Talk:Tenjiku shogi

Repetition rule

Hi JT,

The article said, "It can return to the square it started from after its first move, allowing the player to “skip” a turn. This cannot be done on two consecutive turns without a capture." Adams' booklet says,

Repetition is not allowed. If a move would yield a whole board position that has already occured in the game (with the same player to move), then that move is not allowed.

However, neither of these phrasings make sense. The first, because it's not possible to skip a turn twice in a row with a capture, and the latter because this would prohibit skipping a move at all.

I'm going to say that you can't make a move that would return the board to a previous position with the same player to move. This is not stated in any source that I know of, but is the closest I can get to making sense of this. Please correct if I'm wrong. kwami 08:47, 2005 September 6 (UTC)

I took it to mean "If skipping is allowed, it can’t be done on 2 consecutive turns." Ignore the “capture” part as I thought it to be the best (only) way not to repeat a board position. Steve Evans (who gets a lot of his rules from George Hodges) and C.P. Adams both say that skipping is posable. Adams says it is so your opponent cannot put you in Zugzwang, but does not say you have to be in zugzuang to make a skipping move. In Go, I belive zugzuang is called "seki", maybe it is seki in shogi as well. --JTTyler 23:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I get it. It doesn't mean repetition of a move, it means repetition of a board position. If you skip, and then I skip, I return the board to you exactly as it was for your previous move. Therefore the 'no consecutive skips' is a subcategory of the 'no repeated board positions' rule. Like ko in Go. "Consecutive" mean both players, not consecutive turns for just one of the players. Does this sound right to you? How about this:

If a move would yield a whole board position that has already occured in the game, with the same player to move, then that move is not allowed. This is similar to the ko rule in Go. As a consequence, if one player skips a turn, the other player cannot skip a turn immediately after.

kwami 01:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the “repetition of a board position” idea, however, I’m racking my brain trying to find another good reference for this, even in Japanese. Perhaps more to come later. --JTTyler 22:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I never mentioned repeating a move - just the position.

It is just like ko in Go. You won't find any references to this rule - it's an interpretation. [Colin Adams]

[I just moved this paragraph down into its own.] Okay, the same position, with the same person to play - if you skip, you return the board as it was after your opponent moved, not as it was as he was about to move. But if he skips as well, then he's returning the board to you as it was before your last move, which is not allowed. So one player can skip as many times in a row as he likes, but his opponent is then obliged to move. kwami 06:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope I didn't skip too much reading of this discussion. I, for one, think it makes more sense to have a rule slightly similar to Go, under the Japanese rules. (Not the Chinese rules, because of the superko rule, and because chu shogi is not Go.) That is, I'd rather that two consecutive "passing" moves be disallowed, and other than that, repetition (e.g. threefold) is allowed but results in a draw. That way, you get no artificial wins, where bare king loses to bare king—or king and tokin, or king and leopard—due to repetition. (But then, I didn't write the rules—but maybe someone could rewrite them?) OneWeirdDude (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I want to add my two cents to this discussion, even though I am happy with what is now stated in the article. It seems that the 'ancients' were mostly thinking in term of move sequences rather than game states (= board position + side to move). Pragmatic as they were they probably only worried about simple back-and-forth moving of the same piece of each player, as almost all repetitions occurring in practice are of this type. Not allowing repetition of move sequences puts the opposite player at fault, however. The move that first repeats a position is usually the last move of the first occurrence of the sequence. So the rule then would be that you can repeat positions, but are not allowed to make the same move as on any previous time you visited that position. Unless the historic descriptions of Tenjiku explicitly state the contrary, the rules should default to those of Chu Shogi, which was the dominant form of Shogi in those days. But even for Chu Shogi the historic repetition rules are unclear. The Japanese Chu-Shogi renmei has adopted a modern rule, which is much more refined than a simple ban on repeating positions. (Although that remains the basic rule.) They make an exception for 'absolutely non-aggressive moves', i.e. moves that create no new attacks on anything; a player playing only those will never be ruled to lose. And checking is considered a worse aggression than attacking other pieces. This rules out that you can win by perpetual checking or chasing, and declares draw on completely voluntary repetitions. And there is an explicit rule on consecutive turn passing, which specifies the player passing first must change his move. This is the reverse of what you would conclude otherwise, and means in practice that you cannot use a turn pass to dodge zugzwang when the opponent has the possibility to pass too. This is more in line with a ban on repeating move sequences. There is some indication that perpetual checking has always been forbidden: in some of the historic mating problems it is trivially possible to force the opponent to repeat first by perpetual checking very early on, while an actual checkmate lies very deep (and by the criterion that the problem should not contain any redundant pieces obviously is the intended solution). The (primitive) ban on chasing is probably a recent contamination by Xiangqi. H.G.Muller (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Edo-era sources

J-wiki quotes some of the Edo-era sources.

