Specifications for Regulation Tournament Jetan Boards
Quadibloc
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:38:51 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote, in part:
>
> >My memory was right - green and buff for Checkers. Also, the pieces
> >need to be red and *white*, and the squares 2 inches in size, and the
> >pieces from 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 inches in diameter.
>
> >For Chess, the squares can be from 2 inches to 2 1/2 inches; as to the
> >size of the pieces, the guidelines are complicated, (3 3/8" to 4 1/2"
> >height for the King, and a base from 40% to 50% of that height) but
> >one manufacturer recommends the base of the King should be about 75%
> >of the size of the square for a good match.
>
> I have pursued my researches further, and found out what the Federation
> Mondiale du Jeu de Dames has as its tournament standards for
> International Checkers - their standards are, of course, metric - and
> the FIDE standards for chess, which call for somewhat smaller chess
> pieces than the USCF ones, although there is considerable overlap.
>
> The results of my researches are on the bottom of the page at
>
> http://www.quadibloc.com/other/cnv03.htm
Having found that the size of a tournament Chess board is about the
same as that of a traditional Go board, and that the sizes of
tournament Checkers boards are similar, but somewhat smaller, it has
now occurred to me to examine the units of length given by Edgar Rice
Burroughs in his Barsoom novels, so as to be able to specify, in the
Barsoomian system of units, what might be a reasonable size for the
squares of a board for tournament play of the Barsoomian form of
Chess, known as Jetan.
This is now added to the page the URL of which was given above.
John Savard
ttk...@gmail.com
>
> Having found that the size of a tournament Chess board is about the
> same as that of a traditional Go board, and that the sizes of
> tournament Checkers boards are similar, but somewhat smaller, it has
> now occurred to me to examine the units of length given by Edgar Rice
> Burroughs in his Barsoom novels, so as to be able to specify, in the
> Barsoomian system of units, what might be a reasonable size for the
> squares of a board for tournament play of the Barsoomian form of
> Chess, known as Jetan.
It would depend on whether you were going to play in the Manatorian
style, with live pieces that fight to the death to decide the outcome
of a capture move.
I have read all the Barsoom novels, even made a Jetan set when I was
about 16, but I don't recall that Burroughs ever specified any sizes
for Jetan pieces or boards. In the novels, reference is made to
everything from a small handheld travel set (in "Llana of Gathol," as
I recall) to the huge boards, probably at least 100 feet on a side,
used in the arena at Manator ("The Chessmen of Mars"). Burroughs
probably did not care much about such details, and in fact in "The
Chessmen of Mars" he was a bit careless, giving two slightly different
versions of the rules, leaving many rule ambiguities unresolved, and
giving a very unclear account of the one game that is described in any
detail.
A couple of relevant links:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/jetan.txt
http://www.geocities.com/jetantower/
There seems to be a small but active Jetan subculture experimenting
with various versions of the game, as allowed by the ambiguity of
Burroughs' specifications. For example, when Burroughs said that a
piece was to move 3 squares either straight or diagonally, did that
mean exactly three squares, no more, no less? Or 1, 2, or 3 squares as
the player wishes? And may diagonal and orthogonal moves be mixed in
one move, or may one move in one direction only?
Quadibloc
> It would depend on whether you were going to play in the Manatorian
> style, with live pieces that fight to the death to decide the outcome
> of a capture move.
Yes, you *would* need larger squares then, but I left that out of
consideration.
>reference is made to
> everything from a small handheld travel set (in "Llana of Gathol," as
> I recall)
You recall correctly - "it would be a sacrilege to play at Jetan with
the figure of a goddess" or words to that effect.
> in fact in "The
> Chessmen of Mars" he was a bit careless, giving two slightly different
> versions of the rules, leaving many rule ambiguities unresolved,
> There seems to be a small but active Jetan subculture experimenting
> with various versions of the game, as allowed by the ambiguity of
> Burroughs' specifications. For example, when Burroughs said that a
> piece was to move 3 squares either straight or diagonally, did that
> mean exactly three squares, no more, no less? Or 1, 2, or 3 squares as
> the player wishes? And may diagonal and orthogonal moves be mixed in
> one move, or may one move in one direction only?
Just the move of the panthan - "any direction except backwards" -
really? Like the Drunk Elephant in Shogi? Or is diagonally backwards
also not allowed? is confusing enough.
