Which part of rule #11 do you find ambiguous? They define chasing. They note that chasing applies to 'one or more pieces.' And continuous simply means without stopping. So, if my opponent is chasing any of my pieces on every move, then he is engaging in continuous chasing and is breaking the rule. I'm not understanding how this could be interpreted any other way.
First of all, to be precise, the ISF does NOT define chasing in Section 11. In 11.3 they define "continuous chase" and "chasing move". This is a tad semantical, perhaps, but let's be legal here. (See 11.3 right below.) They define that a continuous chase (NOT CHASING OR A CHASING MOVE) involves this threatening "one or more pieces". Nowhere does it state that a continuous chase involves two pieces of the attacker. It merely asserts "one or more pieces" of the defender cannot be threatened incessantly. Any other reading of these words is putting words into the mouth of the rule that it doesn't say.
Further, the "chasing move" definition below likewise does not stipulate that more than one piece of the attacker is covered by its words. "a move in a continuous chase that threatens an opponent's piece" says nothing about two attacking pieces.
continuous chase: the same player is non-stop
threatening one or more pieces of his
opponent that is/are evading the threatening
chasing move: a move in a continuous chase
that threatens an opponent‟s piece that was
evading during the continuous chase.
a/to move: a/to move plus attacking or a/to
move to an empty square.
to threaten: to move a piece next (before,
behind or besides) a piece of the opponent.
to evade: to move a piece away in the direct
following move after it has been threatened.
(Note the "a/to move" part above that The Prof pointed out tonight as being confusing.)
Since the definitions in 11.3 do not address what the ISF enforces in the issue of the double chase, the next part of the problem is only another mountain to climb for the ISF. That is, the definition of the word "continuous". If you claim that it means "without stopping" then you have a problem as the "double chase" is in reality two separate and alternating single chases, each breaking the word "continuous" in half. The entry for this word at www.dictionary.com is:
[kuhn-tin-yoo-uhs] Show IPA
uninterrupted in time; without cessation: continuous coughing during the concert.
The strongest meaning, the first one given in the entry, states "uninterrupted in time". Moving from one piece to the next to attack in a "double chase" is interrupting the attacking on every turn. And by the way, if the infamous 2 square rule can be interrupted by an attacker switching between his attacking pieces, then why can't this thing you point to called "continuous chasing"?
Moreover, if all this wasn't enough difficulty for the ISF interpretation, there is the little issue of defining who is the attacker and who is the defender. There is no definition of these terms in 11.3. For this reason alone, the double chase enforcement by the ISF is wrong. Now you may say "Balderdash" with this point, but hold on. In your game with ABSH he had the bigger pieces while you had the weaker ones. He was unable to move very far but was forced to move in his turn due to zugzwang, and he couldn't afford to dispatch one of his superior pieces to go even two spaces away on an offensive. You, on the other hand, were trying to get his flag with every move. You, ironically, had merely a pair of scouts to attack with but you had him against the ropes. So I ask, who was really attacking who in this situation? I submit you were the wife beating the husband here. He was defending his flag in the only way possible for him and you were trying to get to it. Since he couldn't get you and you couldn't get him, you rightfully recognized the game should've ended in a draw and offered the tie. I'm sorry he didn't accept your tie request; he was wrong. But to say that is not to say I think you should've been given a win because of an erroneous interpretation of a cloudy ISF rule.
Now, with all the definition issues stated above, the other two sections, 11.1 and 11.2 are rather moot at this point. But here they are:
It is not allowed to continuously chase one or more pieces of the opponent endlessly. The continuous chaser may not play a chasing move which would lead to a position on the board which has already taken place.
Exception: chasing moves back to the square
where the chasing piece came from in the
directly preceding turn are always allowed as
long as this does not violate the Two-Squares
Enigma, I hope I have responded fairly and civilly to your question, "Which part of rule #11 do you find ambiguous?" I've thoroughly admired your many educational points in the forums since I have been here, and I think you're one of the great players on the site. You could obviously teach me 25 ways to Sunday how to play this game, so I've tried to give you the best reasoning I can come up with on this issue. I'm sure it hasn't changed your mind and that we'll just have to agree to disagree on it, but I'm okay with that. Thank you for reading. It was a small book.