For the free eagle, they quote,

『象戯図式』『諸象戯図式』では、

「奔王の動きに加えて、猫刄の動き（斜め四方向に1マス動く）を2度できる」

と読み取れる表現があり、全方向に何マスでも動け、2マス先には他の駒を飛び越えられるという解釈が考えられる。

That is, it has the power of a free king or a double cat-sword move (one square diagonally), but that they interpret this to mean you can jump a piece. Either way, we'd get the double move or jump along the diagonals, not the orthogs as we have it. kwami (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait. Another quote: 如奔王亦猫刄再度歩兼二行. I can't read this Sino-Japanese stuff, but it looks like it's saying the two step moves have to be in different directions, which means you'd end up on an orthogonal. Can someone verify? kwami (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For me the important question is whether this 'double Cat-Sword move' would imply Lion powers. So it would be important to know how this description compares to the wording of the description of the Lion move, from the same documents. Note that 'in two directions' could also mean 'back and forth' (so that this is a sort of Soaring Eagle sting), and that the claim that it can move in two orthogonal directions is not the same as that it must move in two directions. The phrase could just have meant 'can change direction between the steps'. From the perspective of the game, the ability to jump to the second square on the orthogonal seems almost completely useless on a piece as valuable as the Free King, in a game that is crammed with lower-valued pieces that could capture their neighbor, (if they don't simply annihilate it by igui or burn it...). So merely acquiring the Betza D move does not strike me as a sensible promotion. Having a ranging move plus a Soaring-Eagle sting along all 4 diagonals seems a much more reasonable promotion, and would also explain the name 'Free Eagle'. 83.163.204.254 (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Our article on tenjiku shogi states: "Based on descriptions of the lion having a double king move, it is thought that the double cat-sword move includes jumping a piece." So I would suppose that the sources also describe the lion as having a double king move, just as they describe the free eagle as having a double cat-sword (ferz) move. But I have not seen the relevant parts of the Edo-era sources. Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. While the proposed move for the Free Eagle (QdFDA in the article's ad hoc Betza notation extension) does extend the sting of the Soaring Eagle to all 4 diagonals, there is no such symmetry between the moves of the Lion Hawk and Horned Falcon (which actually share the same second kanji, 鷹, here read ō). Double sharp (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, you have a point there. Since you bring up symmetry: the designs of these large games seem to prefer 'playful symmetry', where some exchange other than left and right takes place (like swapping diagonal with orthogonal moves, or forward and backward), sometimes in combination. (Like CP symmetry in particle physics.) The Kirin is the conjugate to the Phoenix, as it were, and these two then occur as partners in the left-right mirrored board locations. A Lion in promotion gains the moves of Free King, but not all of them, just the diagonal moves. A quirky-symmetry analog would then be to let the Free King acquire the moves of the Lion, but not all of them, just the diagonal part (so F steps in stead of K steps). Note that QD would almost certainly have been described as 'moves as FK or Ky'. Unlike what some rationalizations claim, the D-jump was very well known to these ancient authors from the ubiquitous Kirin, so there was no reason to describe it cumbersomely as 'two CS moves in two (orthogonal) directions'. So whatever the latter can have meant, it is almost inconceivable that it could have meant D. H.G.Muller (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I attempted to rationalize the double-CS-move-as-D TSA interpretation below, but I forgot that the Kylin's ferz move is contained within the free king's move, making the obvious way to express QD "FK + Ky", as you say. So I agree with you that the QD interpretation is almost out of the question.

Incidentally, Colin Adams' book on tenjiku shogi has an interesting diagram for the free eagle: it shows unlimited range in all four orthogonal and all four diagonal directions (Q, solid arrows), a limited range move of up to two diagonal steps (B2, open circles), and four jumps to the orthogonals (D, crosses). I theorize therefore the double-CS-move was interpreted by the TSA as being an area move, so that you could have a doublemove ferz as a component, but the move had to stop once you captured, resulting in either redundant duplications of the free king's move (the B2 part) or the dabbaba jump (D). If this theory is correct, then you would not be able to jump over diagonally adjacent pieces, but you would be able to jump over orthogonally adjacent pieces. Our article suggests this by quoting the Japanese Wikipedia: it writes on its article for the free eagle 斜めの場合は飛び越えては行けないが、縦横の場合は駒を飛び越えて行ける "it cannot jump on the diagonals, but can jump pieces on the orthogonals.", which is exactly what I would expect for a ferz area mover (in the ad hoc Betza notation extension used here, QddF). Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, a Ferz area move would not exactly jump to the D-squares, but would still be blockable by blocking both paths. So it would be even less powerful than a D-jump. It is just hard for me to imagine that a designer would even bother to add such a weak extra move even if it were simple. He could have chosen anything, and you would expect him to either decide the piece would not need to promote at all, or choose a straightforward and significant benefit. So I think it is more likely to be Lion power (which then would include AD jumps) than area move. The area moves puzzle me anyway. They seem unique to Tenjiku, and only used on two pieces there. Now Tenjiku of course has more unique aspects, but if the area move was considered a worthwile asset to liven up the game, why add it to the Fire Demon, which even without it would already be immensely more powerful than any other piece? Could it be that a move like this was born out of need, to repair some fatal defect in the game when the Fire Demon would not have it, which could not be solved by giving it a more conventional move? In my interpretation of the jump-capturing rules a game could start with RG x RG, (which would then burn), with the plan to then attack the Demon with a GG on the next move from the now unprotected direction. I am not sure if there would be any irrefutible tactics here that could catch the trapped Demon, but with the area move gote could simply advance a Pawn in front of the now-captured RG, providing an escape through the area move, making this whole plan futile. Anyway, a Ferz area-move ddF does not strike me as a natural idea for another novelty to add to a game you are designing. One might of course say the same about the Ferz-like Lion power dF, were it not that this could be quasi-symmetry inspired, by the wish to add a Lion-like move (but not a full Lion) to the FK. H.G.Muller (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, next to the sentence I quoted, Japanese Wikipedia gives a diagram showing a range jump on the orthogonals (corresponding to them saying that pieces on the orthogonals can be jumped over) and an unlimited ranging move on the diagonals (corresponding to them saying that pieces on the diagonals constitute obstacles), but this is very weird because the free eagle is not in their list of range-jumping pieces, which follows our hierarchy (royals, great general, vice general, bishop and rook generals, everything else). I think this has to be discounted as a mistake, in which case I'm not exactly certain whether their jumping-diagonal interpretation is also a mistake. Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this sounds like a mistake. It could be a mis-interpretation of the description of a ddF area move: a D move that cannot be blocked on the W squares (orthogonals), but can be blocked on the F squares (diagonals). H.G.Muller (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed: that seems very plausible. Double sharp (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

For the tetrarch, they quote,

『諸象戯図式』では

「如車兵亦近八方不行其外周二三要用歩」

となっており、隣接したマスには移動できないものの、前後と斜めは（2マス以上）何マスでも動け、左右は2～3マス移動できると解釈できる。

This means it can range along the file as well. kwami (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For the range-jumping generals, J-wiki says 自分よりも格の低い駒ならばいくつでも飛び越えて、その飛び越えた駒の味方の駒も含めて全てを取ることが出来る, which I read as "can jump over any number of lower-ranked pieces; it can capture all of them, including friendly pieces". I've never seen that this was a capturing jump elsewhere, and it makes no sense to take your own pieces, unless this is a way to prevent the generals from becoming too powerful. Can anyone verify? kwami (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know, I see the some strangeness coming form zh-wiki. Free Eagle example http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A5%94%E9%B7%B2 but I cant read it well enough to verify or deny anything. (They also show a game won in 38 moves, I don't think the game is normally that quick.) JTTyler 19 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.178.227 (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree: this seems very odd. Our taikyoku shogi page states that it is indeed this way in taikyoku shogi, though: all the pieces flown over are captured. The "all" is unqualified, so presumably both friendly and enemy pieces are taken. In taikyoku shogi all the range jumpers from tenjiku appear, along with several other new ones: but besides the modification stated above, the taikyoku vice general is simply the bishop general augmented with a dabbaba jump. Then again, the rules for taikyoku often do not agree with the moves for the same piece in the smaller variants, so whether this is useful evidence or not is very questionable. Double sharp (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect abbreviations?