John Savard
ttk...@gmail.com
> On Jun 15, 3:15 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > It would depend on whether you were going to play in the Manatorian
> > style, with live pieces that fight to the death to decide the outcome
> > of a capture move.
>
> Yes, you *would* need larger squares then, but I left that out of
> consideration.
>
> >reference is made to
> > everything from a small handheld travel set (in "Llana of Gathol," as
> > I recall)
>
> You recall correctly - "it would be a sacrilege to play at Jetan with
> the figure of a goddess" or words to that effect.
Ah, I remember that now. The Jetan pieces were carved in the
likenesses of various persons from the court of Helium, John Carter's
granddaughter Llana included. The young soldier with Carter had fallen
in love with her at first sight. Haven't read that book in at least 40
years. Glad to know of another Burroughs reader.
> > in fact in "The
> > Chessmen of Mars" he was a bit careless, giving two slightly different
> > versions of the rules, leaving many rule ambiguities unresolved,
> > There seems to be a small but active Jetan subculture experimenting
> > with various versions of the game, as allowed by the ambiguity of
> > Burroughs' specifications. For example, when Burroughs said that a
> > piece was to move 3 squares either straight or diagonally, did that
> > mean exactly three squares, no more, no less? Or 1, 2, or 3 squares as
> > the player wishes? And may diagonal and orthogonal moves be mixed in
> > one move, or may one move in one direction only?
>
> Just the move of the panthan - "any direction except backwards" -
> really? Like the Drunk Elephant in Shogi? Or is diagonally backwards
> also not allowed? is confusing enough.
Hence the modern distinctions between chained/unchained and wild/
civil Jetan rules.
Fredrik Ekman
> [...] it has
> now occurred to me to examine the units of length given by Edgar Rice
> Burroughs in his Barsoom novels, so as to be able to specify, in the
> Barsoomian system of units, what might be a reasonable size for the
> squares of a board for tournament play of the Barsoomian form of
> Chess, known as Jetan.
I looked up the url you provided. I have not checked your conversions
(I assume that you did your maths correctly), but you quote Burroughs
incorrectly. The unit of measure that should be used here is "sofad,"
not "safad" (which does not exist, as far as I know).
Fredrik
Fredrik Ekman
> Burroughs
> probably did not care much about such details, and in fact in "The
> Chessmen of Mars" he was a bit careless, giving two slightly different
> versions of the rules, leaving many rule ambiguities unresolved, and
> giving a very unclear account of the one game that is described in any
> detail.
If you are interested in an attempt to resolve the ambiguities, then
I humbly recommend my own articles on the subject in ERB-APA #92 and
#94. Back issues are still available. Have a look here if interested:
http://www.geocities.com/erbapa/
> There seems to be a small but active Jetan subculture experimenting
> with various versions of the game, as allowed by the ambiguity of
> Burroughs' specifications.
Correct. On the Internet, this community is centered around the Yahoo!
group Jetan. Find it here:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/jetan/
If you are interested in Jetan, you should certainly consider joining.
We are a nice group, and not very high-volume. The only problem is that
the members have very diverse backgrounds and interests, so when can
just about never come to a consensus. But I guess that just makes the
conversations all the more interesting.
Fredrik
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>I looked up the url you provided. I have not checked your conversions
>(I assume that you did your maths correctly), but you quote Burroughs
>incorrectly. The unit of measure that should be used here is "sofad,"
>not "safad" (which does not exist, as far as I know).
I do mention the sofad - about 11.69 inches. But one web site I've
visited claims that the safad is the "Martian inch", which might even
derive from John Carter and the Giant of Mars, and so I added that as a
unit equal to one-tenth of a sofad. This may not be accurate, it's true.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
John Savard
wrote, in part:
>ttk...@gmail.com writes:
>
>> Burroughs
>> probably did not care much about such details, and in fact in "The
>> Chessmen of Mars" he was a bit careless, giving two slightly different
>> versions of the rules, leaving many rule ambiguities unresolved, and
>> giving a very unclear account of the one game that is described in any
>> detail.
