Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
21:25 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Fairies Locomotives (new fairy condition) |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 | | (61) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 18:26]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-21] |
Here's a simple nut to crack, with an interesting effect (if you can manage to overlook the grand hammer army):
Scheme
 (= 7+9 )
h=1
Locomotives
Solution (drag mouse here): 1. h2 (wQh5->h4, wSh6->h5) ... Ra4 (wRg4->c4, wQh4->d4)! = {stalemate, but how can it be maintained?}
Note: I have no illusions about obtaining substantial improvement from a longer introduction here; only the idea shows promise.
On the other hand, there might be some hope in a direct-stalemate (I'll await a collaborator, or a solving tool).
| | | (62) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 21:15]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-21] |
With respect to post #60, I think there may be an even better illustration possible:
EDIT: one cook: 1. Rf3 2. Rxf4 = (remedy in next post?).
 (= 6+3 )
ser-=2 {series direct stalemate in 2}
Black is not stalemated in the diagram position, because there's no proof of white's last move.
Thus black could capture on g3, without double-capturing en passant -- en passant is presumed not legal, unless proven.
The same is true of the tries: 1. R~3 and 2. Rg3 allows 1...fxg3 (wRe5->f4)+! . {w/ no e.p.}
1. Rg1 (wPg4->g2)! ... 2. g4 (wRg1->g3)!! =
Only by a precise return to the diagram (with the last move providing the double-capturing en passant option), can white achieve the aim!
1... e3 (wQe8->e7) ?? {would be a legal move, if not for self-check.}
1... f3 (wBf7->f6) ?? {would be a legal move, if not for self-check.}
1... fxg3 e.p. (wRe5->f4)+ ?? {would be a 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.
Other tries:
1. Re3, 2. Qg8 ? allows 1...fxe3!
1. Rf3, 2. Bh5 ? allows 1...exf3!
2. Qe6? allows 1...e3 (wRe5->e4, wQe6->e5)! ... similarly 2. Qg8? / 2. Qc8? / 2. Qd7? would all allow 1...e3(wRe5->e4)!
2. Bh5? / 2. Be6? would both allow 1...f3!
1. ~, 2. Qxe4 ? does nothing to prevent 1...fxg3(wRe5->f4)+!
1. Re5 can not capture f4 in two moves, without giving check to black's King.
| | | (63) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 22:09]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-21] |
Maybe this works...
 (= 7+3 )
ser-=2
Locomotives
Less messy, but I've been getting sloppy... time to return to the drawing board.
 (= 6+2 )
ser-=2
Locomotives
Later version has three grimshaws:
1. Rd3 2. Bf5?? ...Kg5
1. Ra3 2. f3?? ...Kg3
1. Rh3 2. f3?? ...Ke3
And some other tries:
1. Rd3 2.Bc6?? ...Kg4
1. Rd3 2.Rxd4?? ...Kf3
| | | (64) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 23:06]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [14-05-21] |
In the earlier problem, g4-g5 is not a second solution because the rook would go to g4.
What are Ph7 and Ph6 for? If you can remove them again, you have a nice Grimshaw try: 1.Rg5 2.Rg8 Kh5!
| | | (65) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 23:12]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-21] |
Thanks Siegfried, you're 100% correct.
Tough condition -- takes a while to acclimate... and then you start seeing things that aren't there.
I since realized that I was wrong not to left-shit -- which was based entirely on a =1 problem (and I hoped to keep the nicer finish)...
Grimshaw is nice, you're right -- but I missed that I can economize. I'll take a break, and come back to it.
If you find any cooks to either of the two above, let me know.
| | | (66) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, May 22, 2014 00:41] |
I don't want to get off track here, but here are some thoughts, to give some idea what new conditions this one idea might unleash.
For one, you could mix this with Circe forms, so that units pushed/pulled on a line are actually reborn onto their home squares (without ever a need for captures!).
Obviously, depending on the Circe form employed, that might require a complex mechanism to resolve priorities on a shared rebirth square.
