Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
22:02 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Fairies Locomotives (new fairy condition) |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 | | (41) Posted by Thomas Brand [Monday, May 19, 2014 14:20]; edited by Thomas Brand [14-05-19] |
Erased -- double posting, sorry...
| | | (42) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 19, 2014 16:01] |
Thomas,
I asked the same question (post #26).
| | | (43) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 19, 2014 16:03]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-19] |
@Ian,
Good point about the Tank.
Win Chloe has very few problems using this unit.
And, the Tank is not supported, for solving.
K.J.Goodare (is this the inventor of the Tank?)
Fairy Chess Review, 1952
 (= 6+1 )
h#2
Tank e5
1. Kb5 Nd6+ 2. Kc6 Tank-d6 (wQb8->X, wPc7->b8=Tank, wSd6->c7)# (hopefully I've translated the solution correctly).
I don't quite understand the final mate.
How is 3...Kd7 no good -- if the Tank can capture the King, how to explain black's first move?
| | | (44) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 19, 2014 16:49]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-20] |
Try this... (pity it can't be extended to a taller board).
 (= 2+2 )
ser-#7
Locomotives
Intended solution (drag mouse here): 2. Sb4 3. Sc6 (wKa2->b4) 4. Sd8 (wKb4->c6) 5. Kc7 6. Sc6 7. Kc8 (Sc6->c7)# ...
Note: this problem was edited, because bPa7 would allow the defense 7... a6 (bKa8->a7)! -- nobody noticed.
ps: to hide a solution, use " [ w ] ...solution... [ / w ] " (remove spaces).
| | | (45) Posted by Thomas Brand [Monday, May 19, 2014 18:35]; edited by Thomas Brand [14-05-19] |
(43)
According to the "Encyclopedia" he is the inventor.
The Tank moves like a KING, so d7 is guarded by the Tank d6, and 1.-- Kb5 was possible. The mate is quite nice and specific, since both b6 and d6 are guarded "indirectly" by the Tank b8, e.g. 3.Kb6 Tb7(PxKb6).
| | | (46) Posted by Thomas Brand [Monday, May 19, 2014 18:36] |
@Kevin:
(42) Sorry, I'd overlooked it...
| | | (47) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 19, 2014 19:29]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-20] |
Thanks Thomas, now I better understand the Tank.
So, it is similar (but not completely identical) to a Bulldozer-King (the only difference, as far as I can tell, is that the Tank is not a Royal unit).
@All,
After giving further thought to the Rex Exclusive duality, I came to a deeper realization about this invention...
It is probably correct to separate the duality from Locomotives, by recognizing that the idea implies an additional fairy condition!
And, this addition is actually the reason for the ambiguous duality found in the application of Rex Exclusiveness.
Consider...
Locomotives can actually be instantiated in two unique ways:
1) All units are Locomotives (engines, which pull every other unit), and/or
2) All units are Cabooses (trailers, which are pulled by every other unit).
In fact, when applied universally, either one would be identical (in which case, we should definitely prefer Locomotives).
But, there are several cases where it becomes necessary to disambiguate these two options.
1) Composers may want to select one or the other, in order to affect the meaning of a Rex-Exclusion!
* Rex Exclusiv Locomotives = every unit is an engine, except Kings (Kings still function as Cabooses);
* Rex Exclusiv Cabooses = nearly an identical game by corollary, every unit is a trailer, except Kings (Kings still function as Locomotives).
* Rex Exclusiv Loco+Cabo = every unit is an engine and a trailer, except Kings (Kings function neither as Cabooses, nor as Locomotives).
2) Composers may want to instantiate individual Locomotives (the engines, which pull all other units).
* As Jacques has done in his #2 problem...
3) Composers may want to instantiate individual Cabooses, (the trailers, which are pulled by all other units).
* Remains to be seen...
4) Composers may want to achieve complex combinations of couplings and uncouplings (possibly even mechanisms for junction, and disjunction).
* Requires deeper consideration! Suggestions?
The same can be applied to Bulldozers (a reciprocal name is needed -- best I can think of is: Loads -- which is awful); and this logic should hold for all Contre-Forms, and even the Restricted-Form...