>
>If you are interested in an attempt to resolve the ambiguities, then
>I humbly recommend my own articles on the subject in ERB-APA #92 and
>#94. Back issues are still available. Have a look here if interested:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/erbapa/
Also, it might be noted that the issues involved are cited on
http://www.chessvariants.com/other.dir/jetanrules.html
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
John Savard
(John Savard) wrote, in part:
>On 17 Jun 2008 12:41:46 +0200, Fredrik Ekman <ek...@lysator.liu.se>
>wrote, in part:
>
>>I looked up the url you provided. I have not checked your conversions
>>(I assume that you did your maths correctly), but you quote Burroughs
>>incorrectly. The unit of measure that should be used here is "sofad,"
>>not "safad" (which does not exist, as far as I know).
>
>I do mention the sofad - about 11.69 inches. But one web site I've
>visited claims that the safad is the "Martian inch", which might even
>derive from John Carter and the Giant of Mars,
Actually, the safad is defined as the "Martian inch" in the Martian
Glossary at the end of Thuvia, Maid of Mars.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
Fredrik Ekman
> Actually, the safad is defined as the "Martian inch" in the Martian
> Glossary at the end of Thuvia, Maid of Mars.
Oh, so that was your source. Actually, that glossary is so full of errors
that it is just a Martian inch short of being ridiculous. You will notice
that there is no "sofad" in the dictionary, even though sofad has been
mentioned previously in the series, while safad has not (and is not in
the rest of the series, either). My guess is that "safad" is just a typo
for "sofad", just as "od" in the same glossary must be a typo for "ad".
Several similar errors in the glossary beg the assumption that some
typist could not read Burroughs' handwritten notes.
In a later book (Llana of Gathol, IIRC), Burroughs mentions that one
tenth of the sofad is one sof. So there is your Martian inch proper.
Fredrik
Fredrik Ekman
> >http://www.geocities.com/erbapa/
>
> Also, it might be noted that the issues involved are cited on
>
> http://www.chessvariants.com/other.dir/jetanrules.html
Huh? Did I miss something here? That page is by Larry Smith, and is
an edited version of his excellent web site. Nowhere does he appear
to cite my articles from ERB-APA #92 and #94, although I cite him
extensively. My articles complement Smith's site. I do what he chose
not to, namely try to establish just what Burroughs actually meant.
In #94 I suggest an edited and clarified set of rules for jetan.
Fredrik
Quadibloc
> jsav...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) writes:
> > Also, it might be noted that the issues involved are cited on
>
> >http://www.chessvariants.com/other.dir/jetanrules.html
>
> Huh? Did I miss something here?
No; I didn't claim that his web pages did what your articles did,
merely that they discussed the issues for those who might not know
about them.
Some of the people reading this thread will only have a casual
interest in the matter, and will not be prepared to order printed
copies of issues 92 and 94 of the publication in question, the
_covers_ of which are displayed on the web site you linked to.
For myself, I admit to being strongly tempted, but first I'm going to
dig out my copy of "The Chessmen of Mars" and see if there _is_ any
evidence present that might help in such a quest. I'm suspicious that
even the strict and chained rules give the pieces so much freedom of
movement as to make the game unplayable.
In at least one case, though, I agree that what you've done is
plausible. When it comes to the Panthan, while I would be inclined to
eliminate the diagonal backwards moves, I now realize that doing so
would assume an oversight on the part of ERB, while including them is
consistent with accepting that he meant what he said. Perhaps
elsewhere in Chessmen is information that would allow the remaining
ambiguities to be addressed as well.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> For myself, I admit to being strongly tempted, but first I'm going to
> dig out my copy of "The Chessmen of Mars" and see if there _is_ any
> evidence present that might help in such a quest.
Upon returning to the site, I see that I had better not take too long
in doing so. Back issues may still be available, as you've said, but
if so, there are at most 11 of them in existence.
John Savard
ttk...@gmail.com
It's been decades since I read much ERB, but as I recall,
inconsistency was not uncommon in the Barsoom series. IIRC, the
aforementioned glossary named the dead city of Aaanthor as the Martian
equivalent of Greenwich, i.e. zero longitude, but in another novel
some place named Exum was so described. The Martian rat, the ulsio,
was described as 6- or 8-legged (don't remember which) in the first 8
or 10 novels, then in the dreadful 11th novel it was suddenly 3-
legged. Burroughs was not nearly so conscientious as, say, Tolkien in
ensuring consistency in his imaginary worlds.
