesting thing is - and here's where admin experience actually means something informationwise - access to a site's pageload and other hits stats often shows that you may alienate them, but that doesn't necessarily mean you made them go away. As a discussion gets more complex or otherwise "intimidating", hit numbers rarely start falling off. Poster:lurker ratio just rises sharply - from the 1:20 that is more typical of a page where the conversation is on "normal" level - i.e., a page where the <average> visitor should feel fairly comfortable to jump right in and participate - easily up to 1:200 and even higher.

Now, as a former co-admin of mine used to say: "if they don't post, they don't count", but still -

<To my pleasant surprise here, however, every so often a lurker comes forward who's been getting it all along.>

... and they are the ones who make it worthwhile to keep conversations at the not-entirely-too-exclusive level. :)

<Putting them a step ahead of me, for starters.>

Incredible. My sense of 'Alice' was that, by age 18 or so, there were so many contexts in which to encounter it -- the children's tale, the teen mind-expander, the mathemetical games, the druggy references, and so on. Even chess. How could they bypass them all?

- Palace Music, 'New Partner' (1995)

<and only one knew of it.>

Whaaaaat?! I'm very surprised. Lutwidge is seen, Lutwidge is not seen.

<Oy, <mack>! :) If you're about, please acknowledge receipt of instructions WRT email - I'll send you a note once I know you're expecting it, as I don't like corresponding with spam folders.>

I've half a mind to suspect you're just being a gentleman and allowing me to catch my breath...

And I intend to go back and take up some more points currently skipped, but Later - don't know about you, but I *am* exhausted. :)

Heh... you can't lose with that one either way - you're either getting points for chivalry or for similarity. :D

<Mack>! =) The prodigal (but I think in your case this refers to "prodigy") son hath returned! I'll make like a local and welcome you back. ;)

Thanks, also; email will go out tomorrow then if not tonight... hmmm tomorrow is chess club evening - so give it maybe another day's margin, at most.

And <metoo> - surprised, that is; surely Alice can't be forgotten?! What is the world coming to.

Carroll is brilliant... just a leeetle problem there though, I've read his books - but in Hungarian. Many times. Later I did read them in English too, but the terminology didn't always stick. If one talks Alice jargon at me (in English of course) I might even miss it entirely, if I'm not at my most alert. :(

<Dom> there's a point in there somewhere, regarding the use of esoteric jargons as filter for like-minded company. ;)

Oh, and I didn't mean to say I haven't read the classics and other greats of children's literature... by the pejorative term "kid lit" I am merely referring to the brainless action-and-pretty-colors trash written for children on the appalling assumption that a child just wants entertainment, not mental stimulation or, perish the thought, challenge. :s

But I did include adult reading early on in the mixture... and somehow let Peter Pan pass me by; that's what I had to make up for later. :)

The film is beautiful. And it is quite Antonioni-esque, circa Deserto Rosso. You made it well.

I never knew that pics existed of Fischer visiting Tal in hospital. Almost puts it in another light, depending on who the photographer was.

Schumann, then Chopin, then ambient composer Jon Serrie.

You may be pleased to know I've opted for <Wim Mertens> from "Belly of an Architect" for Part One of the film I've made on <Paul Keres>.

It's all part of the new shrine I'm constructing.

Drop by with suggestions or rebuttals if you've a mind to-

As you say, there are three of us there and not one Russian.

But one can't stay muted forever, and it wouldn't be Tal without an occasional eruption.

The magic of mp3 is beyond me. And Niels knows how utterly unreliable anything I say about music is. I thought I heard bits by other Russians, like Rimsky-Korsakov and Tchaikovsky.

Forgot to mention: I enjoyed that one greatly. Perhaps the last word should be 'Farce'?