Locomotives / Cabooses (note: maybe Trailers is a better term?)
Bulldozers / loads? (Better Suggestions?)
| | | (48) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 19, 2014 21:16]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-19] |
In fact, the above realization has implications which extend far beyond the subset of Dynamo Forms... including to every Circe and Anticirce option!
All this time, the same duality has been hiding in the Circe Form -- it was undetected, until this Rex Exclusion duality showed itself in Locomotives.
There are many cases where an individual Circe unit is instantiated, according to a wide variety of options (comprising virtually the entire Circe Form).
In all cases, the clear implication is that the special unit will experience rebirth upon its capture, in accord with the particular rules of the Form.
But, suppose instead that a composer wishes to instantiate a special unit which would impose, by capturing, a particular Circe rebirth upon the captured unit; at present, we have no way to achieve this (or if so, I am certainly not familiar with this option).
Therefore, I propose that the analogous disambiguation, for Circe, be called: Odysseus (in keeping with the spirit of the Circe mythology).
An Odysseus Platzwechsel Unit, for example, would impose a PWC-rebirth upon any captured unit.
{aside: PWC-Rebirth = captured units are reborn on the square vacated by the moving unit.}
Note: Odysseus units are not reborn, when captured by "normal" units.
Thus, an Antiodysseus Unit would impose an Anticirce rebrith upon any "normal" capturing unit.
Compare this to an Anticirce Unit, which imposes rebirth upon itself, when it captures any "normal" unit.
It requires some thinking to appreciate the significance of this difference, but hopefully I've made clear the differentiation.
As I noted before, this Locomotives invention has taught me something profound about the nature of Circe.
So, I'm grateful to the inventor, not only for providing this interesting new condition, but also for reminding me how much can be learned about a native language, when confronted by something foreign!
| | | (49) Posted by Thomas Brand [Monday, May 19, 2014 22:06] |
Kevin,
Great -- that reminds me of the discussion I had in 1981, when I just had started with problem chess, when I made my first small steps into fairy world, with Jörg Kuhlmann and Hans Gruber; my (simple) question was: "What is a Circe man? A man capturing and forcing the Circe rebirth of the captured one -- or a man captured to be reborn?" We agreed that both interpretations make sense, but did not consequently work (=compose) with this results.
And now I'm waiting for the first (?) problem with both Circe and Odysseus men...
| | | (50) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 19, 2014 22:14]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-19] |
Thanks Thomas,
Wow, you have a sharp mind to have seen that so quickly!
I have been composing (primarily Circe problems!) for ~14 years (and always exploring new interpretations of the Circe Form), yet I never managed to consciously recognize this possibility!
In hindsight, it seems painfully obvious, but until now, I never managed to see the fishbowl I've been swimming in!
You had a much better sense what you were diving into. :)
I think this realization might even help resolve the numerous problems I had experienced in my attempts at creating an Anticirce form of Circe Parrain...
All this time, the solution (Antiodysseus Parrain, Rex Exclusiv -- of course!!) has been hiding in plain sight, right under my nose!
Now, 33 years later, we have a chance to make good on what you, as a newcomer to Fairies, had realized... Fantastic!!
I'll open a new thread for all kinds of Odysseus/Antiodysseus examples...
Hopefully later today... unless somebody gets there first (which is OK by me -- everyone will be welcome to participate).
But, it is important that this thread continue... there is much left to be explored (and perhaps more can be learned!) from this Locomotives invention!
| | | (51) Posted by Linden Lyons [Tuesday, May 20, 2014 09:47]; edited by Linden Lyons [14-05-20] |
Here are a couple of illustrative problems. Let me know if there are any errors!
Linden Lyons
Illustrative Problem 1
 (= 7+2 )
=2 Locomotives
(7 + 2)
Set:
1 … Se7 2 Rxe7/Bxe7
1 … Sf6 2 Bxf6
Key:
1 Rd6 (wBd7)!
1 … Se7 2 Ke4 (wPe5, bSe6)
1 … Sf6 2 Rc6 (wPd6, bSe6)
1 … Sh6 2 Ra6 (wPb6, bSe6)
A challenge in composing this first problem was to ensure that the bS, once on e6, would be unable to pull another piece onto e6. This was a dilemma I could not quite solve in the next problem, so I had to designate specific locomotives.