As far as the panthan's move is concerned, I would think a backwards
diagonal move was not to be allowed. The panthan could move sideways
or forward, but never back either diagonally or orthogonally. This
means of course that a panthan on the 10th rank can only shuffle back
and forth; no promotion is envisaged. Another thing ERB probably did
not spend much thought on. He was, after all, an imaginative hack just
churning out pulp for profit, not a serious artist.
Quadibloc
Ah! I am somewhat surprised, though; given karad, haad, ad, and sofad,
one would have expected that sof- is a prefix meaning "one-hundredth",
and so safad sounds more reasonable. As it happens, in the text of
Thuvia, Maid of Mars, the sofad is referred to as 1.17 inches instead
of 11.69 inches... so having "sofad" as a typo for "safad" would have
made wonderful sense.
Still, something _explicitly_ mentioned - that a tenth of a sofad is a
sof - does have to take precedence over speculation.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> then in the dreadful 11th novel it was suddenly 3-
> legged.
Since the dreadful 11th novel was adapted from a Big Little Book by
one of Burroughs' sons, that can't be taken as evidence of
inconsistency by Burroughs - although, yes, even in the good novels,
sadly, there was plenty of inconsistency too.
John Savard
ttk...@gmail.com
> On Jun 17, 4:34 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > then in the dreadful 11th novel it was suddenly 3-
> > legged.
>
> Since the dreadful 11th novel was adapted from a Big Little Book by
> one of Burroughs' sons,
Ah, I did not know that. The paperback edition I bought back around
1970 clearly assigned authorship to ERB, though in an intro it did
mention some questions about that.
> that can't be taken as evidence of
> inconsistency by Burroughs - although, yes, even in the good novels,
> sadly, there was plenty of inconsistency too.
He needed Ghek the Kaldane for an editor.
Fredrik Ekman
> It's been decades since I read much ERB, but as I recall,
> inconsistency was not uncommon in the Barsoom series.
That is certainly correct, although in some cases ERB was more consistent
than you would expect (considering his many slip-ups, that is). He did
keep copious notes on many things, and words and names is one subject
where he can _mostly_ be trusted to be consistent. (Exact numeral
reference and measurement is one where he _cannot_.)
> IIRC, the
> aforementioned glossary named the dead city of Aaanthor as the Martian
> equivalent of Greenwich, i.e. zero longitude, but in another novel
> some place named Exum was so described.
Again, the glossary is just a tangled mess, full of errors and
inconsistencies. It cannot be used as any kind of useful reference.
> The Martian rat, the ulsio,
> was described as 6- or 8-legged (don't remember which) in the first 8
> or 10 novels, then in the dreadful 11th novel it was suddenly 3-
> legged.
As someone else pointed out, the three-legged variant was made up by
John Coleman Burroughs, ERB's son. This has recently been confirmed in
an issue of Burroughs Bulletin.
> As far as the panthan's move is concerned, I would think a backwards
> diagonal move was not to be allowed. The panthan could move sideways
> or forward, but never back either diagonally or orthogonally.
I agree with this conclusion.
> This
> means of course that a panthan on the 10th rank can only shuffle back
> and forth; no promotion is envisaged.
Correct, but this is not nearly as much of a problem as most critics of
jetan like to claim. To begin with, the jetan panthan will have to spend
at least eight moves to reach the final rank, whereas the chess pawn
can do so in five. Also, the panthan can prolong his journey by
side-stepping along the way. Either way, the bottom line is that the
panthan will take a different, more defensive, role than the pawn. Since
there is no promotion, there is no reason to race across the board and
there will be no horde of panthans "shuffling back and forth" along the
final rank.
Fredrik
Fredrik Ekman
> Ah! I am somewhat surprised, though; given karad, haad, ad, and sofad,
> one would have expected that sof- is a prefix meaning "one-hundredth",
> and so safad sounds more reasonable.
You do mean "one-tenth", right? As it happens, I have been toying with
the same idea, but I have been forced to conclude otherwise.
> Still, something _explicitly_ mentioned - that a tenth of a sofad is a
> sof - does have to take precedence over speculation.
There is no such explicit comparison of one sof with one sofad, but
there is explicit reference to the sof compared with the inch. The
following is from Chapter 12 of Swords of Mars (not Llana, as I
incorrectly thought).
"if there were human beings on Thuria [...] they would be but about
nine-and-a-half inches tall"
and later
"an inhabitant of Thuria, [...] would be about eight sofs tall"
In other words, 8 sofs approximate 9.5 inches, so 1 sof is about 1.2
inches. This is reasonably consisten with the quote you mention from
Thuvia, saying that 1 sofad is 1.17 inches. So "sofad" in that quote
must be a typo meaning "sof".
