Website founded by
MatPlus.Net Forum Fairies Locomotives (new fairy condition)
You can only view this page!
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 |
|(1) Posted by Linden Lyons [Saturday, May 17, 2014 13:11]; edited by Linden Lyons [14-05-17]|
Locomotives (new fairy condition)
Imagine if a piece could 'pull' other pieces in its wake, rather like a train. There could be problems in which one or more (otherwise orthodox) pieces are designated as locomotives. Here are some examples:
(= 3+5 )
If the wK were not in check, the wQ could move to e6, f5, or g4. However, White must mate and get out of check in one move, so 1 Qa8! The bP is pulled to b7, preventing 1 ... Rb8, and the wK is pulled to d5, escaping check.
(= 2+2 )
1 Qe7!, pulling the wK to c5.
(= 3+4 )
1 Rh6! pulls the bPb6 to d6 and the bK to c6 and into mate.
(= 4+4 )
1 Qc7+? Gxc7!; 1 dxe7+? (pulls wQ to d6) Kc8!; 1 d7! (pulls wGd1 to d2) is mate.
Does this idea have potential?
|(2) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Saturday, May 17, 2014 13:39]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [14-05-18]|
Maybe you don't even need to designate a piece, but that would create a huge potential for cooks.
(= 7+1 )
1.0-0-0! (Rh1-f1) Ke7 2.Qe2 mate
Not: 1.Ra7 Kf8! [2.Qc8+ (Sh3-d7) is not mate]
Not: 2.Qe4+ (Ph4-f4)
EDIT: Dual 2.Qd7 mate, see post 7.
(= 6+1 )
1.Ra7 and 2.Qd7! (Sg4-e6) mate
It is easy to imagine Anti-Locomotives then that push pieces in front of them.
(= 2+2 )
Not: 1.Qg8+?? K:g8! (Kf8-e8)
If 1.Kg7 mate or 1.Kg8 mate would be legal or not is another question. In my opinion the capture would happen before the push in this case. And if 1.Qg7 is replied by with 1.-K:g7, can White then capture the Black king? Probably the push must end at the end of the board regardless of the squares between pieces. So White would be able to capture the Black king since the pawn is not pushed, it is blocked by the edge.
(= 4+1 )
1.Qh8! (Rh2-h7, Rh1-h6) mate
Is 1.Rh1-h6 (Rh2-h7, Qh3-h8) also possible? I think not, since 1.R1h6 is not a legal move in standard chess.
So yes, I think it has a lot of potential, and if only as another fun fairy condition.
|(3) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, May 17, 2014 17:08]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-17]|
In case you were unaware, there exists a very similar fairy condition, called Dynamo.
There are some differences in Dynamo:
#1) The train can be both pushed and pulled.
#2) There seems to be considerable latitude in deciding how far the train moves, in relation to its engine (in vector terms: direction must be identical, but magnitude may vary) -- the freight-cars may even extend beyond the engine.
#3) As a consequence of the latitude previously described (#2), the engine may leave without pulling the train along.
I hope I have these rules correct.
If I understand your rules correctly, I think your version has some merit (in fact, I dare say advantages).
For starters, the rebirths are all deterministic, thus it may be more easily programmed (and notated, and understood!).
However, you might want to consider appending your name to Dynamo (e.g., Dynamo Locomotives), because it's easy to conceive of numerous Dynamo alternatives, and it seems proper to credit the founder of what might become a superForm (akin to the Circe and Anticirce superForms).
The name Locomotives is a very good addition, because it very descriptively suggests your rules: that pulling is required, and that the rebirth vectors are both mandatory, and equivalent.
The first Dynamo problem I find in Win Chloe's database is by Paul Buerke (1970) -- perhaps the inventor!? -- and the condition was explored extensively by his fellow countryman Jürgen Tschöpe (from 1981 to likely even presently).
I first learned of it from a remarkable proofgame (with PWC twin), by Michel Caillaud (in PDB, search: probid='P1007265').
There, you can see several additional problems (in PDB, search: stip='Dynamo').
Unfortunately, Dynamo is not covered by Win Chloe's solving tool, so, I am unable test any of your problems against it.
As for Siegfried's Anti-Locomotive... perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't quite see this as an anti-form...
To me, this looks more like a Contre-form (read: Contre-Locomotive is perhaps technically more correct)-- akin to the relation between Circe Parrain, and Circe Contre-Parrain (rebirth vectors have equal magnitude, but the direction is skewed by 180 degrees).