Why is 炮 given as the abbreviation for the Rook General, and 砲 for the Bishop General? I've tried checking the ja.wiki pages for these pieces, and for the Bishop General "砲" is not anywhere on the page (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A7%92%E5%B0%86), and for the Rook General "炮" only occurs in the Taikyoku chart at the bottom of the page (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A3%9B%E9%B7%B2). - TKR101010 (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As one might guess, they aren't really called by those names. For some reason that I've never been able to quite grasp, there seems to be an inclination to adopt Western chess piece names/appearances to Far Eastern chess pieces that look and move differently, and already have their own names. I expect that it's a misguided endeavour to make the Far Eastern games seem less foreign to those already familiar with Western chess; unfortunately, as the Far Eastern pieces in question nearly always look differently, move differently, and are called by different names, it's always struck me that this was more likely to create unnecessary confusion than simply calling the pieces what they actually are would. I could be wrong. Heather (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really; the rook general and rook's Japanese names have one kanji in common, as to the bishop general and bishop's. And they move largely the same way. The provenance of the abbreviations 炮 and 砲 are more dubious: these characters are for the cannons of xiangqi. I suppose it's to eliminate the problem of conflicting abbreviations. These single-character abbreviations seem largely to come from Steve Evans' Shogi Variants program; does it use 炮 and 砲? Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

...nope, it uses the full names (squished into one-character height). Yet here it's hard to do this squishing (CSS should probably work though), so I suppose that's the reason for the original abbreviations. Double sharp (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was the reason, a way to fit them in a single cell. We do create our own abbreviations sometimes, when they are needed. A footnote to that effect would be appropriate. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Expansion

Some opening theory developed by Colin Adams would be a good supplement, particularly the critical lines to the defences against 1.P-8k and 1.P-9k. (Hopes against hope that White can defend the resulting attack; this game is so nice and I would rather not spoil symmetry by restricting Black's first move if it can be helped.) Double sharp (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

...except that these mostly follow the Western rule interpretations, so they'd have to be under a specific section. Double sharp (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if @H.G.Muller: could finish programming tenjiku for HaChu in the near future so that one could find out how the game really works with the reconstructed original rules?

(I have to say that. I've compared what the TSA did to that of a typical 19th-century editor of earlier classical music; their love of changes for the sake of uniformity remind me of what Rimsky-Korsakov did to the works of Musorgsky; but even in that case, he did not suppress the originals and claim they were unauthentic when they were reconstructed. He recognised that should the audience want the original, it was still there for the having. And just like those revisions have been mostly discarded, I think all the TSA "authentic" rules ought to be swept into the dustbin once somebody properly and honestly examines the original historical documents.)

I'd group the historical shogi variants into three classes: (1) the small trio: chu, dai, and tenjiku; (2) the large trio: dai-dai, maka-dai-dai, and tai; and (3) the oddballs: tori, wa, ko, and taikyoku. It appears that most opinion is centered around the small trio, and since chu is an improved dai, mostly around chu and tenjiku. I think there isn't enough experience with the large trio yet, which is rather a shame. Hopefully this will change soon. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversies over piece moves

All references to the Shōgi zushiki are in Peter Banaschak's English translation (I don't have this in full, but excerpts of it are found in Colin Adams' book on tenjiku shogi).

First, a hopefully uncontroversial correction that I will make: the lion is stated to have a triple king move under the free eagle entry. I don't see how this works: the lion could be reasonably described as having a double king move (though that's still an incomplete description), however. Under Japanese Wikipedia rules, the lion dog from dai-dai shogi (and under the variant Western rule, the teaching king from maka-dai-dai shogi) could be said to have a triple king move. Hence I will change this in the article.

 Done Double sharp (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure that the QdFDA move should be called the move according to Edo-era sources; one of them appears to state that the cat-sword (ferz) moves are in two directions, so that only the dabbaba moves are allowed. Since the large shogi variants have no dabbabas, just wazirs (angry boars) and ferzes (cat swords), it's not inconcievable that this was a circumlocutious way to mean dabbaba moves. At the very least it should be marked as disputed.

Actually, it occurs to me that a much easier way to express the dabbaba move is "jumps to the second square orthogonally". So this is not really likely. Although since Japanese Wikipedia says that it can be blocked on the diagonals, perhaps the doublemove does not include a jump! Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the article, Sho Shōgi Zushiki contradicts itself on whether the ferz moves must be in two different directions: the Shōgi Zushiki never implies this. Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A further point (raised by H.G.Muller above) is that the D jump is very well known through the kirin. Since the F move is contained within the Q move, QD could be expressed simply as "moves as Free King or Kylin". This, to me, is a very strong argument that the TSA move (QD) cannot be correct. Double sharp (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

On the lion hawk controversy (BKNADdK or BddK), well I think "like a lion" is unambiguously clear, and that Colin Adams' interpretation is correct. If I say a chess piece moves "like a knight", well do I mean like the chess knight or the xiangqi mao? (Because I never said if it could jump.) Pretty obviously I meant the former, right? That's my logic here.

I'm also curious about why the orthogonal range move is absent from the heavenly tetrarchs in Western sources, as the Shōgi zushiki seem to indicate that the chariot soldier keeps all its movement powers upon promotion. All the pieces seem to promote (objectively, unlike the horribly demoting hook mover → gold general in tai shogi!); except the chariot soldier, whose promotion has to be thought about, though it probably is beneficial almost all of the time. (Igui is very powerful because recapture is almost always impossible!) I think the GCSA values undervalue the tetrarchs too much. Time to do some piece-value testing with handicaps ranging from Tetrarchs to Four Tetrarchs, by variously promoting one to four of Black's chariot soldiers (do it for each possible combination of them, and in the worst-case scenario put them into bad positions in the opening setup, just in case one position results in an instantwin...)