Linden Lyons
Illustrative Problem 2
 (= 10+3 )
=2 Grasshoppers
Locomotives e2, e5, e6 (do boxes work for kings and rotated pieces on this forum?)
(10 + 3)
Key:
1 Ke3!
1 … Se7 2 Ke2 (wGe4, wGe5, bSe6)
1 … Sf6 2 Gc3 (bSxd4, wPe5)
1 … Sh6 2 Gb5 (bSe6)
Perhaps this could be improved, but I hope it shows how grasshoppers might function as locomotives.
| | | (52) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:55]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [14-05-20] |
One nice feature with Locomotives is that you have not too many "side questions"
2 have been raised here :
what about the OO or OOO ?
two possible simple answers : OO or OOO is forbidden or allowed and the related tracted pieces add the 2 tractions, in that case, what about a King tracted out and back without moving ?
what about the e.p. capture if the landing square of the pawn is occupied ?
2 simple answers : forbidden in any case or forbidden if it is by a friend piece of the capturing side and double capture if it is a piece of the opposite side.
Grasshopers raise a similar question too.
| | | (53) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, May 20, 2014 16:57]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-20] |
Jacques,
Three are several issues here -- probably more than any condition I've ever encountered; in fairness, this isn't a single condition -- already countless conditions have been spun from this one idea!
That is not something you see everyday -- and we should take all this as a sign that this idea has enormous (and far-reaching) potential -- which should warrant more time for deeper reflection!
I hope we get more perspectives on these issues, before falling into the old traps (rules dictated from a false presumption of haste, the petty claims of dictatorial authority, ignorance of precedent, ignorance about algorithms, ignorance about future ramifications, carelessness about consistency, carelessness about proper classification, etc)...
The motivation for haste is clear -- composers want to see speedy development of a solving tool, and programmers require a clear specification (pronto!).
Programmers also want test examples -- and the composers are reluctant to admit that their early efforts might be altered by an evolving set of special case rules.
The inventor wants to publish an article -- which usually will include a rushed launch of a thematic composing tourney.
So, everybody rushes to carve everything in stone -- rules, special cases, naming conventions, even the classification -- before anyone has a chance to appreciate what we are dealing with, and what are the possible resolutions.
Later, nobody can summon the collective courage to overcome the snowballing inconsistencies -- as if to force the future to smash all our stone tablets, and begin anew.
Our inventions are treated to amputation, before they're even born.
It would be much better to slow down -- build a general case solving tool, compose test problems which avoid special cases, petition for suggestions, and insist that these matters are under development (keep the final draft pending a while).
Even experienced fairy inventors are fools to think they can grapple with all this, alone -- successful inventors listen to diverse voices from the larger problem community! Prevent the snap decisions asserted by individual liberty, and this Loco-thing has a real chance to be one of the great condition-Forms of all time.
Here's an outline of some issues -- which everyone can help to extend in greater details, as time passes.
1) Classification
2) Naming conventions
a) precedent of Dynamo, Tanks (safe to say these are related, but different).
b) Bulldozers, Restricted-Form, ...
c) Trailers
3) Instantiation of Individual units.
a) disambiguation of duality issues (Locomotives and Trailers).
4) Rex Exclusivity Duality, and disambiguation
a) resolution priority: first Locomotives, then Trailers.
5) Priority of captures/rebirths
a) options...
6) Castling:
a) do reborn units have castling rights?
b) how does castling impact the other units on that line?
7) En passant:
a) can a white pawn capture a black pawn, if black's pawn was reborn from the 7th rank to the 5th, on an adjacent file?
b) what if a unit is reborn onto the destination square for a pawn capturing en passant?
8) Pawn promotion/demotion:
a) what happens when pawns are reborn onto the 1st?
b) what happens when pawns are reborn onto the 8th? (if promotion, who selects?)
9) Duality (Locomotives / Trailers) issues:
a) lots of questions remaining to be addressed here -- many of which we haven't begun to ponder!
I'm probably missing a few (and I certainly have not fully addressed the sub-Indexes), but we can all help improve this outline, as time passes.
...
