Talk:Yonin shogi

I don’t really care if the setup table is abbreviated or not, I gave each square a shape that more closely resembles a real shogi board. The squares are actually rectangles arranged vertically, and thus the board is taller than it is wide. What is more important to this article however is that a reader is able to identify what piece is set on what square during the initial setup. (Note: Aspect ratios may vary among real shogi boards – 4/5, 5/7, 7/9, 9/11 etc. I use ≈11.5/13.) The abbreviation of larger shogi variants may not be possible due to the repetition among the kanji used.JTTyler 21:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea then to restore such a ratio. I was just trying to give the English and Japanese versions the same size. As for abbreviations, they are typically used in showing board positions. kwami 22:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro imige is closer to my ideal for the first setup graphic. In fact, it can replace it intierly. I have had truble setting up images in wiki so I used HTML instead. JTTyler 04:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand this paragraph

I'm cutting down the article, but this paragraph I don't understand:

If two or three kings are placed in check simultaneously, and the first player is unable to make a legal move, it removes that player from the game. If the second defending player is unable to make a legal move and/or the third defending player are in mate, then they too are out of the game; that is, it is possible to mate two or three players in a single move.

What's the difference between being placed in check and not having a legal move, and simply being placed in checkmate? kwami 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it relates to this: Player 1 checks player 2 and mates player 3 with a single move. When player 2 moves out of check, this move undoes the checkmate against player 3, either by blocking the attack, opening up a piece to defend the king, or opening up an escape route for the king. Presumably player 3 still loses? kwami 01:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is weakly worded. I think I was attempting to state something I found in a Japanese article with more material than the jp: and have it make sence in English. I have aperently failed at making this clear. I have not played this game agenst an opponent, but because of the many players pieces interfearing with each other, it is possable at some times to “not be able to make a leagle move” even if you are not in check. There are multiple sources stating that two or three mates are possable with the same move. This is such a commen occurance that they even have a name; double mate and triple mate. Another way to win with a triple mate is to simply outmatch unskilled players who make many mistakes and lose, even when they have leagle moves and none are in check, the next move can place all three kings in mate. This may seem very unlikely but there are often large skill gaps between the many seven-year-olds who play this game.

To answer your question: if player 2 is in check and player three is presumably in mate (not in check in previous move), the turn moves clockwise to the first player to defend; player 2. After player 2 moves, player 3’s mate may become a check allowing him to defend. If player 2 is in mate and player 3 is in check, player 2 loses and player 3 must defend. JTTyler 04:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems to contradict what's said elsewhere in the article: i.e. if 3 is in mate, then he loses, regardless of what player 2 does. If your scenario above is accurate, then checkmate is not a loss as the article states; rather only capture of the king is a loss, as in standard shogi. So when does a player lose, immediately upon checkmate, or when his king is killed? kwami 04:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa! Wate a moment. This is not the same as standard shogi. I have had another misunderstanding. In this game, once a player is in mate he’s out with no chance to see if another player’s move will help his position. If player 2 is in check and player 3 is in mate; player three looses first and removes his pieces (minus king) from the board. Player 2 then defends. If player 2 cannot defend, he looses. I think I even read this on a web page and still left it out. I feel bad for overlooking sutch an important rule that separates this game from other variants. ( I started typing this even before you responded. Gomen nasai.) JTTyler 04:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's covered. Another question: in team play, is it acceptable to put your partner in check, or to remain in check by your partner? That is, is what would otherwise be check and mate simply ignored between teammates? That's what the article currently says, but I want to verify. In sannin shogi, for example, the rules are a little different: you're not allowed to remain in check, or to check your partner. (I don't know what happens if there is a revealed checkmate.) kwami 05:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, in yonin shogi teem play, checks and mates between teem members are simply ignored. Some sites might say “you cannot check or mate your partner” but probably mean “you cannot conceder your partner to be in check or mate” as other sites say. Translation into English is not always clear, especaly if an automated translater is used (like Google’s Translate this page). I have not yet found any good recourse for the contrary. If I do I’ll try to mention it. Maybe a little more research will help. JTTyler 06:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

To check or not to check

Hi, I have a question on checks I did not find the answer to in the article: when there are at least three players (A, B, C) still playing, if A’s king is in the path of a piece of B’s after B has moved, and if the move ‘this piece takes A’s king’ would expose B’s king to a piece of C’s, then is A’s king in check?