Another idea was non-capturing form of Parrain: where the last unit moved is constantly reborn in equipollents fashion, and no capture need apply.
And, there are a million other ideas swimming around, where these came from...
I really think Linden's Locomotive idea will prove to be bigger than Circe -- probably in the near future.
| | | (67) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, May 22, 2014 06:01]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-22] |
Suppose a game of Locomotives proceeds as follows...
1. h4(wRh1->h3) ... f6(bBf8->f7)
2. h5(wRh3->h4) ... g5(bSg8->g6)
3. hxg6 e.p.
What happens if black now castles? I presume:
a) the castling move is completed (bK on g8, bR on f8) -- and the inner workings of this move we can ignore,
b) units on a8, b8, c8, and d8 would shift two squares rightward (pulled by the King, but not pushed by the Rook),
c) the Queen has no square available on f8, therefore it is annihilated (no rebirth), and
d) that completes black's move.
Thus, 3. ... 0-0 (bQd8->x, bBc8->e8, bSb8->d8, bRa8->c8)
Leading to the following diagram -- correct?
 (= 16+13 )
Locomotives
Annihilation of a friendly unit is not surprising -- it occurs in Bulldozers -- but in Locomotives, unless I am mistaken, this can only occur by castling.
ps: I was thinking that the game might continue uniquely, as follows...
4. gxf7+ ... Kg7
5. fxe8=S+ ... Kf7 (bPh7->g7)
6. Rh1 ... Rh8 (wSe8->g8, bSd8->f8, bRc8->e8)
7. Sxf6 ... Sg6
8. Sxe8 ... Kxe8 (Sg6->f7)
 (= 15+9 )
PG8.0
Locomotives
Aiming for a grand unification of Valladao + Castling-Paradox + Ceriani-Frolkin + EP-Paradox -- a fully concealed Valladao.
1) castle + hide it by returning King and Rook (Castling Paradox),
2) e.p. capture + hide it by fairy replacement of like pawn on home square of pawn captured by e.p. (this Fairy theme deserves a name: EP-Paradox!?),
3) promote + hide it by getting it annihilated (Ceriani-Frolkin).
Donati + "White At Home" Themes are the cherries on top.
pps: some twins might be possible, but all are far too similar.
| | | (68) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Thursday, May 22, 2014 21:17]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [14-05-22] |
Linden,
Your invention is very nice, still a bit complex. I think there is interest to show it as simple as possible, that's why I proposed you to adopt this :
" - e.p. allowed if the landing square of the capturing pawn is empty. Ortherwise not. "
and also
" - a pulled piece cannot capture. " of course also not a piece of its own side !
I would add :
- such a move is illegal
on that view the 00 in post (67) is illegal
I agree that double captures are a tricky feature, but it looks more like an unnecessary complication.
You may choose also to keep two kinds of Locomotives - or perhaps more !
| | | (69) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, May 23, 2014 13:31]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-23] |
I have some quibbles with two points that Jacques makes, but on the whole, I see an opportunity for common ground.
1) We probably can agree that multiple interpretations are both a blessing and a curse.
Ideally, an inventor would prefer to convey a clear set of unambiguous rules, from a single sentence (e.g., "Promotions restricted to Queens" -- enough said).
On the other hand, sometimes more alternatives demonstrate the depth of an idea (e.g., the numerous Circe Conditions helped to enrich it, and contributed to its overwhelming popularity).
2) I agree that Jacques has provided one possible interpretation of the special case rules (ditto with post 67, and more options possible).
3) I agree that the individual rules of that interpretation are quite consistent with one another (ditto with post 67, and more options possible).
4) I agree there is definite merit in his interpretation (ditto with post 67, and more options possible).
5) I agree that his interpretation naturally suggests itself (ditto with post 67, and at most a handful of others).
6) I agree that his interpretation constitutes a slightly more simplified form, compared to that offered in post 67 (and there may be some merits to this).
Here, we might quibble slightly with what this statement omits.