Aside: arguably the same relation holds for Circe Platzwechsel, and Circe Equipollents -- therefore, the variant of Circe Equipollents wherein pawns on the 1st Rank have no movement -- as is the unfortunate case in PWC -- should probably be termed Circe Contre-Platzwechsel... and the variant of PWC wherein pawns on the 1st Rank move normally should probably be termed Circe Contre-Equipollents.
The other logical alternative is to employ another descriptive term -- e.g., Bulldozer Dynamo?!
One final point...
You might want to consider some important special case scenarios (though I believe most would only apply when your condition is paired with another fairy element)...
Presuming your condition is treated as an attachment to Dynamo:
1) When Kings/Rooks are reborn onto home squares, castling rights should probably be governed according to Dynamo rules.
Example: wKe1 wRb1h1 (on either a vertical cylinder, or with Locomotive + Bulldozer Dynamo), and white plays 1.Rb1-a1 [wKe1->d1, wRh1->g1] ... 2. Ra1-b1 [wKd1->e1, wRg1->h1] ... 3. O-O should probably be considered legal.
I know of one example allowing castling w/ rebith, in Dynamo (which I therefore presume is the rule).
2) When pawns are reborn onto the first/last rank, their rules of movement/promotion should probably be governed according to Dynamo rules.
I have not yet managed to discover what these rules are -- I presume pawns pulled to the 8th are promoted (promotion choices selected by the side pulling the engine, I presume), and pawns pulled to the 1st rank would move as normally (1 square forward only, plus captures/checks); however, if you intend to attach to the Dynamo superForm, this should be verified (regardless, to make an informed decision, you need to know Dynamo rules -- both in practice, and as originally defined).
|(4) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, May 17, 2014 17:35]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-17]|
Your first example presents a very interesting option, which the inventor might want to consider carefully.
If the King is treated as the sole the engine, in castling, it does follow that wRh1 (the caboose) should be pulled to f1.
However, it seems to also imply that the wR which ends on d1, might experience a pull to b1 (if the pull occurs after completion of the engine's move, anyway).
This can be confusing...
Parrain Circe resolves this dilemma by considering both King and castling Rook as an engine pair (their vectors are added, 2L + 3R = 1R, such that the rebirth of a captured wRh1 would be effectively offboard -- at i1 square, if you will -- and neither engine of the pair would experience any pull).
How would that effect castling in Locomotive?
First, consider the impact upon wRh1: wKe1 to c1 would pull wRh1 to f1, and wRa1 to d1 has no pull on wRf1 (there is no push).
And, if the two engines experience no pull from one another, your intent certainly follows (only wRh1 is pulled, and it does arrive on f1).
|(5) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, May 18, 2014 08:54]|
Linden, your idea is nice !
Tell me if I understood well
The locomotive can only pull (not push)
The pull move is mandatory : when a locomotive moves, it cannot choose not to pull.
The pulled pieces have an equipollent move : same lengh exactly.
This seems to me very interesting. I'll try to make some examples soon.
A natural by-product would be a 1- piece locomotive that could pull only one piece.
|(6) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Sunday, May 18, 2014 12:17]|
Another natural by-product would be a locomotive that only pulls adjacent pieces (restricted locomotive?):
(= 6+2 )
#2 Restricted locomotives
1.b4? Does not pull anything.
1.Rb2! a5 2.b4# (Rb2-b3, Bb1-b2)
Now, I have a question: Does the knight pull?
(= 4+1 )
Does 1.Sc5 pull wQ to b3, giving mate?
|(7) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Sunday, May 18, 2014 12:23]|
Your first example is indeed interesting, but isn't 2.Qd7 (Sh3-e6) also mate?
|(8) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, May 18, 2014 12:33]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [14-05-18]|
@Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe
I think your suggestion is better. I would suggest further modification that Locomotive power be restricted to pulling just the touching pieces of either color. If there are more than one piece touching, the Puller can chose which one to pull. I think this limited power puller has lot of possibilities. Linden can decide.
|(9) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, May 18, 2014 14:01]|
(= 2+2 )
1.Rh2! 2.Rh7(Kh6) 3.Rg7! (3.Rf7?) 4.Rg6 5.Rb6(Kc6)! (Rc6(Kd6)??) 6.Kxc7 7.Ra6#
|(10) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 18, 2014 14:34]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-18]|
I presume (correct me if I'm wrong, Linden) the idea in Locomotive is that all moving units (including leapers) are an engine which pull along their vector line.
Maybe this works to illustrate how Knights should function (as the engine, pulling the train):
(= 3+1 )
Locomotive (or equi-Locomotive?) Dynamo (?)