I wonder if the chariot soldier's inability to move to the square right next to it is a disadvantage? If so, is it really significant? (It has capturing power there, but it can't move there. But this should be mitigated as it cannot be blocked in that direction, right? Which is worth more, going to the 2nd and 3rd squares or the 1st and 2nd squares along a ray?) I'll need actual experimental results before I can speculate much further, I think: and that may not be easy to get. Double sharp (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I should be able to test such matters in a very general way, using Fairy-Max, if you want me to. (This would take some time, though.) Its move-description system is sufficiently general to define a move that starts as D and then continues as WW. So I could configure it to do pieces like a Rook, Bishop or Queen that skip the first square, and pit those against the ordinary B,R,Q to se how they fare. I guess that with a minor change in the code I could also let it do igui. (True double captures would be a problem, though, because the code is only designed to handle a single victim.) It would all be tested on 8x8 in a Chess context, but that still should give a good impression of the relative value of covering a square by igui or as a normal capture, or skipping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.G.Muller (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I would love to know what results you get: after all, any results at all would improve the current limited understanding on the values of such pieces! IIRC Betza just rationalizes and never actually did tests on doublemove and shooting pieces, and I'm not sure if pieces like the Heavenly Tetrarch (which skip squares along a ranging path) were ever even considered by him. Double sharp (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

As a first try I tested the 'Skip-Rook' (D-R in Betza 2.0 notation), by replacing both Rooks of one side in the FIDE setup (and setups derived from this by swapping Knights and Bishops for more game diversity) by skip-Rooks. The ordinary Rooks lead there by 61% after 303 games. In a second match I deleted the f-Pawn of the Rook side in addition, and there the Skip-Rooks are leading by 62% after 294 games. So it seems skipping the first square weakens the Rook by about 25cP. But there is a caveat, as Rook-like pieces starting behind the Pawns typically test 25cP below their classical values when compared with other material, and the skip-Rook, which can jump the Pawn wall, probably does not suffer from this. So that would put the Skip-Rook at 450. Next thing to test is a 'skip-Queen', and adding the Wazir moves back to the Skip-Rook. (FR and WB are some 200cP stronger than R and B, respectively, so I expect WD-R to be 650.) It would be interesting to see if rifle-captures (cW-bW or cF-bF) add more or less than ordinary captures. I expect them to be better then displacement captures, but you lose the mW component (which is usually worth half as much as the cW component). We will see... H.G.Muller (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Skip-Queen (D-RA-B) + P scores 30% vs. Q, indicating it is 210 cP less than Q. 'Jump-Queen' (D-RA-BK) scores 62% vs Q + P, indicating it is 165cP stronger than Q. D-RA-BcK scores about 50% against Q + P (preliminary result based on only 100 games), so 100cP better than Q. Still working on a version of Fairy-Max that can do rifle captures. H.G.Muller (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I managed to make a Fairy-Max derivative that can handle rifle captures. I used it to test the 'Igui-Queen' (D-RA-BcK-bK) against Q+P (scores 65%), Q+N (36%) and Amazon (QN, 38%) in some 200-250 games. A direct comparison between Igui-Queen and Jump-Queen was about equal after 100 games, so it seems that adding K rifle captures to a piece that had no K moves is worth about the same as adding all K captures and non-captures, and nearly 100cP more than adding cK. H.G.Muller (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As a final test I directly played Chariot Soldier against Tetrarchs (both as Queen replacements). When the Tetrarchs receive an extra Knight handicap the ChS scores 57%. When I then also handicap the latter, with a Pawn, the Tetrarchs win by 55% (300 games). So the difference between HT and ChS is more than that between (FIDE) Knight and Pawn, I would say at least 250cP. That makes it a stronger promotion than B->DH or R->DK, which gain about 200cP. H.G.Muller (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Cool! So the tetrarch is stronger, because xK ≈ K in value, and it has the power to move to the third square sideways which the chariot soldier doesn't. Double sharp (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

When I take away the 3rd sideway step of the HT, it loses about 100cP in value. The remaining 150cP of the promotion gain come from jumping + igui. I also tested the Free Eagle in the area-move interpretation (QddF). It is about 50cP stronger than a Queen. (Beats Q, loses to Q+P by an eaqual amount.) H.G.Muller (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The fire demon's move is also inconsistent in a similar way: the Shōgi zushiki seems to state that it keeps the water buffalo's move, while adding its new burning and area-moving powers.

I will change the main diagram: this is supported by symmetry with the heavenly tetrarch, its being a promoted water buffalo, and also because excessive forwardness may well overpower the already insanely powerful fire demon. Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia seems to indicate that the jumping generals can jump even when not capturing. The text in the movement tables contradicts this, stating that jumping is only allowed when making a capture (these are the TSA rules). The Shōgi zushiki appears to state "if there are pieces, it flies over" for the bishop and rook general and by implication the vice general (huge thank-you to Colin Adams' book!); now Colin Adams interprets "pieces" as meaning enemy pieces that can be captured, upon which obstacles do not matter. But "pieces" could equally be interpreted as your own pieces which the jumping generals can jump over even when not capturing. Furthermore Colin Adams' given translation for the great general's move is "like the Free King but flies over"; might this therefore be a Flying Queen (the non-capturing movement of a Flaming Crane in Betza's This Game is for the Birds), which treats all obstacles as transparent, even when not capturing? Maybe some opening analysis should be done using these Japanese-Wikipedia interpretations of the rules; they appear to be reasonably capable of being supported by strict readings of the Shōgi zushiki, and might possibly save tenjiku from being a win for Black under perfect play!

I'm also very curious where the TSA interpretation that they cannot capture (not just jump over) pieces came from; unfortunately Colin Adams' book omits the relevant parts of the Shōgi zushiki in translation that would clear up this matter, so it appears I'll be in the dark for a while longer on this issue... Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea that these generals cannot jump-capture the pieces they cannot jump over is purely a deduction from the fact that royals are mentioned in the ranking. It does not make sense to jump over a royal, when capturing it would have decided the game in your advantage. (Note that a Crown Prince as second royal is in practice a non-existent phenomenon in Tenjiku.) It seems illogical to make a separate rule forbidding something that no one would ever want to do. So giving royals the highest rank can only mean they could not be captured with a jump. This sounds reasonable enough, but extending it to capture of the other jumping generals might be a bridg too far, and leads to an unplayable game. IMO the historic rules must have been that the jumping generals could jump-capture anything but royalty, but could not jump over higher-or-equal rank generals. This would make the initial position tactically quiet, because the Fire Demons are shielded by jumping generals that radially move away from them, so they could capture anything that tries to threaten the Fire Demons 'over their head'. It is quite unlikely this is a coincidence; the initial position of Tenjiku Shogi seems to be designed with great care (e.g. to make its Pawn chain immune to Fire-Demon attack, by making sure every Pawn is protected from a distance when the rank behind them is burned away). H.G.Muller (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this makes a lot of logical sense, especially with your evidence from the starting position. Indeed it would make no sense to have a restriction against jumping over the king: if you could do that, you could capture it anyway. Your version minimally alters it so that it makes sense.