For starters, it neglects to mention that there exists a much more simplified form; in fact, a number of fairy enthusiasts will claim that castling and en passant were never intended to be legal in Fairy problems (some even eliminate promotion).
Second, this does not actually simplify the stated rules (it removes no inherent rule ambiguity -- only some disambiguations are a shade simpler, the rule book is no leaner).
Third, rules of Fairy conditions are not consistently based upon simplification (more likely, the opposite is true).
Finally, it omits that the merits of simplicity are give & take -- there are many potential benefits of greater complexity, as well.
For example, consider the complexity of en passant capture, in both Madrasi (and Isardam).
It does require a small period of acclimation, but it greatly enhances the condition, and it opens doors to the most remarkable ideas.
We can safely say that any argument based upon simplification, constitutes something of an over-simplification.
Further, this simplified castling rule completely neglects Bulldozers (or else, without consideration, imposes a rule upon it) -- which could very easily allow for units to be pushed off the board.
7) I make no claim that Jacques' interpretation of en passant capturing, or castling, is any less consistent.
This is an important statement, which I do not omit.
One could claim that Circe does provide precedent/consistency for the castling interpretation seen in my previous post, and Parrain offers something similar for double-capturing e.p. -- however see little merit in either claim.
In my view, the Fairy community must reach agreements on a set of default standards, and for WFCC to codify these decisions, to establish a base class (from which all diverse alternatives can be stipulated by additional fairy elements).
This must be based upon logical criteria, not upon consistency and tradition.
8) Jacques has made no claim about solving tools, and he easily could have.
It is natural for an inventor to want their default condition in a solving tool, so ease of programming tends to suggest itself as a point of compromise (sometimes, in fact, the programmers will realize their own interpretation).
Sadly, to my knowledge, double capturing e.p. has never been implemented on any solving tool.
One could argue that this is something of a disadvantage.
It is debatable where this should be a valid criteria -- but for practical purposes, the programmers quite often will decide your rules for you (not logic, not WFCC).
Maybe talk to some programmers about the array of options... I expect they would find a hybrid easiest to code (though it may be less coherent).
The interpretation with Circe parallels has some obvious advantage -- plus, it's messy to prevent castling based upon annihilated rebirth (that completely neglects Bulldozers, and additional fairy elements could complicate this matter further).
On the other hand, it is easier to prohibit double capturing en passant.
This will not be coherent, but it is likely the easiest to program.
Someday, your default choice will be undone -- so, it should not matter too much.
I'm already too long here, but here's how I score it: My own personal tendency is to the one more familiar (as might fellow Circe enthusiasts), but both interpretations are equally valid.
....
What are these arguments really about? Naming convention, of course -- folks debate that their preferences be the default (with fewer conditions to list, this does give the illusion of economy; plus, it's how we vie for solving tool support).
I don't care so much, because I know something many others do not (or they refuse to admit) -- our traditional defaults will all be changed.
A logical set of defaults is inevitable -- no matter the inconsistent folly that this generation continues to heap onto a careening snowball of failure.
In the end, bad policy will come to rest (at the logical place).
Fairy elements will become fully encompassing rule sets, with version control (30 fairy conditions will roll into one, and look no different from "FIDE Chess 2014").
The saying about problem chess goes, "The select few are in a ruthless competition for attention, and all the rest... well, nobody else wanted to join."
At some point, you'll probably want to make a decision, and publish an article (w/ originals) -- maybe announce a Thematic Tourney.
Sorry for the length, but hopefully the perspective helps.
| | | (70) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, May 23, 2014 22:22]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-23] |
After giving the matter more consideration, there may be a castling interpretation which offers more consistency with orthodox chess (both for Locomotives, and for Bulldozers).
Consider the castling options here...
 (= 3+2 )
a) Locomotives
b) Bulldozers
1) Locomotives, with Circe-styled rebirth (as in post 67):
Castling is legal, after which the white Bishop is pulled to f8, which is occupied, so the white Bishop is annihilated (in accord with Circe principles).
