MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

0:19 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 Circe Assassin
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
(21) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Dec 25, 2012 21:00]; edited by Nikola Predrag [12-12-25]

Neal, I don't understand what you mean.
'capturing the opponent’s king is not allowed' is simply meaningless, it's neither consistant nor inconsistant. Other rules clearly disalow the positions in which the side on the move already attacks the opposite King.

"Attacked square" is also a nonsense (a square itself can not effected by the play, but the pieces on it can). "Attacked square" is not defined, so this formulation should be taken as a short wording for eg. "square on which some piece is attacked". You can't capture a square. Attack is defined by a capture which is defined by moving to a square occupied by an opponents piece:
>If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move. A piece is said to attack an opponent’s piece if the piece could make a capture on that square according to the Articles 3.2 to 3.8.<

So, if a move to a square occupied by an opponents piece (=capture) is not legal, that "square is not attacked" (short wording) and a King may occupy it.
Now we can compare it to Isardam.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=9368
(22) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Wednesday, Dec 26, 2012 01:10]

@Kevin "Thanks for the information on the inventors of the "strict" doctrine.
I am always interested to learn more about who invented various fairy elements and forms.
Can you please provide a date as to when this was invented?"

The short article I wrote on Strict Circe was published in "The Problemist", July 1986, p.194. Shortly thereafter, I received a letter from Bas de Haas explaining how he too had invented it at the same time, independently (under another, Dutch, name), which included an issue of "Probleemblad" with his original Strict Circe 2ers to prove it! In his letter, he stated that he preferred the name 'Strict Circe', which has stuck.

"Also, I'd be interested to hear your views on whether the "strict" enforcement upon captures should be the default in the anticirce form (or the circe form).
Why don't they both default to the non-strict form, and provide strict as an option?"

I'm inclined to think that "strict" should not be the default in Circe or AntiCirce.

"The same question for the RE/RI options....
No need for two options -- why not make one the consistent default, and simplify to a single option?"

Certainly there is lamentable inconsistency in this regard. RI, in my view, should be the default status for Fairy conditions. I've composed a few problems using Protean Men, invented in the late 1940s, the default of which has always been RI (when presented as "Protean Men"), with RE needing to be explicitly stated. Yet many conditions, like Circe [Chess], started out as Circe Men - not necessarily including all force present in the diagram. Ditto Neutrals. Application to the King often came later. However, once the variant 'X' evolves from 'X' Men to 'X' Chess, it does seem logical to include the King automatically in the variant (if able to be applicable to the King). Why exclude the King, when including His Majesty in the condition enriches it?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9369
(23) Posted by Neal Turner [Wednesday, Dec 26, 2012 10:00]

@Nikola
Well of course it is possible to attack a square - we do it all the time in problems to provide guards on a king's field.

What this discussion seems to be pointing to is the shocking situation that the most fundamental rule of Chess, the rule which differentiates it from all other board games - checking & checkmating the King - is not adequately defined!

Maybe the problem lies with the nature of the King - it really isn't a 'piece' in the same way that other pieces are.
The rules only hint at this but don't spell it out, leading to inconsistency and confusion.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9370
(24) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Wednesday, Dec 26, 2012 10:16]

@Neal. The late Tony Lewis was aware of this issue, and gave a lecture to the BCPS about it. Sadly, it has never been published...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9371
(25) Posted by Neal Turner [Wednesday, Dec 26, 2012 12:02]; edited by Neal Turner [12-12-26]

Now I've thought about it more, my own statement that the King isn't really a 'piece' is also confusing!
This is where Problem Chess can come to the aid of the Game because we have the notion of the 'Royal' attribute.
We've extracted this attribute because we sometimes want to apply it to pieces other than the King, while in Chess they've had no reason to do so because it only ever applies to the King.
So now I state that the King is in fact a piece, but with the Royal attribute.
Now all we have to do is define what we mean by 'Royal' - and I don't mean 'behaving like a King'.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=9372
(26) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Wednesday, Dec 26, 2012 16:35]

We certainly do not attack a square, although we say it.

It's the biggest cause for missconclusions and missunderstanding - shortcuts in logic and wording. Short definitions function very well when we repeat some process million times. So we naturally get a feeling that a short wording is a precise definition. But for the slightly changed circumstances we must turn to the full and precise definitions and then establish the logic process again.