In other terms, is the definition of ‘B checks A’ simply

• ‘the movement of B’s pieces would allow B to take A’s king if it were B's turn’,

or

• the same, with the additional obligation that the concerned move would not put B’s king in check by C?

The second possibility seems to me much more intricate...

To be yet clearer, let us take an example:

9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1
		tS	tG	tK	tG	tS			a
			tp	tR	tp				b
lS								rS	c
lG	lp						rp	rG	d
lK	...			lR			rR	rK	e
lG	lp						rp	rG	f
lS								rS	g
			bp		bp				h
		bS	bG	bK	bG	bS			i

Here the left player has just captured the bottom player’s rook bR with move 8e×5e, exposing lK to bR. But if the left player played just now 5e×5i, that would expose lK to rR... So, is the bottom player in check?

UseresuUK (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think (2) is more likely, based on chess, and I assume the rule applies to standard shogi as well. Double sharp (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer (I'd have preferred the other one though). If I understand correctly, in the following western chess position, according to you, Black is NOT in check?

a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
bR	bN	bB			bB	bN	bR	8
bP	bP		bK	wP	bP	bP	bP	7
								6
bQ								5
								4
								3
wP	wP	wP	wQ	wP	wP	wP	wP	2
wR	wN	wN		wK	wB	wN	wR	1

Note that I have quickly tested it on a couple of chess applications, and Black was considered in check. My thought would that Black is in check, because the capture of the black king would end the game before Black can capture the white king.

But it is not clear with more than two players, as the capture of a king would not end the game.

UseresuUK (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I need to clarify myself. In standard chess, a pinned piece gives check and the check must be responded to. But the king cannot actually be captured. Now in standard chess the game ends at checkmate, so the capture never needs to be executed and (1) applies. This is possible only because checkmate inevitably leads to the capture of the enemy king (if the game continued till there), so executing the latter is unnecessary. This leads to only minor rule differences, mostly limited to the example you give, which actually adds some subtleties to the game (and is hence good).

However, in chess with > 2 players, capturing one king does not end the game. (I suppose the rule is that a game must end when there is only one king left?) Therefore checkmate cannot be substituted as a game-ending condition: if South checkmates North and checks East and the turns move in an anticlockwise direction, then it may be possible for East to get out of check in such a way that North is no longer checkmated when it comes to his turn. It would not really be fair for North to be declared lost immediately; multiplayer games allow for cooperation, and disallowing that is not good (IMHO). Thus we must take capturing the king as a winning condition in such a game, so (2) applies instead. Using your example with a further condition that A is checkmated (not checked), I would say that A would ignore the check (he doesn't have much else to do), and B could, if she chose, capture A's king, leaving her own king vulnerable to C's pieces, who could then capture her king with his piece, thus resulting in a win for C (in a 3-player game) or a reduced game for C and D only (in a 4-player game). [Alternating genders used for clarity.] The possibility of someone overlooking check and losing may be circumvented by only allowing check to be ignored in cases of checkmate.

This is just my personal logic, and you are of course free to disagree with it. Most variantists do, after all. :-) Double sharp (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I see... Thanks for the answer. Though, in yonin shōgi, the game does not proceed as you wrote. If player A checks both players B and C simultaneously, then both players get a chance to answer (in clockwise order) the check. Let us say B is, between B and C, the next player clockwise from A: if B cannot get out of check (by any player, I assume), then B is checkmated by A and no longer plays (gives the pieces to A, etc.), else B plays, going out of check; and after that only we test again who is in check.

Cooperation still seems possible: if B has several ways of going out of check, it may in some cases be done such that C is no longer in check either. But the player giving check is not the one whose piece threatens, but the last one who played: if B leaves open a path such that A threaten king C, then it is B who gives check, not A. So, if this rule applies in really all cases, that is, the ′checker′ is the last moving player (it is probable that it does not), it might happen that A checks both B and C, B moves out of check leaving C still exposed to A, C is checkmated, then B is said to have checkmated C. It seems a bit odd since B′s move has nothing to do with the check, but it implies B is enticed not to help C go out of check; that could be a good way to avoid cooperation. UseresuUK (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)