1.O-O (wBd8->x)+ ... etc
2) Locomotives, with Anticirce-styled movements (moves prohibited by failure to rebirth, as Jacques has described):
Castling is illegal, because no legal move can cause rebirth off board, or onto an occupied square.
1.O-O??
While both interpretations have merits, neither one achieves a similarity with orthodox chess, that one might desire. Thus...
3) Locomotives, with Hybrid-styled movements and rebirth.
Castling is legal, after which the white Bishop can only be pulled as far as e8.
1.O-O (wBd8->e8) ... etc
Now, consider how this alters the Bulldozers twin.
4) Bulldozers, with Hybrid-styled movements and rebirth.
Castling is legal, after which the black King remains on a1 (can not be pushed off board), and the white Bishop is pushed to b8.
1.O-O (wBd8->b8) = ... stalemate
Another example:
 (= 5+1 )
Bulldozers, with Hybrid-styled movements and rebirth.
What moves are legal here? All the moves that are legal in orthodox chess, and only those moves.
note: this is a consistency which never changes!!
Further, all moves have deterministic rebirths (no need to make any choices -- ala SuperCirce or Take&Make).
After 1.Rh2, wK is reborn on h7.
After 1.Rh3, 1.Rh4, 1.Rh5, or 1.Rh6, wK is reborn onto h8.
1.Rh7 is not legal (legal move first, then bulldoze the rebirths).
1.Rg1 (wBb1->a1, wSd1->c1) is legal.
1.Rf1 (wBb1->a1, wSd1->b1) is legal.
1.Re1 (wBb1->a1, wSd1->b1)+ is legal.
1.Bc2 (wPd3->e4)?? is not legal ... same goes for 1.Bd3, 1.Be4, etc -- legal orthodox moves first, then the push (as far as a unit can go, without being pushed off board, or onto an occupied square).
The rebirths have no affect upon the rooks orthodox moves, and there is never a case where any units is pushed off the board (or onto an occupied square).
And, this hybrid provides inter-conditional consistency, across Bulldozers and Locomotives.
You can not ask for a more ideal form (it's simplified, logical, consistent with orthodox, consistent across conditions).
I would not presume to declare what is best, but in this case, I can safely dare to suggest that this interpretation is the most natural default form, for your idea (and the conditions which arise from that idea)!
| | | (71) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, May 23, 2014 22:40]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-23] |
Cont... also note that this hybrid-rebirth interpretation can not impede any legal move in Locomotives...
 (= 6+1 )
Locomotives - Hybrid Interpretation
White can always castle, no matter how one attempts to block the rebirth -- the only difference is, the units move one square.
Unless I am mistaken, under the hybrid interpretation it is not possible to impede any orthodox moves (nor captures, nor castling) in either Bulldozer or Locomotive.
It remains to be decided whether it should be possible to impede en passant capture.
Perhaps there is a hybrid idea for this lurking, as well... maybe double-stepping pawns should be illegal (or always keep the square behind them vacant)!
I'll give these matter more consideration!
Regardless that I will personally favor the Circe-Interpretation, I am willing to look beyond that (without pushing and pulling to get my way), in order to discover more natural interpretations. No point fighting about naming convention -- the old methodologies will not long endure, anyway.
I hope it will set a good example, and maybe someday, when all the petty fighting ceases, we can work together to establish a fundamental set of logical defaults (and a healthy reclassification system).
The hybrid interpretation in no way impedes orthodox movement, spanning both conditions (dozer & loco).
Further, there is no cases where any unit are pushed off board, or pushed onto an occupied square.
The rebirth algorithm is simple, straightforward, easy to program, and likely stable in combination with additional fairy units.
This problem settles the issue of rebirth, and castling (in the default case), though additional options are possible.
Still to be resolved are en passant options, and some other matters... at some point, we may want to return to the index, and provide more details.
A final point...
 (= 2+1 )
Dozer-Hybrid
 Lion a1.
I presume the lion pushes from its vacation square [a1] (rather than pull, from its destination square).
