MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

2:13 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Fairies Locomotives (new fairy condition)
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5
(21) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 18, 2014 17:24]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-18]

Hey, your new #2 has much more interesting defenses, with the Loco-Rook!
And, so far, it's looking good...

Also, I see your point about the dual after 1.Kg2 (in the series problem) -- and attempts to repair that don't seem warranted.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12175
(22) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 18, 2014 18:02]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-19]

Though the following diagram is (of course) seen in Dynamo, I don't find any instances in conjunction with the following stipulation (not sure why not):

KJB, MPF '14
(= 2+2 )
h=3
Locomotive Dynamo

1. a5 (bKa8->a6) b7 2. Ka7 (bPa5->a6) b8=S 3. Ka8 (bPa6->a7) Sa6 =

If this can be stipulated as simply Dynamo, I suppose that would be the preferable form; but, I may need to better understand the rules of Dynamo.

funny note: at first I thought there was a h#2 here, but 2...b8Q+ can be parried by 3.a5 (bKa7->a6).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12176
(23) Posted by Linden Lyons [Sunday, May 18, 2014 18:12]

@Siegfried

Locomotives as a general fairy condition is possible, but I suspect the designation of particular pieces as locomotives permits greater flexibility, as in Jacques’s #2 in post (15). Perhaps locomotives could function either as a fairy condition or as designated fairy pieces, depending on the choice of the individual composer?

Your proposal for Anti-Locomotives (or Contre-Locomotives or Bulldozers) is interesting, and you raise a good question regarding whether a capture can precede a push. My intention with Locomotives is that the entire train (i.e. locomotives and ‘freight cars’) moves simultaneously. Orthodox-style captures occur as usual. The difficulty with Anti-Locomotives/Contre-Locomotives/Bulldozers (as a fairy condition) is that if pushing comes first, then captures will never occur and we cannot have checkmate. Consequently, it seems that capturing should take priority. In your third example, my interpretation is that 1 Qg7 Kxg7 is safe because 2 Kxg7 is illegal – the bPh6 cannot be pushed off the board. This dilemma is resolved if we designate only the bK as an anti-locomotive (or contre-locomotive or bulldozer): 2 Kxg7 becomes possible because the orthodox wK does not push the bP.


@Kevin

I had not heard of Dynamo. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am inclined to favour the name Locomotives over Dynamo Locomotives not out of disrespect towards Dynamo but because:

(1) the name Locomotives is more compact and adequately descriptive, and
(2) the differences between Locomotives and Dynamo seem to me to be significant, e.g.
a. in Dynamo only one piece can be pushed or pulled,
b. in Dynamo pieces can be pushed or pulled off the board, and
c. in Dynamo check(mate) involves the king being (threatened to be) pushed off the board.
In Locomotives, several pieces can be pulled, the edge of the board is a barrier (buffers!), freight cars maintain the same distance, and check(mate) is orthodox.

In Locomotives (as a fairy condition), unless there is a strong argument against this, I consider castling to be illegal if either the king or rook has moved, e.g. wKe1, wRh1: 1 Kd1 (Rg1) … 2 Ke1 (Rh1) … 3 0-0? is just as illegal as 1 Ke2 … 2 Ke1 … 3 0-0?

In castling (with Locomotives as a fairy condition), it may be best to consider both the king and the rook as locomotives without any pull on one another, e.g. wKe1, wRa1, wRh1: 1 0-0 (Rac1) or 1 0-0-0 (Rhf1). With the same position in Anti-Locomotives/Contre-Locomotives/Bulldozers (as a fairy condition), I imagine that 1 0-0 or 1 0-0-0 is illegal, e.g. 1 0-0-0? would push the wRh1 off the board. However, we could have 1 Rh2 … 2 0-0-0.

Pawns cannot be pulled to the 1st or 8th ranks because it is the locomotive that is at the head of the train. The locomotive must stop at the edge of the board, and the freight cars, including any pawns, stay to the rear. Naturally, combinations with other fairy conditions may complicate the matter, in which case I would propose that pawns on the 1st rank are illegal and that pawns on the 8th rank promote (and I suggest that this be the case for Anti-Locomotives/Contre-Locomotives/Bulldozers).