1.Bc1! ...Kh8 2. Sf7 (Bc1->d3)#
(note: Though I find no specific Dynamo anticipation of the above content, it would not surprise me -- the content suggests itself, for illustration purposes. And, if this has occurred using Dynamo, please accept my sincere apologies).
Pulling neighbors is certainly an interesting alternative (seems a blend of Atomic Chess + LocoDyanmo), but the equi-linear form of the locomotive idea is definitely the most pristine interpretation.
I thought you might get a second solution, starting with wR h7 on g2, but I overlooked at least two cooks.
Perhaps wR h7 to f2 works (to filter out two unique solutions); if not, perhaps there might be a twin form...
|(11) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, May 18, 2014 15:58]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [14-05-18]|
in post (10)
Only the knight is used as a locomotive, so in the stipulation "Locomotive e5" is enough.
In my serie direct mate 7 post (9) if you put the rook on g2 there a second solution, with a dual, if I am right.
Here is a 2# :
(= 10+14 )
1...Bxd5 2.Sb1(Bc3, d5)#
1...Be4 2.Sa2(Bc3, Re4)#
1...Be2+ 2.Sa4(Bc3, Re2)#
1...Bxg4/Bd1 2.Sb1(Sc3, d5)#
|(12) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 18, 2014 16:06]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-18]|
Right, Jacques -- there's actually (at least) four solutions (read: two cooks) with wRg2:
1) 1.Rh2 as you had intended,
2) 1.Rg1 as I had intended, plus
3) 1.Kg1, and
4) 1.Kh2 (neither of which can be tolerated).
I think this might be fixed by moving the wR to f2 (with solutions: 1.Rh2 and 1.Kg2 -- leading to an echo), unless I have overlooked another cook.
|(13) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 18, 2014 16:19]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-18]|
I must be missing something: after 1.LSb5-c3 !? ...Be4 2.Sa2(Bc3, Re4)+, why not ...Kxd5 ?
|(14) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 18, 2014 16:30]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-18]|
As for your "locomotive Se5" suggestion (post #10), no -- that's completely incorrect.
It is always preferable to instantiate a fairy condition (affecting all units), when it serves the same function as the exclusion of a single fairy unit.
It is no accident that the most economical form is that which does not require a special unit in the diagram (e.g., with a box around it), nor an extra "Se5" in the text.
If the reverse were true, fairy conditions would never exist -- they would always be replaced by explicit specification of all necessary fairy units!
Fairy economy is a general, holistic ideal, which depreciates into the specific, atomistic.
Nobody would approve the instantiation of a "Vertical Cylinder on rank 5," for example, if you could equally declare: "Vertical Cylinder (covering the entire board)."
Similarly, your #2 must exclude one unit from the rules affecting all others -- this is a slight imperfection (but quite necessary; and when necessary, completely acceptable).
There is a reason that the universal application of this condition is more difficult for you to achieve (than a protracted series of explicitly necessary instantiations) -- this is precisely due to the fact that the ideal form is more difficult to achieve (it's the same reason a flush beats a straight)!
I hope you manage to correct it.
|(15) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, May 18, 2014 16:49]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [14-05-18]|
After 1.Kg2 there is a dual
in the 2# no solution ok. let's try this (in the meantime it is what I found) :
(= 11+12 )
Locomotives b5, e8
|(16) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, May 18, 2014 16:53]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [14-05-18]|
It seems like those who have ideals do not live in the same world as I do.
|(17) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 18, 2014 17:01]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-18]|
Does a straight defeat a flush, in your world?
In the ideal world, the rest of us generally favor (and strive to achieve) the most universal pattern (which is generally the most elusive).
Observe what happens if you apply the condition universally, in your #2, for example... the universal form would impose a far greater challenge upon you.
|(18) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, May 18, 2014 17:07]|
While we're at Dynamo, there is also a certain
relation to Imitators. (Which is a waggon, so to say.)
|(19) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, May 18, 2014 17:08]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [14-05-18]|
I try to tire people as little as possible
|(20) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 18, 2014 17:14]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-18]|
In the interest of friendship (and with some trepidation that the conversation might devolve), I don't want to press you too far on the point.
With every fiber of my being, I disagree with the fairy economy philosophy you have advanced, here; but, I'll give you the last word, so we can return to some more good Locomotive examples (which I am quite enjoying -- and we call all agree on that).
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 |
MatPlus.Net Forum Fairies Locomotives (new fairy condition)