I claim my Wembley! I claim my Wembley! The Oxford Semicircle two days before the leap day, which is on a Friday, entitles me. See the dispute “Roddenburgh v. Rutrigger”, 1992, wherein the Attison commission awarded a Wembley to the plaintiff.
Camden Passage on Upper Street, westside.
Lib old bean, those aren’t real stations. Wembley Central would have been a stunning move, rendering the both Circle and District Lines, but in effect, you’ve invoked wrong sort of snow forcing everyone into galoshes. Thus:-
Pinner!! 
Sorry, but I am totally confused. If **Aldwych **wasn’t allowed, then how could Hostile Dialect play Tufnell Park? Without Tufnell Park I can see that Camden Passage is legal, but not whether it is with Tufnell Park.
I’ve checked my Hobbs and Sturgess (19th ed., 2005. pp. 345-78) and am really out of my depth. Could someone please elucidate? I guess I’m not as advanced a player as I thought I was.
I see what might be your problem, lynne-42. There are some variations between the original Welsh and the English translation, and whenever there are discrepancies, the original trumps the translation. If I am not mistaken, this is one of the points where there happens to be a small but crucial ambiguity in the choice of words by the translators in the English-language edition.
I would suggest that you check the original Welsh language edition. That would make everything clear as the light of day!
Oh, and, ianzin, you were right: I completely forgot that 2008 was a leap year! Curse my lack of attention to that subtle but crucial detail!
Am I allowed to play an alternate? If so, looking at the situation of the game now, I would pay a penalty token, put the galoshes on and move to Angel, which you will find is allowed as per the Cornish addenda to the Pendelton Apocripha of 1977 (Appendix CXVII).
Dear Lynne-42, it’s really not that complicated, so please don’t get concerned.
First of all, cast your mind back to the rather tiresome row that erupted during the third match of the so-called ‘friendly’ between France and Malaysia in 2005, concerning the interpretation of the Rotational Shift rule as applied to Osterley > Bromley-by-Bow. This didn’t affect the outcome of the match, thanks to Sagathevan’s stunning upset win on the top board (a game they still don’t talk about much in Paris!), but it could have done. This led to the 4th revision of the RS rule, which was not included in Hobbs and Sturgess (as it had already gone to print) but was included in the Appendix to the 2005 Ogawa & Vincent list of Official Rules & Revisions as ratified by the International Committee in November 2005. Actually, tell a lie, it was the revised version of the Appendix, the first version having to be pulped because of an embarassing typo concerning Buckhurst Hill.
I won’t bore you by going into all the separate clauses of the 4th revision to the RS rule. However, clause 7 explicitly states that in cases where crossed water leading west involves consecutive vowels, rotational shift can be applied to inversely aligned stations, provided (obviously) that this does not contravene Spindle’s Axiom and (equally obviously) that no-one has declared stirrups on the preceding three moves (or two moves in the case of leap years) (unless it’s both a leap year and the DLR is non-operational, in which case it can be either two or three moves depending on local custom and/or adjudication issued at the time of play).
Now, although our friend Jose B inadvertently made an illegal play with Aldwych, note that this was disallowed for reasons of “time, year, calendar or occasion” (to quote Hobbs and Sturgess), as opposed to, for example, geography or crossing water. As such, it is governed by Chaddick’s Law and shall only prevent ongoing play if permitting ongoing play would itself constitute an illegal move. This was not the case here, as Hostile’s rather ingenious move to Tufnell Park would have been legal whether or not Aldwych were allowed to stand.
If you add this fact to the afore-mentioned points cocnerning rotational shift, you’ll see that it was perfectly proper to permit ongoing play, notwithstanding Jose B’s slight error.
I hope this clarifies everything.
Thank you, Ianzin! This is a perfect example of why I love this game so much.
Time to study Hobbs and Sturgess again. Including the Welsh edition.
ianzin’s masterful analysis has overlooked one small but significant point; more than three line changes in the last 20 moves enables a terminus to be played, provided the first Saturday train arrives no later than 0635. This enables me to declare MC in 42, beginning with Upminster.