Leapers can be locomotives, so in your example in post (10), 2 Sf7 (Bd3)# is legal.

Nice h=3 in post (22)!


@Jacques

Locomotives only pull and must do so. The pulled pieces move the same distance as the locomotive.

I like your ser-#7, and your #2 is delightful!


@Geir

Restricted Locomotives are a brilliant idea! I like your example. Seetharaman could be right in saying it is better than Locomotives. The only drawback I can see is that knights would be unable to pull.

In Locomotives, knights can pull, so in your second example there is indeed 1 Sc5 (Qb3)#.


@Seetharaman

I suppose there could be a fairy condition with just one adjacent freight car. What is nice about Geir’s Restricted Locomotives is that a freight car is required to connect the locomotive and the ‘caboose’, and it is the latter which delivers mate in his example.


__________

GENERAL COMMENTS

It seems we have the following possibilities:

(1) Locomotives (and bulldozers) as designated fairy pieces, e.g. rook-locomotives, knight-locomotives etc., indicated on the diagram with boxes.
(2) Locomotives (and Bulldozers) as a fairy condition.
(3) Restricted Locomotives as a fairy condition.

Personally, I am happy to see the development of all of the above.

Are Restricted Bulldozers possible?

For pushing, I find Kevin’s suggestion for the name Bulldozers appealing, but it would be good to hear the opinions of others. We have also had Anti-Locomotives and Contre-Locomotives suggested.

Leapers can be locomotives, but not, it seems, in Restricted Locomotives.

How should we treat hoppers? Consider the following: wSd1, wGe1, bBf1, bBg1. Is 1 Gxg1 (Sxf1) possible? Now replace the bBf1 with a wBf1. Is 1 Gxg1 now illegal, since the wS cannot take a white piece on f1?

Thanks to you all for the terrific feedback and compositions! I hope I have done well in addressing your questions, and look forward to further discussion.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12177
(24) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 18, 2014 18:47]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-18]

(= 0+0 )
PG 2.0
Locomotives

CORRECTION: Diagram was bad! My sincere apologies for the blunder (neglected to move a unit)!! I'll try to correct the idea, and post it later.

Only two moves, yet it's remarkably non-trivial!
I'll let somebody else share the solution (maybe somebody who knows how to hide solutions)... or else I'll give it in a day or so.
Maybe by then somebody can point me to the solution-hiding procedure.

@Linden,

Your pawns on the 1st rank answer (which is not such a bad idea in some circe forms, to be honest) only creates a new problem, here...
Does this prevent moves which rebirth pawns onto the 1st, does the pawn (which would be reborn) remain (or become annihilated)?
But, before you answer that...

Frankly, I'm not sure how much you might know about other rebirth forms, but I suspect you might want to take more time to ponder the consequences (and gather some input from others), before rushing answers to specific special-case rules questions.
It is important, for example, to consider that unusual rebirths might occur (e.g., castling rebirths), when additional fairy elements are included.
If you come at this from an orthodox perspective, you are likely to miss the bigger picture.

Inventors really need more perspectives -- some of which they might need help with (no harm in asking -- it's still your idea).

I can't stress enough how much we (the chess problem community) should prefer to adopt a universal mechanism to cover such matters -- and please note: I'm not saying that's necessarily my suggestions, only that we should take time to consider opinions, concerning proper naming convention, and a proper set of default rules (which might apply universally).

Certainly, where non-impacting options present themselves, your judgement should dictate.

There is no haste to cover the special case options -- sometimes, it's best to see how they play out, in examples.
I'm only playing devil's advocate, in an attempt to elicit opinions, and jump-start the process of considering them.
Ideally, you want to allow composers, programmers, editors, and variant-gamers a chance to offer some input.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12178
(25) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 18, 2014 19:22]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-18]

Upon further consideration, I've come to the conclusion that Contre-Locomotives is the wrong analogy -- and I think it's best withdrawn (or applied differently).