BTW, are the jumping generals allowed to capture without jumping over anything? (Then they would jump over zero pieces, and the rules do say "any number".) So if a king is directly in the line of fire of a jumping general and nothing is blocking it, is it in check? (If I understand your rule interpretation correctly, the king would not be in check if something was blocking the jumping general.) Double sharp (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, my understanding is that it could capture without jumping. But this isn't based on any independent information, just on what I read in earlier versions of the Wikipedia, which again reflected the TSA leaflet. I just never doubted it. My first thought is that not being able to capture along a direct 'line of sight', or even subjecting such captures to the ranking restrictions (so that they could never check), would seriously weaken these pieces, perhaps so much that optional promotion of a HF/SE to BG/RG would not make much sense. (Just like you would never promote a Lion to Lionhawk is the latter did not have Lion powers.) Note that the interpretation of 'any number' as also including zero does not yet imply non-jumping capture without restriction. In my mind the non-jumping capture was sort of implied by the fact that the pieces could move this way, and Shogi pieces always capture as they move. The idea that they could not seems inspired by the Xiangqi Cannon, but this analogy is weak, as the Cannon can also not jump multiple pieces. H.G.Muller (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Betza notation

I dislike the extensions of Betza notation used here, which seems kind of ad-hoc. This is mainly because I proposed an extension to Betza notation myself (Betza 2.0), which I feel is far more flexible and general, based on the use of the hyphen as an operator to chain conventional Betza elements into multi-leg moves. The Lion double-step would be indicated as cK-aK in this notation (the 'a' being a new directional qualifier meaning 'any', which in non-chained Betza expressions would be default), while the HF double-step would be cW-fbW etc. (This was all for the purpose of having a universal method for piece description in order to allow a game AI to send the game rules to a universal graphical user interface, so that the latter would be able to generate decent move notation.) The need to describe the Betza extension in all the Wikipedia articles on Shogi variants in inconvenient, and seems to go beyond the scope of these articles. The only Wikipedia article that seems to gloss over standard Betza notation is that on fairy-chess pieces, and the extensions used here are not mentioned there (or in any source for Betza notation I am aware of). H.G.Muller (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

These ad hoc extensions were my ideas, and are completely unreferenced elsewhere. You have described yours extensively, and I think we should switch to use yours: it certainly smacks less of WP:OR, as your extensions have been published online outside WP. Double sharp (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps Betza notation together with proposed extensions would deserve a separate Wikipedia article, rather than being buried in the article about fairy pieces? H.G.Muller (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work very well, given that Betza notation isn't just used in the fairy chess piece article. Double sharp (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I finally got to making a draft on Betza notation and the various proposed extensions: Draft:Beta's_funny_notation. Perhaps you could comment on it. Btw, I have now implemented most of the XBetza extension in XBoard, where engines can now describe how the pieces they want to use move, by sending the corresponding Betza strings to the GUI. The latter can offer all services (such as legality checking, highlighting target squares of a lifted piece, one-click moving, SAN disambiguation) it provides in standard variants at the same level in variants it has never heard of. The new Fairy-Max engine now uses this feature in all its variants. H.G.Muller (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Promotion rule

The description of the promotion rule currently contains an inconsistency: it states that moves leaving the zone are a special case of moves ending in the zone! The rule that pieces that deferred on entering the zone can only promote after a delay of one turn (also mentioned in the article on Chu Shogi) seems to be unique to Wikipedia: it is different from the rule mentioned in the Middle Shogi Manual (which requires a move with that particular piece, rather than just any turn), which again is different from what the Japanese Chu-Shogi Association uses today, as well as the historic Chu-Shogi rule (where non-captures only can promote on entering the zone). As Tenjiku Shogi is so obviously derived from Chu Shogi, I consider it rather unlikely the promotion rules would have been different, although they could have been added to Chu as a refinement after the two games branched. (The Lion-trading rules are also different, namely non-existing in Tenjiku, but this is a logical consequence of the Lion being not nearly the strongest piece there, so it seems they were dropped by design.) I wonder what is the source of the rule details mentioned here, such as that multi-leg moves (Lion-power or area moves) passing through the zone can promote, and any non-promotability after deferral. The TSA rule description on the 'Ten Shogi Variants' CD-ROM does not mention any of this! It just states that promotion is mandatory for pieces that would have no moves after deferral, but it also states that this is true for all forms of Shogi, while the current rules of the Japanese Chu-Shogi Association do not have this rule for Lances. (But if there is no rule against promotion on in-zone moves, as the TSA seems to imply for Tenjiku, this is a moot point, as turning the piece into dead wood is always inferior to promotion, so you would never do it if it could not somehow be forbidden.) Personally I think it very illogical that a multi-leg move merely passing through the zone (but starting and ending outside it) would allow promotion. In Chu Shogi this issue does not arise, as the only pieces capable of making such moves are non-promotable, so unfortunately we cannot get any guidance from there. H.G.Muller (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it might have some logic to it, depending on whether I've understood the chu shogi promotion rules correctly. Is "part of the move must be in the promotion zone" an accurate simplification for the promotion rules of chu shogi for capturing moves? If it is, this seems like a logical extension for tenjiku shogi, as part of the move would then be in the promotion zone (even though it starts and ends outside it). Your page on the chu shogi promotion rule has convinced me that WP is very probably erroneous on the rules for non-capturing moves, though. (But why would you ever decline the promotion for a lance? If so it makes sense that there is a punishment for forgetting to do so.) Double sharp (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Water Buffalo promotion - Is it known where this statement "Since a piece promotes only after its move is finished ..." comes from? To me this seems a 'conclusion' based on our own accidental wording of the general paragraph on promotions (which was no doubt originally copied from descriptions of other Shogi variants, where this never is an issue.) I am now starting to doubt the logic of a Water Buffalo promotion not burning anything. It would be the only way an enemy piece could ever stand next to a Fire Demon. But should the passive burn ability of the Fire Demon then not roast that piece on the next move, if it doesn't move away? If you cannot land next to a Demon, it certainly should be too hot to camp there, right? And even in the interpretation that the Demon is sleeping, and only wakes up when he sees someone approach... Would a piece that is left next to a Demon then not be roasted when the Demon is activated through a kamikaze approach of another piece? All these hairy details disappear when you just assume that no enemy can ever survive next to a square where a fire Demon settled. H.G.Muller (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds eminently logical, as your rule interpretations always are. I'll change it. Double sharp (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the jumping generals

Allow me to quote myself for an unanswered question above:

“ Japanese Wikipedia seems to indicate that the jumping generals can jump even when not capturing. The text in the movement tables contradicts this, stating that jumping is only allowed when making a capture (these are the TSA rules). The Shōgi zushiki appears to state "if there are pieces, it flies over" for the bishop and rook general and by implication the vice general (huge thank-you to Colin Adams' book!); now Colin Adams interprets "pieces" as meaning enemy pieces that can be captured, upon which obstacles do not matter. But "pieces" could equally be interpreted as your own pieces which the jumping generals can jump over even when not capturing. Furthermore Colin Adams' given translation for the great general's move is "like the Free King but flies over"; might this therefore be a Flying Queen (the non-capturing movement of a Flaming Crane in Betza's This Game is for the Birds), which treats all obstacles as transparent, even when not capturing? ”

I've been trying to at least show plausible "rule urtexts" for some of the historical shogi variants. Chu is unproblematic due to it having way more literature than any of the others; dai can follow on from it quite nicely. (Regarding the rules on lion-trading in chu; it is true that there are a few lacunae there, but we can extrapolate by simply assuming that the rule is "a lion is only allowed to capture another lion that is two squares away if immediate recapture is impossible, unless it gains more material than a pawn or a go-between along the way". Though I would personally ignore the lion-trading rules completely: if tenjiku can survive with fire demons possibly disappearing in the opening, and the prospect of promoting to them being an endgame threat, and chess can do this with the queen too, I see no reason why we should go out of our way to preserve the lions.) With some of the move variants for tenjiku in Western sources, the Edo-era sources quite clearly show evidence that they are erroneous (the free eagle, heavenly tetrarch, fire demon, and lion hawk). But the Edo-era sources are quite sparsely worded on the above problem about the jumping generals. Certainly the initial position is tactically quiet with the current WP rules; the question is, would it be so if they could jump without capturing? I would guess not, since the tactical quietness is on thin ice: minor changes to the rules destroy it. But this would be our only avenue of ruling it out, besides logical arguments backed up by quotes from the original sources. (I am not interested in whatever bastardisations of the rules, passed off as historical fact and defended passionately, that the TSA came up with. What they did to this game clearly shows they are an unreliable source on large shogi variants: useful perhaps in study, but not the text that should be used as the formal "Laws of Tenjiku Shogi".)

I would add the caveat that I judge the TSA so harshly for this only because they passed off their strange readings as historical fact and managed to (amazingly) denounce the true moves as incorrect. If we are trying to artistically change the game, accepting the historical rules and departing from them, that is totally fine. I would even personally do that myself, using FIDE pawns in chu and tenjiku (to avoid lion attacks on slanting pawn chains), FIDE knights (so that they're not silly jokes), "FIDE" go-betweens (which can move as backward or forward pawns), the latter also replacing the dogs in tenjiku. (BTW: can anyone explain why dogs are used in tenjiku instead of go-betweens? Is there some instant win for the first player – which I still think should be called White – when go-betweens are reinstated?) Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the Dogs perform an essential fuction. More likely the Tenjiku designer was dissatisfied with Go Betweens, which are confined to their file, doomed to annihilate each other. If I were pressed to find a justification for the GB->Dog upgrade, I would come up with this: In Tenjiku it can be very important to keep an unbreached front, to keep the Fire Demon out of your camp, where he could easily be traded for 7-8 pieces in one move. When you hide behind a close line of Pawns (all protected from a distance) he can at most burn 3 pieces + 3 Pawns. But you cannot develop without breaching the Pawn front, and Pawn moves are irreversible. So it would be very convenient if you could plug the hole when the Fire Demon comes knocking with a cheap piece. The Dogs can do this. H.G.Muller (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. Thank you for the very reasonable suggestion! Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no independent arguments for or against non-capturing jumps. The version of Colin Adams book that I have, however, states that

"They might move like any other ranging piece, or they may capture a piece by jumping over any intervening pieces (of either player)."

So I don't think there is any controversy for whether you can jump over friendly pieces. And it seems self-evident you can only capture enemy pieces. I consider it quite possible that the idea you can only jump while capturing is a contamination by Xiangqi thinking. This is probably also the reason why people sometimes doubt whether these pieces can capture without without jumping. I don't think that non-capture jumping would destroy the quiescence of the start position: when jump-capturing of anything except Kings is allowed, the start position is quite robust, as the Demons are behind a shield that bites back, and checks can be ignored. When the King is not unassailable, the start position would be smothered mate in one, with a VG non-capture jump checking the King. No-capture jumps would have sigificant impact on the game, though, and up the value of the jumping generals: without them it is often tactically unattractive to capture an unprotected piece by jumping, because there is noway to escape again. So on the next move you likely have to sacrifice the general for the best you attack from the new location, making entry into the enemy camp always a suicide mission. I am not sure how to value the jumping generals, but it seems they need all the value they can get to make the promotion of HF and SE to BG and RG attractive. In the late end-game the ability to jump isn't worth much. K+BG vs K is still a dead draw. But perhaps it is very unlikely that Tenjiku games ever reach a late end-game. Further note that the rule that you can "capture, but not jump over" is sort of a default rule in chess-like games: normal Rooks and Bishop can capture the pieces that block them from going beyond. H.G.Muller (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Japanese Wikipedia page on the great general (giving this interpretation) is cited. OTOH, one of the cited authors (Isao Umebayashi) also wrote a book giving the inconsistent rules for taikyoku shogi that are likely a modern invention. Indeed I find the prospect of promoting HF or SE to BG and RG of rather questionable desirability if the BG and RG can't jump, and I think middlegame concerns outweigh endgame concerns in such a game. But I am reluctant to change it without seeing the historical sources, because this is by no means a clear-cut affair. Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Notes from Japanese Wikipedia

Japanese Wikipedia says "なお単に天竺将棋と呼ばれることもあるが、本将棋の変種の天竺将棋とは別物である。" (Let me try: "Note that while it may simply be called tenjiku shogi, there is a different contemporary variant of modern shogi called by that name?" Their article is titled "天竺大将棋" (tenjiku dai shogi).

Additionally, there are apparently standard one-character abbreviations for the names of the pieces (駒の1文字表記). Let me quote them:

1文字目を採用するもの (first character used)

• 玉将:玉
• 金将:金
• 銀将:銀
• 銅将:銅
• 鉄将:鉄
• 桂馬:桂
• 香車:香
• 獅子:獅
• 奔王:奔
• 麒麟:麒
• 鳳凰:鳳
• 車兵:車
• 反車:反
• 火鬼:火
• 水牛:水
• 龍王:龍
• 角行:角
• 大将:大
• 副将:副
• 飛車:飛
• 竪行:竪
• 横行:横
• 歩兵:歩
• 犬:犬
• 太子:太
• 雜将:雜
• 鯨鯢:鯨

2文字目を採用するもの (second character used)

• 醉象:象
• 猛豹:豹
• 盲虎:虎
• 龍馬:馬
• 飛鷲:鷲
• 角鷹:鷹
• 飛牛:牛
• 飛鹿:鹿
• 奔猪:猪
• 四天王:天（棋譜で「四」だと4段目の四と衝突するので） (because "四", "four", would result in obvious conflicts in the game notation)
• 白駒:駒

特殊なもの (special cases)

以下の駒に関しては、上下どちらの文字を採用しても重複が避けられないので、特殊な表記を用いる。それには日本式と中国式がある。 (These characters have no unique characters and thus need special abbreviations corresponding to neither of the characters in their full name. There are both Japanese-style and Chinese-style abbreviations.)