Very astute, Dead Cat, and very nearly correct. However, you will notice that Wargamer has already played ‘Pimlico’, which clearly contains a repeated vowel. It is also the case that we have not had a parallel shunt since this excellent and rather cunning play. Now, I suspect that your 42 move MC analysis involves at least one Bassington Turn involving a non-Circle line straddle (by my reckoning, this would crop up around either move 19 or move 31, depending on your tolerance for ‘Acton’ stations). However, because of the Pimlico / parallel shunt rule, this would, of course, be an invalid play. But otherwise, I salute your very ambitious strategy.
Extremely shrewd counter-analysis, ianzin. But, is it not the case that you have failed to take into account the (admittedly, rarely invoked) Ffoulkes-Mandalay Ruling? I would say that it was written to deal with exactly this kind of situation!
By the F-M Ruling (which was the result of the unfortunate events surrounding the 1993 Alma-Ata qualifiers for the World Championship, which also brought upon the at the time controversial ban on firearm carrying among spectators of the matches), straddles are allowed within one week of a lunar eclipse or if there have been plays within the last 15 turns into stations made famous by any kind of popular motion picture. How ironic it is that both conditions are being met right now! (“Passport to Pimlico”, anybody?)
So, I contend that Dead Cat’s move is correct and his (her?) analysis stands. We must find some other way to avoid this apparently inevitable MC in 42!
Think, people, think! Where can we move?
Good point. However, I thought the Lausanne Conference concluded that although the F-M Ruling was applicable after either a lunar eclipse or a ‘motion picture’ move, it was inapplicable if both conditions applied? This was certainly how it was written up in my 2004 Kimlat’s Annotated Rulings For Tournament Play (second edition), although to be fair a slightly different interpretation is offered in Tendo’s Modern Middle Game Strategies For The Competitive Player (I just looked it up, although I confess I only have the paperback edition). Perhaps this is one of those very rare occasions when there’s some room for confusion about the rules?
Unfortunately not. The Lausanne Conference was later voided by the Istanbul Concord, six months later, after the Commitee for the Computerisation of Mornington Crescent successfully lobbied for the definition of “or” as “OR”, not “XOR”. Kimlat’s was printed before the Istanbul Concord; the correct interpretation is that of Tendo’s. Check “The Great XOR Wars” (Journal of Morningcrescentology, Vol. DCCCLXXXVIII, pp. 382-404 - July 2006).
Whose turn is it, anyway…?
Mine.
I’m playing Hornchurch, since I can bypass Upminster Bridge (rule 7.19(g)sub(iv))
This reminds me of the great Douglas-Barizev match of 1976, when Barizev played into Hornchurch. I don’t pretend to be a master at his level, but I’m trying to pattern my midgame after his, with a little Tremblay thrown in.
Well, I, for one, refuse to fall into Dead Cat’s little end game trap. As Schimmelfennig showed at the '87 Ulan bator Invitational Skins game, several of the Acton stations can be used out of sequence to negate a three-line double terminus 42 Move End Game. And as we ALL know, esp. since our attention has been drawn to Hobbes and Sturgess , a parallel transfer shunt to North Acton will put paid to SenorGato Muerte 's plan.
So there! MC in 12!
Not so fast. Sydney rules are still in effect. Since it is Feb. 29 there, that means that all stations that begin with a vowel are null and void until March! Therefore my play of Victoria is the legal basis for any endgame plans. Yoicks and away!
<Looks at a globe. Notes International Dateline. Ciphers. Carries the 1.>
Zounds, he’s right!
Therefore, I declare the Greenwich Mean Time Adjustment, which allows a One Time Double Token play of Royal Oak.
No it doesn’t. Royal O****ak involves two double vowels. Ergo, illegal after a non-shunt motion West not transverse with respect to a mainline station.
ianzin, I realize you are probably playing Gormetti and Pasquallini’s version of the double vowel rule, but as I am using the Revised Gormetti and Pasquallini, circa 1965, the vowels must be adjacent to each other AND in double order. Hence the oa in Oak qualifies as they are adjacent, but the o-a in Royal doesn’t count because of non-lineararity.