Fredrik
Fredrik Ekman
> For myself, I admit to being strongly tempted, but first I'm going to
> dig out my copy of "The Chessmen of Mars" and see if there _is_ any
> evidence present that might help in such a quest. I'm suspicious that
> even the strict and chained rules give the pieces so much freedom of
> movement as to make the game unplayable.
Actually, that is not the case. Only the Chief and Princess are
extremely powerful in terms of freedom of movement, and they are each
restricted by other rules. Compared with chess, most jetan pieces have
much less freedom of movement than, say, a Rook.
> In at least one case, though, I agree that what you've done is
> plausible.
The Panthan is actually the piece that I found was hardest to figure
out what ERB intended. In most cases, some careful reading of the
rules and of the game described in Chapter 17 of the book leaves
only one remaining possibility.
Fredrik
Fredrik Ekman
> Upon returning to the site, I see that I had better not take too long
> in doing so. Back issues may still be available, as you've said, but
> if so, there are at most 11 of them in existence.
While that is technically correct, back issues tend to be sold off at a
slow rate. I happen to know that a few weeks ago, copies were available
of all issues from #87 on (although only a single copy in some cases).
The extremely low circulation (55 copies for each issue) together with
the copious content (typically around 200 pages) combine to make the
asking price of $25 worth considering, IMO.
Not everything in any given ERB-APA is good, of course, but if you
happen to enjoy ERB, there are always a number of really good articles
in each issue. One fellow member was kind enough to call my article in
#92 "the definite jetan article", an epithet I certainly hope will be
proven false by someone else in the future.
Fredrik
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
> While that is technically correct, back issues tend to be sold off at a
> slow rate. I happen to know that a few weeks ago, copies were available
> of all issues from #87 on (although only a single copy in some cases).
> The extremely low circulation (55 copies for each issue) together with
> the copious content (typically around 200 pages) combine to make the
> asking price of $25 worth considering, IMO.
I'm not complaining about the price - as such, but Internet users do
tend to be expecting, when given a link, to find the information there
immediately.
> One fellow member was kind enough to call my article in
> #92 "the definite jetan article", an epithet I certainly hope will be
> proven false by someone else in the future.
I could desire that as well, but the limited activity on
alt.fantasy.er-burroughs (that ERB-APA is small might concievably just
be its own "fault" instead of indicating the same thing) tells me that
interest in the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs appears to have subsided
from its past levels to an extent making hope unrealistic in this
area. This is a pity, and it is also surprising, so it may be that the
appearance is misleading.
John Savard
ttk...@gmail.com
> the limited activity on
> alt.fantasy.er-burroughs (that ERB-APA is small might concievably just
> be its own "fault" instead of indicating the same thing) tells me that
> interest in the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs appears to have subsided
> from its past levels to an extent making hope unrealistic in this
> area. This is a pity, and it is also surprising, so it may be that the
> appearance is misleading.
I don't find it at all surprising that interest in Burroughs' works
would be subsiding. Scientific knowledge has advanced considerably
since his time, and his notions of conditions on Mars, Venus, the Moon
and inside the Earth are now known to be totally erroneous, even
ludicrous. His writing style is a sort of stilted, heavy Victorianese.
His plots are contrived and implausible, his characters wooden. The
occasional racism his work shows is offensive to today's readers.
When I first discovered Burrough's Barsoom novels, as a teenager
back in the 1960s, his notions about Mars still seemed at least
minimally plausible, and I was insensitive to or willing to overlook
all the other shortcomings. I avidly read all of them, plus the
Pellucidar, Venus, Moon and Land that Time Forgot series, and
miscellaneous others (Beyond 30, The Mad King, etc.) But picking up my
favorite of them all, The Warlord of Mars, 30 years later, I found it
almost unreadable.
I would imagine that many of the baby boomers who powered ERB's
1960s comeback came to feel the same way, and for later generations,
technological advances made ERB's sci-fi seem downright quaint and
irrelevant.
Taylor Kingston
Quadibloc
> I don't find it at all surprising that interest in Burroughs' works
> would be subsiding.
I don't really find it surprising, for the reasons you mention, that
it is lower than it once was.