I'll have much more to say about the double castling en passant move, hopefully soon.
Jacques makes a good point about en passant being denied by rebirth of a friendly unit (behind the two-step advance of a hostile pawn).
But, troubling issues remain outstanding yet, concerning cases where this rebirth is similarly hostile -- for a prelude, consider this position:
Scheme
 (= 4+2 )
=1?
Locomotives
It might be controversial to say this, but I believe that the diagram *should* offer white an opportunity to stalemate black, in a single move:
1. g4 (wRg1->g3)! = (?)
I addressed this once before, long ago, in a Circe Parrain s#2 (which has since become lost to me) -- suffice it to say, for now, that the issue is entirely based on the concept of deterministic rules.
It's also worth noting that this special case will be much more pronounced in Locomotives -- it's far, far easier to achieve the circumstances (and motivation) necessary to exercise a double-capturing en passant move!
In Parrain, it is necessary to position for the capture of the trailer, to motivate the capture of said trailer, and to spend an extra move executing said capture -- the necessity of this delicate orchestration was enough to guarantee that the new rule advanced (back in 2001, in my collaborations with Michel Caillaud) would have negligible (if not zero!) impact upon any of a thousand Parrain problems, none of which had ever considered a need to mitigate this unforeseen possibility. It is fortuitous that we caught this ambiguity, before many thousands of Locomotive problems were composed -- allowing composers an opportunity to circumvent the necessity for corrections, in conditions where this peculiarity is much more likely to occur!
And, it's worth noting that our collaboration was not intended as a set of mere joke problems -- Michel and I agreed that we were also promoting a proper resolution to an ambiguous circumstance not foreseen by the rules of Parrain Circe.
Furthermore, all our joint problems in this vein (along with a few individual efforts) were generally well received; it might be argued that this double-capture possibility has been largely accepted as the defacto rule, for conditions allowing such a peculiar instance of rebirth.
I know that the easy thing to do is toss away special cases, but I sincerely hope that we will not be tossing out the baby, with the bathwater -- this is a logical and coherent rule, and we should favor an establishment of consistent resolution options! Just consider how peculiar cases of en passant capture have enhanced Madrasi and Isardam -- not even for the interests of easing the task of our cherished programmers, should we surrender these glorious peculiarities!
That said...
Orthodox Chess is a game of deterministic rules -- a player has only two methods to alter the position:
1) select a move (from square, to square), and
2) select from promotion options.
note that problem chess has removed its third possibility: 3) make a claim (which might terminate play).
As such, the game can be recorded merely with the set of move choices (from square + to square), plus promotion choices.
Take&Make and Super-Circe, for example, are games ruled by an expanded form of determinism (there is an additional option for players to alter the position -- e.g., select from rebirth alternatives).
This expansion implies no lesser value for these conditions -- though it does say something about a less elegant form of determinism, and it implies that something more is required to record their games!
The point is, these games were inherently designed to function under an expanded set of deterministic options; by contrast, Circe Parrain, Contre-Parrain, and Locomotives were not intended to expand the determinism of orthodox chess.
Because it is not necessary to affect their deterministic nature, I do not believe their inherent status should be altered, merely to serve one special case purpose!
Nor do I believe that the special case should be vacated -- the logic behind the double capturing en passant move is perfectly straightforward: a capturable rebirth should not deny a player the opportunity to (simultaneously) capture the pawn, by en passant.
Therefore, in the interest of preserving deterministic consistency, this peculiar en passant option (allowing simultaneous capture of two units) *should* prohibit the option of the singular capture. You may take both units simultaneously offered, or none at all.
This is why (returning to the diagram) I would suggest that black *should* have no possibility for 1... fxe3 (wRe5->f4), without also capturing en passant.
And, in that case -- 1... fxe3 e.p. (wRe5->f4)?? -- the en passant capture would constitute an illegal move (self-check).
Therefore, the diagram offers white a peculiar opportunity to stalemate in 1 move (or, white could mate in 1, if a Queen occupies g1, in the diagram).
I'll refrain from my traditional rant -- in which I would insist that WFCC has an obligation to sanction new inventions.