Thus, legal moves for the Lion:
1.La8 (bKa5->a7)
1.La7 (bKa5->a6)
1.La6 (no rebirth of bK)
1.Lh1 (no rebirth of wK)
| | | (72) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Friday, May 23, 2014 23:49] |
Sorry, Kevin, but from how I understand it the kings should either be never reborn or be in the last two cases also reborn on the square they stand on.
| | | (73) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, May 24, 2014 09:30]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-24] |
Siegfried,
The default form of any fairy condition should be full inclusion; this would be universally true, if problem chess had rooted its traditions in pedagogical logic (rather than the chaos of popularity, and chronological developments -- apart from empathetic inquiries of history, this is no way to study a subject, nor to disseminate Fairy Chess problem guidelines).
Appropriate amendments befall the authority of WFCC's charter, where they remain untended.
The constriction you have just described would only apply in the "Rex Exclusive" form (of the more general condition), except that the issue is complicated, in this instance, by the duality inherent to this condition (which, I have recently discovered, permeates our traditional descriptions of several other fairy conditions).
See my discussion of "Rex Exclusive" in conjunction with Cabooses, and Trailers.
In order to disallow "rebirths" of Kings, in Locomotives, the proper instantiation would appear to be: "Trailers (Rex Exclusive)."
note: the development of more complicated conjunctive forms are pending the determination of what complications might arise from the above form.
| | | (74) Posted by Linden Lyons [Saturday, May 24, 2014 17:19] |
@Kevin
I am inclined to think that your hybrid interpretation for castling in Locomotives is the best option, and I agree with your assessment that it permits consistency between Locomotives and Bulldozers (legal orthodox moves preceding pulling or pushing, and without pieces being annihilated, or being pushed off the board or onto occupied squares).
Following this interpretation, I think that 1 Rh6 in your second example in post (70) is illegal, since the wK occupies h6.
Your suggestion that a hopper should pull or push from its vacation square seems sensible, so returning to my grasshopper example in post (58) (wPb3, wGc3, bPd3), I assume the movements are now as follows – Locomotives: 1 Ga3 (bPc3) and 1 Ge3 (wPc3); Bulldozers: 1 Ga3 and 1 Ge3.
While Restricted Locomotives are still possible (and I think they should be), I assume that with this interpretation Restricted Bulldozers cannot exist?
@Jacques
You make a good point about aiming for simplicity. It may end up being best. I suppose my reason for favouring double en passant captures is because the orthodox philosophy behind e.p. is that a double-stepping pawn should not be allowed to escape capture from an adjacent opposing pawn. I feel that such a double-stepping pawn, even with a friendly unit behind it, still has no right to avoid capture. However, if the double-stepping pawn pulls along an enemy unit, then it has been a clever cookie and has earned the right to avoid capture.
| | | (75) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Saturday, May 24, 2014 22:46] |
You have now a list of options :
Give us a clear list of rules, it'll be a great help.
| | | (76) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Saturday, May 24, 2014 23:32]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [14-05-24] |
Here is a nice original:
Bulldozers
Seriesmover
Rook and king of the same color stand on the first rank on a 8*8 board, there is exactly one empty square between them and all other squares on the first rank are also empty.
What is the maximum number of squares that the White king can be pushed by the rook in two moves, provided there are not any other circumstances that would prevent the king from being pushed?
Solution: Three squares. The position must be Rc1 Ke1. If the king was closer to the h-file, White could only push two squares. If the rook was closer to the a-file, White also could only push two squares since the rook doesn't have enough space to manoeuver. Only on Rc1 Ke1 the rook can push three squares by playing 1.Ra1, 2.Rd1.
The solution for any board n*n would be as easy, and only need simple mathematical thinking. The White king would need to stand on the file n/2+1 for any even number, or either n/2+0.5 or n/2+1.5 for any odd number.
| | | (77) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, May 25, 2014 08:55] |
Right, my error (typo), 1.Rh6 is clearly not legal, in my earlier hybrid scheme.
| | | (78) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Monday, May 26, 2014 08:09]; edited by Ian Shanahan [14-05-26] |
There is a fairy condition - "Siamese Pieces" - which is a closely related precursor to "Locomotives" (etc.) Basically, two or more units are permanently linked such that if one of them moves, the other(s) move the same distance in the same direction. It just happens that with "Locomotives", the units in question are all collinear, but the links are not permanent in that a different collinear set of pieces might be hauled later.