Contre- (in the context of the circe rebirth form) means 180 degree shift of rebirth.
But, this does not imply pushing (at all) -- in fact, it implies pulling, with 180 degree shift of rebirth.

Thus, consider: wRb1 and g1, wKd1 , and white plays 1.Ke1 ... consider the rebirths.

In Locomotives: wRb1->c1.
In Contre-Locomotives: the same unit is pulled, but the rebirth vector is 180 degrees skewed, thus wRb1->a1 !!

In Bulldozers: wRg1->h1.
In Contre-Bulldozers: wRg1->f1.

I did not cover the neighboring forms (Restricted Locomotives/ Restricted Bulldozers), because the Contre-Forms do not apply (only Locos/Bulls).
In the standard form, combinations of a single Locomotives form + a single Bulldozers form would be possible, but this is not so in the Restricted case.
The combinations are actually quite funny -- you make a move on some line, and everything on that line either moves away, or comes at you.

Now, consider: what is the anti-form of locomotives?
If the cire/anti-circe analogy holds, the train would not experience rebirth -- it would be the engine which pulls itself.
Such a non-analogous terminology would prove needlessly confusing.

Note: the rebirth must ALWAYS be secondary to the move/capture (for reasons Linden correctly notes, above); further, we must presume that the rebirth onto an occupied square (or off board) must result in annihilation of the unit (as occurs in circe forms of rebirth).
{note: Circe already provides us the additional special-case, which would alter that priority.}
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12179
(26) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 18, 2014 20:02]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-18]

One more question: I presume that the Rex Exclusive form means... Kings are excluded from being the engines pushing or pulling the line.
But, you can also consider excluding Kings from the rebirth -- what do you call that? Rex-Inert/ Rex-Exert?
Maybe it's better to stay away from similar acronyms (RE/RI).

Remarkably enough, this new invention is teaching me a great deal about Circe!!
This deterministic form of Dynamo always seems to offer an additional duality, not encountered in Circe; and, it makes me wonder if it might exist.
It reminds me of the time I tried (in vein) to invent Anti-Parrain Circe.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12180
(27) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, May 18, 2014 20:14]

The h3= is ok in locomotives, cooked in dynamo
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12181
(28) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, May 18, 2014 20:34]

in post (24) there is a pawn e7 I guess (diagram to be corrected)
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12182
(29) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, May 18, 2014 21:42]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [14-05-19]

@ (7): Yes, seems like I overlooked a dual. Also the notation was wrong since it was from earlier when I had a pawn on e7.
For reasons I can't figure out anymore I assumed that the knight goes to f5.
@ (28): With Pe7 there would be a lot of duals. Can't figure out however what happened. Maybe a bPc3 is missing?

(= 13+14 )

Locomotives, rex exclusive
SPG
(stipulation corrected)

1.Sf3 e5 2.Sg1 f:g2 3.f4 g:h1R 4.B:d5 R:f4 5.B:c6+

(= 15+15 )

Locomotives
SPG
(correct diagram now, sorry)

1.h4 d5 2.Rd3 Qc5 3.Rd5 Q:d5 4.Qh3 Qe6 5.Qh2
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12185
(30) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 18, 2014 22:45]

Very sorry, all.

I goofed on post #24 -- forgot to move a unit, and that PG diagram is probably not reachable.