I will only remind everyone of the alternative to a universal fairy codex: everyone will have liberty to create individual problem journals (and webpages, and databases, and solving tools), each declaring their own set of names and rules, in accord with their own sovereign preferences; this only continues to the detriment of fairy chess integrity (until all communication must pass through an elaborate Google translator).
The onus is on Fairy enthusiasts to push this through WFCC (or, failing that, to create an independent federation) -- popular apathy is neither a valid defense, nor a justification for invention theft.
Sorry for the length of this post, but many issues were covered...
| | | (54) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, May 20, 2014 21:36]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [14-05-20] |
I'd like to concentrate on Locomotive, and nothing else.
There is another solution for the questions of post (52) - perhaps, far the best - not to choose anything, and let composers choose if necessary.
This may be difficult for programers, but... they can themselves choose or give options.
Amongst different things in post (53) is a 4th question : what about a pawn pulled from its initial square and e.p. ? (it can be pulled even far...).
About OO and OOO if permitted, there is, in general only one pull, so there is no question, also a pulled king pulled back will not paractically let any OO possible (only if he is pulled by something like a Rose, there might be a question)
There may be also some strange cases with cylinders or Roses.
I can see no reason to mix or compare different fairy conditions or rules that are not bonded to each other.
The word "reborn" for a pulled piece seems to me inappropriate.
| | | (55) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, May 20, 2014 21:58]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-20] |
@Jacques,
>"There is another solution [to special case issues] ... - perhaps, far the best - not to choose anything, and let composers choose if necessary."
>"This may be difficult for programers, but... they can themselves choose or give options."
As a temporary solution, I fully agree that composers and programmers should offer options, for some time.
However, I would assert that WFCC should have final authority, and the inventor should be their supreme consultant (with authority over all decisions deemed completely arbitrary).
Neither composed precedent, nor some programmed version, should be construed as a binding rule.
Everyone should recognize that the rules are evolving, and we (in the present) have an obligation to provide minimally intrusive corrections, for all compositions which might have been construed sound, in the past.
>"I'd like to concentrate on Locomotive, and nothing else"
I appreciate your position -- I too want to return to studying/composing more examples.
I've voiced several suggestions, and I'm happy to give my voice a rest.
But, let us not discourage others from doing the same!
>"Amongst different things in post (53) is a 4th question : what about a pawn pulled from its initial square and e.p. ? (it can be pulled even far...."
Excellent insight -- that possibility completely escaped my attention!
In Circe Parrain, no solving tools allow for en passant capture of pawns reborn in such a manner (even from their 2nd- to their 4th- ranks), but a pawn can advance two steps forward, giving rebirth to a neutral pawn on an adjacent file, after which most solving tools actually allow the reborn pawn -- which was never actually "passed by"! -- to capture the pawn which advanced, by en passant. But, you're right -- here is not the place to digress (too much) into tangential matters...
>"I can see no reason to mix or compare different fairy conditions or rules that are not bonded to each other "
I may differ somewhat with you here -- I think all fairy conditions share bonds of fellowship, and I think consistency is important.
If we want to establish differences, we should categorize the differences (e.g., if it should be asserted that these translations are somehow different from circe-rebirths, we should define these differences, and categorize the set of rebirth options, accordingly -- this way, you can select what suits your idea; regardless, it is wise to anticipate that some composer will select from every available category of rebirth options, and these options should be seamlessly provided).
Further, we should prefer to default to a consistency with the most elegant form -- from which additional fairy conditions can pivot.
We need a logically elegant description of fairy chess -- leave the chronological history for the archaeologists!
| | | (56) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, May 20, 2014 22:58]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-21] |
Perhaps it is wise to universally establish an interim condition (call it "Safe Mode"), pending the final draft of any evolving fairy condition:
1) castling is never legal,
2) double-step of pawns (from their 2nd rank) is always OK,
3) en passant capture is never legal,
4) standard promotion moves are always OK (with the usual defaults),
5) moves which cause a pawn to appear (other than by direct movement) onto the 1st- or 8th- ranks are never legal,
6) ignore all retrograde presumptions (the diagram implies no previous moves, and may be entirely illegal),
7) dead reckoning does not apply,
8) etc.
Have I forgotten any?