• 獅鷹:(日)師、(中)鶳
• 奔鷲:(日)就、(中)殧
• 竪兵:(日)立、(中)値
• 横兵:(日)黄、(中)休
• 飛将:(日)升、(中)衢
• 角将:(日)用、(中)觸

Hence the initial position should look as follows:

犬

犬

歩

歩

歩

歩

歩

歩

歩

歩

歩

歩

歩

歩

歩

歩

歩

歩

横

竪

飛

鷹

鷲

用

升

大

副

升

用

鷲

鷹

飛

竪

横

黄

立

角

馬

龍

水

火

師

就

火

水

龍

馬

角

立

黄

反

車

車

虎

麒

獅

奔

鳳

虎

車

車

反

香

桂

豹

鉄

銅

銀

金

玉

象

金

銀

銅

鉄

豹

桂

香

Since standard abbreviations apparently exist, we should probably stop using our own ad hoc ones for this game. Double sharp (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Piece moves: Japanese Wikipedia

Regarding the heavenly tetrarch, there is also a reasonable question that could be asked. Pieces with lion power can igui, literally stepping to capture a neighbouring piece and stepping back. They can also "capture" an empty square this way, thus passing their turn. Now the tetrarch can igui but cannot actually make either of the stepping moves the lion's move could be said to contain, so can it pass its turn by shooting an empty square?

Japanese Wikipedia says:

Heavenly tetrarch

"非常に特殊な動きをする。隣接8マスには直接移動できないが、敵の駒があれば1手で動かずに取ることが出来る（居喰い）。また、斜め四方には隣接した駒のみ飛び越えて何マスでも進める。横には隣接した駒のみ飛び越えて3マスまで進むことができる。すなわち、1マス目にだけ駒があっても飛び越えて2マス目や3マス目に行けるが、2マス目に駒があれば飛び越えて3マス目に行くことはできない。"

"A very special movement. Although it cannot move directly to the adjacent eight squares, it can capture in one turn any enemy piece on these adjacent square without moving. [Thus I assume that if there is no such enemy piece it cannot shoot.] In addition, in the four diagonals it can move any number of squares, skipping the first square and anything on it. In the horizontal direction it can only move to the second or third square, again skipping the first square and anything on it. It is not blocked by a piece on the first square, but can be blocked on the second [and therefore presumably anywhere else on its path]."

Thus far we have the Western description (and its diagram), lacking the vertical ranging move. But then we have a note:

"『諸象戯図式』では「如車兵亦近八方不行其外周二三要用歩」となっており、隣接したマスには移動できないものの、前後と斜めは（2マス以上）何マスでも動け、左右は2～3マス移動できると解釈できる。"

"The SSZ says 'like a chariot soldier; cannot move to the eight adjacent squares, but can go two or three squares outside the periphery'. [How sparsely worded. Presumably there is more to the description than this short quote, because I see nothing about igui in there.] This adds the possibility to move vertically any number of squares, again skipping over the first, to the previous descriptions." (Somewhat freely translated.)

Lion hawk

Japanese Wikipedia, of course, does not mention the nonexistent controversy made up by the TSA by their obtuse translation of "moves like lion and bishop combined" into "moves like two-step area-mover and bishop combined".

Free eagle

"全方向に何マスでも動ける。斜めの場合は飛び越えては行けないが、縦横の場合は飛び越えて行ける。"

"Moves as queen. It cannot jump on the diagonals, but can jump on the orthogonals." The diagram shows an orthogonal range jump, but this must be discarded as it is not in the range-jumping hierarchy.

Double sharp (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

A note is added:

"『象戯図式』『諸象戯図式』では、「奔王の動きに加えて、猫刄の動き（斜め四方向に1マス動く）を2度できる」と読み取れる表現があり、全方向に何マスでも動け、2マス先には他の駒を飛び越えられるという解釈が考えられる。"

"The SZ and SSZ write: 'In addition to the movement of a queen, it can move twice like a cat-sword [ferz].' This would mean(?) that it has the power to move any number of squares in all directions, and would also imply that in its double-ferz move it would be able to jump over intervening pieces."

Indeed this is consistent with what the Japanese Wikipedia writes for the lion: "玉将の動きを1手に2回行う", that is "the movement of the king performed twice in one turn". OTOH, we do not know if that is how the historical sources describe the lion. (It is an incomplete description because it cannot be blocked, except when it is trying to pass its turn, so it seems that the jump would be implied. If this is the case, we would then know for sure that the free eagle adds the power of a "lion ferz" instead of an "area ferz" to the queen. Our article appears to claim that there are presumably historical descriptions that describe the lion in just this way: a doublemove king.)

We get another quote in the Japanese Wikipedia article on the queen, detailing its promotion in tenjiku shogi:

"『諸象戯図式』では「如奔王亦猫刄再度歩兼二行」となっている。8方向に何マスでも動け、斜め方向（猫刄が動ける）には2マス先に駒を飛び越えて動けるという意味であろうか。"

"The SSZ gives "like a queen, or again a cat-sword [ferz] in two moves" [could be "directions", but why assume the SSZ contradicted itself when you can translate it equally well in other ways? This is Sino-Japanese after all.]. Thus it can move any number of squares in any direction, or jump over pieces to where it could get in two cat-sword [ferz] moves."

The queen-dabbaba compound hypothesis is probably just dead, then. (For if it was just that, it would surely have simply been "moves as queen or kirin".)

Fire demon

"縦と斜めに何マスでも進める。この時飛び越えては行けない。

また、獅子のように8方向に3手分の動きで移動できるが、獅子と違い飛び越えることはできず、駒を取ったら止まるため、「焼く」以外の通常の取り方で複数の駒を取ることもできない。"

This is from the water buffalo article, but is repeated in the fire demon's article.

"Moves vertically or diagonally any number of squares, but cannot jump in these directions. It can also move three times like a king, but unlike a lion, it cannot jump over other pieces and must stop once it captures. It cannot capture multiple pieces by displacement, but only by burning."