We may think that the "attacked square" is perfectly clear concept. BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN? (It is mentioned but not defined in FIDE rules, quite expectedly). Is the square dangerous as a minefield? An intuitive meaning of the "attacked square" would be a danger for ALL PIECES OF ALL COLOURS. Guarding the flight-square is a short wording for a prepared attack on any OPPONENT'S piece in case it steps on that square.

The attack on a King must be parried, if that's not possible the game is over. This completely prevents "His Majesty" from being annihilated like other pieces. This prevents even the thought of "killing" the King. You may choose to annihilate or not some other opponent's piece, but such choice about the opponent's King does not ever occur. The game is over before that.

FIDE rule about the illegal capture of a King is not only superfluous, it also complicates the definitions of other rules for no good reason.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9375
(27) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Dec 26, 2012 17:54]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-12-26]

@Ian,

Thank you for providing a better perspective on the foundations of circe, especially the strict rule (a very logical invention indeed -- as its independently joint realization well demonstrates!).

@Neal,

I don't agree that checkmate is not well defined (the orthodox definition may be poor -- what else is new? -- but, fairy chess requires a devotion to realize better descriptions).
In my experience, the three most poorly defined rules in chess are (in order):
1) Castling,
2) Capture by en passant, and
3) Promotion.

It is no mystery why our most poorly defined movements offer the richest source from which both composers and inventors may draw.
I really don't want to go into details on these issues -- maybe I don't want to rock the boat, maybe I'd prefer to avoid the endless pitfall into folly -- let's just leave it at that, and move to the matter of checkmate (which troubles you).

When it comes to checkmating royal units, many of us seem to suffer from an "ortho-centric" tendency.
We are happy to allow unorthodox play, but we want to shield the King (indeed, any unit with the royal attribute) from anything other than orthodox mating patterns.

The most fundamentally unique aspect of chess is often falsely perceived to be checkmate -- but, checkmate is NOT limited to an unpreventable attack upon a royal unit (it's meaning is bigger than this "ortho-centric" understanding).
In fairy chess, we must always separate the function and the form.

I would define checkmate based upon something more fundamental than checkmate itself!
Checkmate = a check which can not be parried.

And, still, I must allow that check itself may be reinterpreted -- into an entirely different experience (it need not be limited to a mere "threat to capture the enemy royal").

You might wish to say that check, in the general sense, by default, is any threat to annihilate (not merely capture!) any of the enemy's royal unit(s); but, even this does not hold.
Consider the Anti-Kings condition, for example, where check is redefined (to be what seems the very opposite)!

The trouble with some fairy conditions is, they attempt to redefine checkmate (which is not fundamental), when they should instead prefer to redefine check.
This leads quickly to madness -- legality suddenly becomes a recursive dilemma.

Consider Rex Multiplex (presuming all other things remain orthodox).
Check is not redefined (it remains a threat to annihilate any royal unit, which remains a threat to capture any royal unit).

But, Rex Multiplex does redefine checkmate (and here is why it very quickly leads you down the Dimult Road, into insanity).
What happens if you checkmate a single King?
OK, Rex Multiplex must address this possibility, and the best the inventor could come up with was to render this illegal.
Just observe how this poor condition, which had intended only to add a multi-Royal dimension to a non-fundamental (checkmate), quickly unravels!
So, what happens if one of my Kings is in check (under threat of capture/annihilation), and my only legal reply is to checkmate just ONE of the enemy Kings?
I am in check, I have no legal move, but I can neither be checkmated (because I have another Royal not under threat, and this does not meet the new definition of checkmate!), nor can I be stalemated (one of my Royal's is under check, therefore I am in check).

So, we are forced to backtrack, and consider the prior move illegal!

It is easy (and quite fun) to construct Rex Multiplex positions where the legality of a move can only be determined after having marched many, many moves down its forced path.
Should the path ultimately lead to death for anything less than the full royal complement, you may recursively prove the entire expedition illegal!
Maybe it can never have commenced, maybe the starting the diagram itself proves to be illegal (by a weird combination of retrograde analysis, and the imaginary future provided by the diagram)!

