[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Legal moves and first-order/second-order rules

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Saturday, 11 June 2016, at 12:34 a.m.

In Response To: Legal moves and first-order/second-order rules (Dorn Bishop)

Dorn Bishop wrote:

But back to you: why do you think it matters?

It wasn't my intent to argue about Rory's ruling specifically.

The reason I think the distinction I'm drawing matters is that I believe that the usual arguments in favor of legal moves are tacitly assuming that "legal" refers to (something like) first-order rules. In my playing circle, which is pretty informal, people instinctively want to enforce the rule that the checker plays should match what the dice display. This instinctive reaction is, I believe, one of the chief reasons that most people instinctively want to support "legal moves."

However, if "legal moves" is supposed to include all the "laws" of the game, including (as Bob Koca mentioned) the prohibition of moving checkers with both hands, then all of a sudden it seems that some kind of bait-and-switch has been pulled. Now I'm supposed to make sure that I enforce not only the "obvious" rules that even inexperienced players would know, but also the more arcane rules governing irregularities. That is, if I fail to stop my opponent from using two hands, then I am myself guilty of a rules infraction, possibly without even realizing it. This doesn't seem to be what most people think they're signing up for when they vote in favor of "legal moves."

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.