I'll try to fix the idea. Very sorry for the terrible blunder!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12186
(31) Posted by Thomas Brand [Sunday, May 18, 2014 23:13]

@ Siegfried, Maybe I missed something, but I think your first SPG in (29) doesn't work, since 1. ... e5 pulls black King to e6?!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12187
(32) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Sunday, May 18, 2014 23:33]

I thought the same, Thomas. And also, in the second one, White's last move pulls Black's h-file pieces one square forward. It is not easy to keep track with 32 locomotives on the board!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12188
(33) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 19, 2014 01:21]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-19]

Maybe this has previously been covered, and I missed it, but there exists the possibility for double-capturing en passant...
A similar situation can happen in Circe Parrain (and Circe Countre-Parrain).

e.g.,

(= 15+14 )
PG3.0
Locomotives

1. e4 (wKe1->e3) ... Sc6
2. e5 (wKe3->e4) ... d5 (bQd8->d6)+
3. exd6 e.p. (wPh2->g3) {capturing both d5 and d6, simultaneously} ... exd6 (bBf8->e7)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12189
(34) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 19, 2014 01:45]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-19]

Alright... I'm going way out on a limb with this ambitious attempt... please have a go at cooking this.
Hopefully, I at least have the diagram correct, this time.

K.J.Begley
Mat Plus Forum, 2014
(= 16+14 )
PG5.0
Locomotives

1. e4 (wKe1->e3) ...Sf6
2. Ke2 (wPe4->e3, bPe7->e6, bKe8->e7) ...Se8 (wPh2->g4)
3. Ke1 (wPe3->e2, bPe6->e5, bKe7->e6, bSe8->e7) ...Sf5
4. gxf5+ ...Ke7 (bPe5->e6, wPe2->e3, wKe1->e2)
5. fxe6 ...Ke8 (wPe6->e7, wPe3->e4, wKe2->e3)

New theme: Tug of War Rundlaufs.

I have a gut feeling that this must be sound, but this condition is insanely complex... only a computer can say for sure (maybe someday)!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12190
(35) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 19, 2014 04:26]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-19]

Small improvement to post #10.

KJB, MPF '14
(= 3+1 )
#2
b) wSe5->h4
Locomotives

a) 1. Bc1 ...Kh8 2. Sf7 (Bc1->d3)#
b) 1. Bg5 ...Kh8 2. Bf6 (Sh4->g5)#
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12191
(36) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 19, 2014 06:13]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-19]

When it comes to soundness, this is a real long shot; unfortunately, a computer is required to plumb the possibilities of this idea...
As is, it's hardly an achievement.

Scheme
(= 2+2 )
ser-h#13
Locomotives

3. Kf5 4. Kg6 (bSb1->c2) 6. Sg4 7. Sh6 (wPf2->g4) 8. Sf5 9. Se7 (wKh1->g3) 10. Kg7 (wPg4->g5, wKg3->g4) 11. Kg8 (wPg5->g6, wKg4->g5) 12. Kh8 13. Sg8 ...g7 (wKg5->g6)#

It is interesting to see black's two units pulling white units toward the proper junction (especially the white King); but, hopes for a better prelude were not achieved -- would have liked to see both black units trade places as engine/caboose -- but, obvious cooks caused quick derailments on every track I pursued.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12192
(37) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Monday, May 19, 2014 07:55]

Regarding Bulldozers etc., there is an historical precedent - the Tank. It pushes pieces adjacent to it in the same direction as the Tank moves, and as far. If the pushed piece is moved beyond the board-edge, it falls off! Locomotives and Tanks might well be a useful combination.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12194
(38) Posted by Thomas Brand [Monday, May 19, 2014 12:19]

Indeed, the Tank looks quite related, but is differently defined according to "Encyclopedia of Chess Problems": Moves like a King, captures hostile men and pushes friendly men one square in the direction of its move. This "pushed" man again may capture or push and so on; eventually the "first" man (not the King) may be pushed off the board.

Does anybody know problems with a Tank?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12196
(39) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, May 19, 2014 13:44]

@31 & 32: Corrected now, sorry. :-)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12197
(40) Posted by Thomas Brand [Monday, May 19, 2014 14:19]

Interesting question: What does 'rex exclusive' mean in this context? King is not a locomotive -- or not a wagon?

The correction of the first proof games indicates Siegfried's understanding of 'not a wagon'. I think the alternate understanding would make sense, too -- a matter of definition.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12198

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5

MatPlus.Net Forum Fairies Locomotives (new fairy condition)