That it has reached such a low level as it appears to have done,
however, is surprising to me simply because there doesn't seem to be
anyone who has supplanted him in the particular category of escapist
fiction which he dominates, and which would likely be popular.
Of course plenty of other people write fiction for entertainment.
There are authors like David Weber and John Ringo. There are the many
writers who are following in the path so gloriously blazed by J. R. R.
Tolkien. H. P. Lovecraft has a devoted following.
But the type of fantasy Burroughs produced belongs to a different
category, I would think. With H. Rider Haggard at one end, and Lin
Carter at the other, he still doesn't appear to have been displaced.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> In other words, 8 sofs approximate 9.5 inches, so 1 sof is about 1.2
> inches. This is reasonably consisten with the quote you mention from
> Thuvia, saying that 1 sofad is 1.17 inches. So "sofad" in that quote
> must be a typo meaning "sof".
That makes sense - except, of course, that the glossary in Thuvia says
that a safad is the Martian inch, and a _typo_ of sofad for safad
makes more sense than one of sofad for sof.
However, Thuvia had _real_ mistakes, not just typos, since it was the
book in which the size of the haad was doubled. So I still have to
admit that sof is more strongly confirmed in the canon; probably in
this book, safad was the typo for sofad - and Burroughs made the sofad
a tenth as long, as well as making the haad twice as long, just for
that book.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> If you are interested in an attempt to resolve the ambiguities,
Although Burroughs didn't give the full details of the very short game
featured in The Chessmen of Mars, I do now see how it resolves some
ambiguities.
The fact that the two Chiefs are four spaces apart, the Panthan to one
side has been advanced one space, just before that Panthan is ordered
to battle Gahan to spare U-Dor a fight, and U-Dor has no escape, means
that the square one space diagonally away from the Chief's original
square, and a Knight's move away from Gahan, cannot be accessible to U-
Dor but not Gahan.
That eliminates the "Free Chief". If there was no reason to think that
the Panthan in front of U-Dor has moved away, we couldn't eliminate
the "Chained Civil Chief" by a similar argument. But, in fact, we know
this must have happened, because the Chief, unlike the Princess,
cannot jump over intervening pieces.
Also, the description of the Chief's move in the description of the
game, however, seems to eliminate any possibilities except the Chained
Wild Chief and the Free Wild Chief, because it is emphasized there
that "any combination of directions" is allowed.
We have an account, as well, of several Flier (or Odwar) moves.
The first one, three squares diagonally in a straight line doesn't
settle any arguments, although it demonstrates jumping over
intervening pieces. The same is true of the second move - but since
that move threatens the Princess, not three spaces diagonally away in
a straight line, we know that the piece can change direction during
the move.
But we are told that the move of Black's Chief's Odwar was the *only*
possible move that would capture the Orange Odwar, despite the advance
of the Chief's Panthan. A move of three squares, one orthogonal, and
two diagonal, by the Chief should also have brought him to the square
of the attacking Odwar!
So, instead of settling matters, it seems the game hopelessly
contradicts itself!
John Savard
Fredrik Ekman
> So, instead of settling matters, it seems the game hopelessly
> contradicts itself!
I have not set up the board to see to what extent your analysis
matches mine, but even without that, I can see that you are on
the right track. I am guessing that what you are missing out
(just as I missed it myself at first) is that the board in the
Chapter 17 game is not set up according to Burroughs' own
appendix rules. The difference is that the Chief and Princess
are set up mirrored, just like in chess. As soon as I tried that,
everything else fell in place.
Fredrik
Quadibloc
> The difference is that the Chief and Princess
> are set up mirrored, just like in chess. As soon as I tried that,
> everything else fell in place.
Ah. I did assume that, unintentionally, when thinking of the attack by
the Black Chief on the Orange Chief - but I did not then allow for
that when following the Orange Odwar.
John Savard
Quadibloc
The very first sentence of the description of the game, I now find, in
turning back to it, indeed forces the conclusion that the symmetry of
the Earth chessboard was used!
John Savard
Quadibloc
> But we are told that the move of Black's Chief's Odwar was the *only*
> possible move that would capture the Orange Odwar, despite the advance
> of the Chief's Panthan.
The Chief's Panthan *didn't* advance, it was the Chief's Odwar's
Panthan, so the distance would have been four squares, not three. That
was my mistake!
John Savard