Posted 10 November 2017 - 01:05 AM
I would like to clear up one small confusing point.
The term "counter chasing" as used by Nortrom is the more general use of the term, and pretty much in line with the dictionary's English definition of the words. It refers to any action that is a response, i.e., a "counter", to an action by an opponent. Generally, it is about responding to (countering) an attack by an opponent with an attack of one's own.
The term "counter chasing" as used by The Prof refers specifically to the singular situation where there exists a Two Squares trap on the one leg and the victim of the trap begins countering the situation by threatening another piece of the trapping player elsewhere on the board.
Morx lamented this type of counter attacking above, in this thread, and The Prof, KARAISKAKIS, and others have agreed with this sentiment previously. Mostly this is because, I believe it is safe to say, they feel the Two Squares trap they have worked to achieve should not be thwarted by an annoying counter attack elsewhere. The right of the Two Squares trap should supercede that of the opponent to counter chase, they feel.
Under ISF rules the Two Squares trap currently only exists if the following two conditions are meet:
1) there is no path of escape for the object piece, and
2) there is no other piece of the trapping player vulnerable to a counter attack on another part the board.
If the Two Squares trap has these features, the trapping player will get his man. If not, should he? That is the question.
As Nortrom has stated, counter chasing is allowed under the ISF, and so this includes a counter chase involving a trap as well as any that do not.
My position is opposed to the pro-Two Squares trapper one described above. Here's why I support the current position by the ISF:
A) it encourages clean versions of the Two Squares trap, and doesn't reward sloppy ones. and,
B) it recognizes that any counter chase involves both players attacking each other, and so either player can end the situation. (As opposed to a double+ chase which is all done by one player and the other is helpless to stop it.)
I think this is a good position by the ISF because if two guys want to play a game of no progress in this very silly way, they should be perfectly free to do so as long as they like. As an old country doctor in my hometown used to say, "There's no pill for ignorance."