Exeter Chess Club: Trawled from the 'Net

From info!strath-cs!nntp0.brunel.ac.uk!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!demon!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!titania!galvin Tue Jan 16 09:42:45 GMT 1996
Article: 6236 of rec.games.chess.misc
Path: info!strath-cs!nntp0.brunel.ac.uk!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!demon!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!caen!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!titania!galvin
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Refusal chess
Message-ID: 
From: Fred Galvin 
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 18:13:51 -0600
References:  <4csaeg$4bu@pelham.cis.uab.edu>  
Nntp-Posting-Host: titania.math.ukans.edu
X-Sender: galvin@titania
In-Reply-To:  
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Lines: 43



On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, Vahl Scott Gordon wrote:

> In article <4csaeg$4bu@pelham.cis.uab.edu>, hyatt@willis.cis.uab.edu
> (Robert Hyatt) wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Vahl Scott Gordon  wrote:
> > -->What I'd enjoy even more is a Refusal Chess tournament.  Anyone ever
> > -->played that variant?  It's where, at each move, you can choose to
> > -->*refuse* your opponents move (they must then play a different move).
> > -->It makes for very complex tactics with lots of hanging pieces and mate
> > -->threats (since you must always have *two* ways out of a check!).
> > -->
> > I've played it, and always heard it called "May I?" chess.  Yes, it's
> > different, since a piece defended only once is  *not* defended.  Also,
> > it is a strategy to play a move you *really* don't think is *the* move,
> > say "may I?" and hope he refuses.
> 
> Hey, I like that name.  There's some brief analysis of the variant in
> C.H.O.D Alexander's book "A Game of Chess".  It caught on for quite a
> while in the Sacramento club.  It's GREAT for speed chess because to refuse
> all you do is hit your clock without playing a move.  Here's a "fools mate":
> 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Qh5 Nc6?? (after trying Nxh5 only to have it refused)
> 4. white now tries Qxf7 mate, which is of course refused, and then plays
> 4. Bxf7... mate! why? because after Ke7 white refuses.
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
I see the rules have changed some since I invented "refusal chess" back 
in 1958. The original idea was that, after all the refusals, we would 
have a legal (but strange) game of orthodox chess, ending with an 
orthodox checkmate. Thus, if a player had only one legal move, he would 
just make that move and the other guy had nothing to say about it. In 
your example, if white can refuse Ke7, then it seems logical that black 
should be able to play Kxf7 and claim that he's not in check because he 
will refuse 5. QxK. But playability is more important than logic, and I 
suppose the rules have evolved to optimize playability. I never played it 
much because I thought it was too damn complicated.

Fred Galvin
Lawrence, Kansas

This document (.html) was last modified on by