﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

6:49 UTC
 ISC 2020

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Apr-2020
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum General curious ambiguity in reflexmate?

### curious ambiguity in reflexmate?

scheme
(= 3+6 )

a) semi-r=1
b) r=1?
c) kamakaze chess, reflex-annihilation in 2.

a) is clearly trivial: 1.exf3 ...f5=
b) is slightly curious...

One might argue that black's last move (f5) realizes both the aim (white stalemated) and the counter-aim (black stalemated).
I realize that black is not on the move, of course... and therefore, technically, not yet stalemated...

However, there are ways in which both an aim, and its counter-aim, can be achieved simultaneously...

c) is strangely ambiguous...
I see three possibilities here:

i) 1.e3 f5 2.e4 fxe4(-e4), but is this legal -- the annihilation is mutual (aim + counter-aim are achieved)? or,
ii) the problem solved in 0.5 moves: 1.exf3(-f3) -- again, same question? or,
iii) no solution.

another example?

(= 5+2 )

Horizontal Cylinder
Equipollents Circe
r-promotion in 2

Is there a solution here?
Win Chloe thinks so... but then it probably doesn't regard rebirth-promotions as "promotions."

[note: unlike popeye, win chloe allows pawns on the 1st rank to move in Equipollents Circe. While I suspect popeye is correct, it would be better if they always behave the same way (this affects: circe parrain, pwc, circe equipoollents, take&make, einstein, some types of chameleon pieces, etc). There are at least 3 different interpretations.]

And, there are ways in which the counter-aim can come first, but not prevent the aim...

Here's a purely orthodox case:
(= 5+4 )

a) s-promotion in 1
b) r-promotion in 1?

a) is trivial: a8=S! (>zz)...
b) is ambiguous...

Win Chloe says there is no solution for b), but move c7 to c6, and 1.c7! solves.

Is this really the theoretical meaning of reflexmate?
Even in cases where the counter-aim does not prevent the aim, the counter-aim cannot be allowed in the solution?
If true, can the aim & counter-aim happen simultaneously, in the solution?

Unfortunately, I suspect such issues were never resolved - because most stipulations were developed by orthodox-minded chaps.
But, if anybody has theoretical information as to the resolution of such matters, I would appreciate it.
Thanks.

Here I fail to understand your point, surely being one of the least orthodox chaps of the present...

My long time understading is that n reflex stipulation, both sides are obliged to make one half-move reaching the aim, ending the play, and thus preventing the other side from fulfilling the aim.

Thus, even if white reaches stalemate in r=, even the double stalemate - == - the fact is that he has prevented black from reaching it - and that means white failed to force black to stalemate.

Then, I might be wrong in the bolded sentence as it is my understanding, not any norm.

@Juraj,

A good, non-ortho chap you are! :)

>"...both sides are obliged to make one half-move reaching the aim, ending the play, and thus preventing the other side from fulfilling the aim."

Yeah, it does seem that reflex is not defined so ambiguously after all...
I will concede that the ortho-chaps got this one right, but even a broken clock is correct twice per day. :)

Somebody made the case to me that reflex is a condition, not a stipulation.
I wish this were more than an invitation to accept an artificial set of semantics.

Stipulations are essentially: a player's goal, given an opponent's style of play, with possible constraints on the number of moves.
The goal may be a sub-stipulation (to be resolved iteratively, until no further resolution is possible).
Usually, this spirals down into a player either being checkmated, or having no legal option other than to checkmate the opponent.

There are two fundamental styles of play, opponent resists whatever the goal / opponent conspires to allow whatever the goal.
However, when counter-goals are considered, sub-styles emerge...

One well known branch is the "reflexive-help" style: opponent conspires to achieve the goal, or counter-goal (whatever comes first).
But, as I explored in this thread, even this style gives way to further sub-styles.
This is particularly true when goals/counter-goals are not mutually exclusive (as they are in checkmates & stalemates).

Folks who desire a limited set of stipulations may have good reasons for artificially restricting alternative playing styles.
For me, it is purely a matter of bad semantics.
Reflexive-help is as valid a style of play as is any purely goal-oriented style.