See, for example, Hassoummi’s play in the '48 Royal Tanzanian Cup, which of course gave rise to the '65 revision mentioned above. (Drat the Zulu-Greek Incident which held up the codification of this crucial gambit for 17 years…ahh well, that’s water under the bridge, eh?)
My friend Wargamer, we are talking about different double vowel rules. You are referring to ‘double vowels’ as in ‘adjacent vowels’, whereas I am referring to ‘vowels that appear more than once in the same station name’.
With regard to the former, you are quite right to refer to Gormetti and Pasquallini as the prevailing source and guide for tournament play. By the way, thank you for drawing my attention to the '65 revision, which I freely admit had slipped my mind.
With regard to the latter, my previous comment stands.
Incidentally, you and I might both wish that the so-called ‘Zulu Greek Incident’ was indeed ‘water under the bridge’, and I agree that it should be, but alas… not so. You may be aware that in last month’s Singapore Classic Invitational, Smoot enjoyed something of a scrappy win over Glauber in the second round, relying rather heavily on his admittedly impressive repertoire of Reverse Fairlop manoevres, especially around the DLR. Anyway, Glauber’s team have now lodged a formal request with the IMCC for a review of the match, citing what they refer to in their written submission as ‘erroneous adjudication pertaining to move 31 (Aldgate > Newbury Park) and contravention of Lateral Banding’. In other words, reviving the exact same debate that lay at the heart of the ‘Zulu Greek Incident’ all those years ago. Tiresome, to say the least. Smoot has lodged a counter claim, citing ‘technical breaches of the Cossington rule’, probably referring to Glauber’s 47th Move (Kingsbury > Maida Vale) which, although it raised a few eyebrows at the time for obvious reasons, was and is a perfectly legitimate move (at least since the '73 revision of the Alphabetic Division Rule as applied to Dual Rotation).
I’m sad to see Glauber resorting to such petty tactics. He’s a great player, and when he’s on form we all know he can display some pretty impressive talent. I saw him in action at the UK Classic a few years back, and frankly he was in awesome form, winning every single one of his First Board matches by at least three points, if you can believe that. And against quality opposition too! He faced Markov in Game 4 and simply annihilated the poor guy, announcing ‘MC in 5’ after Move 23 (Markov was never selected for the Serbian team again). Glauber is also the only player I’ve ever seen achieve a Reverse Straddle from North Harrow to Goldhawk Road in five consecutive moves! I know, it sounds impossible, but check out the '02 European Challenge Cup qualifiers and it’s there in black and white. Okay, so it wasn’t in a ranking tournament, but it’s still an impressive achievement. Along with many others, I wish the guy would just let his talent do the talking, instead of lodging these churlish complaints every time the result doesn’t quite go his way.
His.
Anyway, although Gormetti and Pasquallini don’t mention the double double consecutive vowel, it is generally accepted (according to Sherlock, Moody, and Hardcastle) that such a play is legal as long as it occurs before the next full moon.
Therefore, Goodge Street not only puts a neat woggle on RickJay’s Hornchurch, but also it actually reduces my Blaggering Level to a mere -474.9 (I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine what units I am using here; I will only hint that it should be obvious to anyone familiar with Budson).
Which edition of SM&H? I can’t find this in my edition. I don’t doubt you, and what you have said obviously makes sense, but I just haven’t been able to find the relevant entry. Then again, nothing against SM&H but I personally have always preferred Sanvert & Sanvert for match commentaries and interpretations. I know they go into less detail than SM&H, but I think they approach the game with a more romantic, free-spirited air that appeals to me. I didn’t like the 2007 edition too much, to be honest, but their previous annual volumes were great. The 2005 was superb and is worth reading just for fun. Their somewhat cruel but witty dissection of Kendall’s dismal failure in the '05 Dutch event was a classic (if you recall, that’s when dear old ‘Clueless’ Kendall tried to reach Baker Street from Mile End without realising he himself had already declared stirrups!).