This is the Western move. But:

"『象戯図式』および『諸象戯図式』では、「水牛のように動く」となっており、横と斜めに何マスでも進めることが示唆される。"

"The SZ and SSZ have it keep the move of the water buffalo, so that it ranges instead horizontally or diagonally."

It also gives: "駒を取るときは普通の取り方の他に特別な捕獲のルールがある。移動して止まった所の周囲8マスに敵の駒があれば、全て取ることができる（焼く）。また、敵の駒が火鬼の隣に移動してきたときも、その駒は焼かれてしまう。これは1手には数えない。

火鬼が火鬼の隣に移動したときは、動いた方が焼かれる。"

"In addition to the usual method of capturing [by displacement], another capturing method is possible: enemy pieces adjacent to the fire demon's destination are all captured (burnt). [This is an active burn as the fire demon is actively moving to seek out its victims.] Also, a piece that moves next to an enemy fire demon is burnt; this does not use up the move of the player owning the fire demon. [This is a passive burn as the fire demon did not actively choose to burn the enemy piece: instead the enemy piece chose to commit suicide. Of course, if the enemy piece had specifically made the suicide move to capture a more valuable piece, this could be a profitable exchange!] When a fire demon moves next to an enemy fire demon, the moving piece is burnt."

I would thus assume that this means that the passive burn takes precedence over the active burn. For if the active burn took precedence, it would be the stationary piece that is burnt (along with any other unfortunate adjacent bystanders of the same colour as the stationary piece): the moving piece would survive. Since the passive burn takes precedence, it stands to reason that the suicidal fire demon's active burn cannot possibly have time to burn anything at all, and that the TSA's rule must be correct. If you move your fire demon next to an enemy fire demon, only yours is burnt. Everything else around the suicide location survives.

The fire demon and heavenly tetrarch are somewhat symmetrical (look at their unpromoted forms!), and one should also note their symmetry in how they handle "shooting king" captures. The fire demon contains the power of what Betza would have called an immediate shooting king: it arrives at its destination and adjacent pieces are immediately burnt without waiting. The heavenly tetrarch, however, has the power of a deferred shooting king: it arrives at its destination, but the shooting does not happen as an immediate side effect of its move. It is merely threatened, and shooting any one particular adjacent enemy piece will use up a move.

I will note incidentally that a fire demon can check a king if it could go not only to the square the king is on, but also on any square beside it. For the purposes of check by fire demons, the king could be said to have bulged to nine times its original size! Note also that only the final destination counts. Area moves are in any case a more general case of ranging moves when not all steps have to be in the same direction. (I would thus assume also that you cannot promote a piece with lion- or area-moving abilities by having it step into the zone and then back out again; you have to actually be in the zone by the end of the move. OTOH, this would not count as a deferral if you later actually moved the piece into the zone and stayed in it.)

Range-jumping generals

Japanese Wikipedia gives the following madness: "自分よりも格の低い駒ならばいくつでも飛び越えて、その飛び越えた駒の味方の駒も含めて全てを取ることが出来る。", making them capture all pieces they fly over, even the allied ones. However, in the articles on the range-jumping generals themselves, this is only apparently the case for taikyoku shogi, and is not mentioned for tenjiku shogi. Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

promoting lion movers on in-out moves

CVP does not allow this, stating that pieces can only promote without restriction if they start the turn outside the zone and end inside it.

Furthermore, if we look at the fire demon's burn (another effect that only is calculated after the turn is finished, like promotion), we note that it only takes effect after the move, and not on every step of the 3-square area move. I do not see why promotion should be any different. Thus you only look at where the piece starts and ends the move to determine if it is eligible for promotion (assuming it isn't a capture). Double sharp (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@H.G.Muller: A little clarification: if a White Lion is just outside the zone (say on 12f) and then captures by igui a victim inside the zone (say on 11e), is it allowed to promote? I would think so, because the move is a capture. But then: suppose that Lion is on 12f, and a victim is on 10f. Does that mean that if the Lion took the route 12f-11f:10f, it could not promote, but if it took the route 12f-11e:10f, it could? Double sharp (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

We can only speculate about this. It seems that 'igui' means "stationary eating". Not "back-and-forth eating". So apparently the players of those times imagined the Lion / Falcon / Eagle not to move at all, rather than sneak into and out of the zone. And if it never enters the zone, there is no reason to assume it can promote. I don't see a reason why stepping to other squares than the one you came from (but out of the zone) should be treated different from igui. The rules "start outside, end inside" or "start inside and capture" seem straightforward, and do not need separate detail rules for lion power. This is an almost-never occurring situation anyway. H.G.Muller (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I've edited the article to reflect your eminently sensible interpretation. Double sharp (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

A Japanese site

Here's a parroter of the Japanese Wikipedia rules. Double sharp (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Piece Value of Heavenly Tetrarch

Given that the Heavenly Tetrarch is an improvement of the Chariot Soldier in every way, why is it worth so much less than its predecessor? Idiacanthus1 (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Idiacanthus1: As stated, the table of piece values is based on the interpretations of the English-language sources (which are likely mistaken, but widely used). In these the tetrarch lacks the orthogonal ranging move, as is stated in the section on disputed moves. (The sections above may also shed some light on this matter.) Double sharp (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It appears based on Eric Silverman's research that the accessible Edo-era sources do not include igui as part of the tetrarch's powers. However, I still would personally prefer to allow them. The main reason is that without the igui capture, the tetrarch would seem to be a demotion from the chariot soldier, not a promotion, which seems implausible: we can maybe argue about HF→BG and SE→RG, but otherwise most of the promotions in tenjiku shogi seem to be clearly beneficial. It's a weaker argument (because it's already asymmetrical that we have two WB's and two FD's, but four CS's in the initial position), but igui capture for the surrounding squares of a HT does seem to be a reasonable pair with burning capture for the surrounding squares of a FD. Double sharp (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the Tetrarch is allowed to pass a turn, like most pieces that can perform igui. Because its igui seems to be a unique provision (if it even exists), rather than things like Horned Falcons and Soaring Eagles whose igui are literally in-out moves. Of course this is purely academic, as you'd never want to do it. Double sharp (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Jump-capturing the king

@H.G.Muller: I've updated the article based on your findings. Double sharp (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Mnemonic device piece set

Try to use the following mnemonic set for Shogi variant boards.

File:TenjikuShogi.png

Initial setup of Tenjiku shogi. using mnemonic pieces.

Here's what it will look like for Tenjiku shogi. 301fieriw (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)