This is exactly what I was talking about when we started the B+N vs. K contests. The spirit of putting the theories to practical test is the key issue. We can hurl e-mails at each other 'till the cows come home, and it won't prove anything. We have to test it in the lab. Ed Trice claims to have played the streets in this question of pawns outside the square, and that is precisely the wisdom that is required. We are dealing with a 10x8 board, and it OUGHT to come as no surprise that there may be some differences in play rooted in the fact of two more files on the board.

We are touching on things that could become hot topics of dispute in the chess world very soon, for it seems that people are just now starting to warm up to the idea, that to the greatest intellectual board game ever devised, a viable alternative now exists.

Furthermore, Drueke, and such manufacturers of high quality, tournament size chessboards, ought to wake up to the imminent demand for 10x8 boards, because it won't be forever that serious gothic chess players are willing to make do with roll-ups, or (like me!) post-its on the right and left borders of their walnut and maple solid boards.

--Unless, of course, the War Effort has placed reservations on the supply of seasoned hardwood lumber, in which case we are facing delays, not excluding those caused by War Protestors who impede shipment of materials... /Fx/

Thanks, Felix, for interjecting some humor. I've apologized privately to Ed for the tone of my message since I think I crossed the line of friendly discussion. We are very fortunate that he takes the time to frequent this discussion board (and that he asked Fencer to implement Gothic Chess on this site). It is my hope that anytime I challenge anyone's statements on this board that they understand it is because I find the issue interesting and would like to generate further discussion in an attempt to reach a clearer understanding.

I freely admit that I misinterpreted Ed's statements; however, in my defense, the term "the square" in King and Pawn endings refers to "the square of the Pawn" and is always used in the context of a passed Pawn as a device to check whether the opposing King can catch it in time. Of course, if one wishes to generalize the term's meaning to include King position, there is nothing wrong with that; but it's not the generally accepted meaning (that is, until the majority is enlightened :-) ). Ed has indicated that his playing experience seems to show that misunderstanding of the subleties of chess on a 10x8 board is widespread (or, something like that, I think), so that games are lost more quickly on a 10x8 board (even after the Gothic pieces are exchanged) than most people expected. That's an interesting observation. However, it should be pointed out that King position and opposite-colored Bishop endings are often mis-evaluated in regular chess as well. That is, after a flurry of exchanges in regular chess, one could easily find oneself in a lost King and Pawn endgame because of inferior King position; and, opposite-color Bishop endings are not necessarily draws in regular chess either, particularly when there are Pawns on both sides of the board. Perhaps these considerations are magnified on a 10x8 board. It would certainly be interesting to test these theories.

juangrande: Yes, these are all points to consider, and I am interested in the future developments consequent to testing various hypotheses. It seems as though we are touching on a sort of frontier, though limited it may be, for where else is a man to find uncharted territory anymore?? /Fx/