I mention this not so much to point out an anticipation of Linden's idea, but rather that it might be wise to investigate e.p., pawns on the 1st or 8th rank, castling, and promotion conventions in "Siamese Pieces" with a view to seeking consistency of rules.
| | | (79) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 26, 2014 20:17]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-26] |
Attempts to establish consistency with Siamese units is a false argument for move-prevention, in Locomotives.
The inventor has already addressed this issue -- thoughtfully, deliberately, and rationally.
Siamese units are like a far distant relation, morbidly insisting upon an exhumation of the living.
Locomotives has a much closer relation with Dynamo, and Parrain Circe (which are at least fairy conditions, whereas Siamese units are a non-universal fairy element, which tends to be employed in the service of a set of unnatural methodologies).
If you begin with the premise that you don't favor the author's interpretation, I have already provided a better argument: you simply don't want to disallow an orthodox move -- as will occur, when hostile units are pulled to occupy a pawn's e.p.-capture square.
Thus far, I have suggested the only intelligent option for achieving orthodox consistency: when pawns are engines, their pulling-power could be limited to a single square -- even when double-stepping -- which would effectively sweep the en passant issue under a rug.
This is the most ortho-consistent rule yet suggested, if the motivation is to preserve the full set of orthodox movements (which has a far more significant relation, than any Siamese pretense); the trouble is, in this case, consistency with orthodoxy stifles the inventor's core idea -- it can be considered unnatural, and inconsistent with itself.
We must all appreciate that the interests of orthodoxy and consistency might insist upon rules which render the inventor's core idea secondary (all units should want to pull in a manner consistent with one another -- period).
We need not flee from special cases -- if they naturally flow from the central idea; in fact, they tend to make life more interesting!
Some of the best Madrasi/Isardam problems, for example, were carved from its unique treatment of en passant -- and this special case rule was not even the original author's idea (that author preferred to exclude it); it simply flowed so naturally from the central idea, that the special interpretation eventually settled into the default (everybody who knows those conditions, at all, will appreciate the beauty of that default rule).
And, we have not even considered what damage might be done, if it were necessary to instantiate such a special rule (this would effectively divulge a natural intent, which was meant to be hidden).
The inventor was very deliberative, and gave a very thoughtful opinion for his interpretation.
Unless there is something here which violates a core principle, we should consider his decision carefully (the inheritance from a false relation isn't helpful).
No matter what rules we personally favor, we owe it to ourselves to consider good arguments for alternative interpretations (Siamese relation is not such an argument), and to remember that our debates are confined to naming convention (and a jockeying for software support).
Remember: everybody is free to create new interpretations, in time (presumably, all interpretations will be explored); in the end, all our naming conventions will eventually change into something more logical (only the few we have rooted in logic will endure -- which leaves enthusiasts no expectation of recognizing the conventions of our own future).
We needn't worry too much about all things temporary...
The hand of an honest community will eventually show itself, and they will have earned the right to recast all the pettiness that this generation tried to corner.
None of our false logic will endure -- there is a future which can not be impeded (for which we should be preparing), and its arrival is the only certainty.
Don't worry too much about what goes on the headstones... only what is written with honesty, in the hearts of a welcome future, will endure.
In the only book that counts, we have yet to pen the introductory chapters.
| | | (80) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Wednesday, May 28, 2014 08:39] |
Although I don't see Circe Parrain etc. as more closely related to Locomotives, that's beside the point. I just believe it's a good idea to investigate earlier cognate Fairy ideas. However, I do agree with you that consistency is a secondary consideration to adopting an inconsistency that enhances the new idea, making it more distinctive.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5
MatPlus.Net Forum Fairies Locomotives (new fairy condition) |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