Should it be more extreme -- e.g., promotions default to orthodox units? promotions are never legal? double-step of pawns never legal?
What Safe Mode is universally optimal?
This way, everyone can compose problems in "Locomotives + Safe Mode," adding whatever conditions are necessary to provide for intended divergences, pending publication of the final draft (after that, any unnecessary conditions -- including Safe Mode -- can be removed, and other conditions can be simplified).
| | | (57) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:19] |
About Locomotives, I would say :
- 00 & 000 allowed if not proved illegal
- e.p. allowed if the landing square of the capturing pawn is empty. Ortherwise not.
- a pulled piece cannot capture.
| | | (58) Posted by Linden Lyons [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 13:04]; edited by Linden Lyons [14-05-21] |
@Kevin
You refer to rebirths. Do you apply this to the freight cars, to the locomotive, or both? Either way, like Jacques I wonder if this interpretation of the effects of locomotives is accurate. In an admittedly vague way, I imagine the freight cars simply moving (or rolling along the track) with their locomotive.
Regarding your =1 scheme in post (53), I agree that 1 g4 (Rg3)! should indeed be stalemate.
@Jacques
You raise an interesting question: can a pulled pawn capture en passant? At present I am unsure. I would appreciate further thoughts on this question in order to form an opinion.
Can a pulled piece capture? I assume this is not an issue with orthodox pieces, but it is with pieces like grasshoppers. I would prefer to permit captures provided the capturer and captured are of opposite colours, e.g. wPb3, wGc3, bPd3: 1 Ga3 (bPxb3) and 1 Ge3 (wPxd3) are both allowed. However, if both pawns are white, or if both pawns are black, then 1 Ga3 and 1 Ge3 are illegal.
I am inclined to say that en passant is allowed if the landing square of the capturing pawn is empty or if it is occupied by an enemy piece, but not if it is occupied by a friendly piece. I think this is also Kevin’s view?
Consequently, I believe that there can be situations where double captures occur.
I agree with your view that 0-0 and 0-0-0 are allowed if not proved illegal.
| | | (59) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 17:54]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-21] |
@Linden,
I think Jacques' comment (re: en passant captures of the trailers) was likely piggybacking off a point in my outline, wherein I listed this possibility, in an attempt to provide a more complete view of the issues.
I would not suggest this should be legal, and there's some evidence that Jacques would not consider this to be a wise choice, either.
In fact, Jacques offered a good insight into the complexities which spiral from such a rule...
You are safely on consistent ground to restrict the en passant capture option to the engine (not the trailer), in Locomotives.
I don't want to go too far off track, but for some evidence of this, consider the treatment in the most closely related circe variant:
Circe Parrain (a captured unit is reborn from the capture square, same distance and direction as the move following capture).
Even here, pulled pawns can not be captured en passant.
e.g.,
 (= 4+4 )
h=2
b) bPb4->a5 (?)
Circe Parrain
a) 1. exf2 ...Qf4(+wPf3) 2. exf3 Qxb4(+wPb3) =
b) no solution, but note what fails: 1. exf2 ...Qf5(+wPf4) 2. exf3 e.p. {??!??} Qxa5(+wPa4) =
If black's second move (the en passant capture of a hostile pawn, reborn from f2 to f4) had been legal, this would have yielded a solution.
| | | (60) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 18:12]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-21] |
@Linden,
re: Post #53... err, I see now that I neglected to place a black Pawn on g5, to make an only solution of the intent.
But, I found a better way to illustrate this:
 (= 5+2 )
=1
Locomotives
1. Be6? / 1. Bh5? but ...f3!
1. g4 (wRg1->g3)!! =
1... f3 (wBf7->f6) ?? {would be legal move, if not for self-check.}
1... fxg3 e.p. (wRe5->f4)+ ?? {would be legal move, if not for self-check.}
1... fxg3 (wRe5->f4)+ ?? (without e.p.)
{illegal by condition -- to maintain a consistent determinism, double-capturing ep move possibilities, plus (arguably) parity w/ Circe Parrain condition.}
If a player can capture two units simultaneously by special case en passant, the player must take both, or none at all.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5
MatPlus.Net Forum Fairies Locomotives (new fairy condition) |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