From the standpoint of Chess (in the larger sense, including fairy chess), Rex Multiplex is a complete absurdity.
Quite interesting, yes -- where else can a diagram prove itself illegal? -- but, outside the realm of what we should consider a fairy condition which merits official sanction!

Now, instead, imagine that Rex Multiplex had redefined check to be only an attack upon ALL royal units.
Guess what -- now there is no recursion dilemma, and all absurdity vanishes.

Checkmate is NOT the fundamental of Chess.
The fundamental aspect of chess is this:
1) There are checks (none of which may be entered into, and all of which must be parried), and
2) The fairy condition may define check to be anything.

Beyond this, the only valid aim (or ultimate goal) is that which you can realize on a move -- things like capture, promotion, en passant, reach a set of squares, achieve a position, etc.

Fairy chess should never sanction the redefinition of a non-fundamental.

Circe Assassin has no such issue.
Check is redefined, based upon a modified rebirth priority.
Nothing more, nothing less.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9377
(28) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Dec 26, 2012 19:46]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-12-26]

I should point out that, whereas I don't consider absurd fairy chess inventions (like Rex Multiplex) to be worthy of full sanction, I certainly do consider them worthy of investigation.
Especially considering many recent topics in quantum physics, which may suggest the possibility that our past, present, and future might all be entangled.

Looking at the legality of a chess move from a systems perspective, Rex Multiplex may be considered a "non-causal" fairy invention.

A causal system is defined such that the output depends only upon past and current inputs -- future inputs would have no impact.

The legality of a move in Rex Multiplex diagram (our system) may require a considerably deep traversal into "future" possibilities -- it is not enough to consider the past (via Retrograde Analysis), nor the present (a rudimentary examination to avoid self-check), we are also required to consider whether the move inevitably leads to some future illegality (which must be recursively prevented!).

Just as a good scientist can not neglect that causality is an assumption, nor should fairy chess ignore exploration into realms which may seem absurd.

Most of us tend to assume there is causality in our universe.
If there is some entanglement with the future, influencing events in our present, it must rare enough to avoid any demonstrable experiment.
The vast majority of our fairy conditions tend to be causal (legality of a present diagram is not a function of the future outcome).

It is not my intent to discourage such investigation (either by composers or inventors).
My purpose is only to better characterize (and help categorize) this profound difference.

And, I only suggest that it is premature to sanction any "non-causal" fairy condition, because the extreme implications of such absurdity are not yet adequately understood (we haven't begun to explore this field).

Inevitably, somebody will argue that all chess is non-causal, because we require some look-ahead to avoid self-checks (and, in some fairy conditions, this certainly may be a non-trivial exercise).
However, I maintain that there is a significant difference, when the look-ahead function requires a recursive traversal of future input; and, this is something which can be completely avoided, if we limit ourselves to only redefinition of "fundamental" chess elements (e.g., check, but not checkmate).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9378
(29) Posted by Neal Turner [Thursday, Dec 27, 2012 11:59]

@Nikola
'FIDE rule about the illegal capture of a King is not only superfluous, it also complicates the definitions of other rules for no good reason.'

I agree with this as it applies to Orthodox Chess, but as we've seen above, it is relevent in Fairy Chess where we have the confusing situation that some conditions imply that the King is liable to capture while others don't.

If it was possible to come up with an official definition of the 'Royal' attribute then this could become the default.
Anybody coming up with a new fairy condition would then be obliged to explicitly specify how his condition modified the default.
Surely this would go a long way to clearing up the inconsistency and confusion that we have now.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9386
(30) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Dec 27, 2012 16:20]

Yes Neal, I think that FIDE or at least WFCC should remove the rule about the illegal capture of a King. Then the other definitions might be easier. Perhaps "capture" and "annihiltion" should be partially distinctive.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9387
(31) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Dec 27, 2012 17:58]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-12-27]

We can not depend upon FIDE (an Orthodox Chess Federation) to define consistent terms for unorthodox problemists.
It is the responsibility of our delegates to commission a clear, and consistent fairy codex.

And, be careful what you push for -- delegates are likely to prove incapable of overseeing such a task.
Few have an algorithmic understanding of fairy chess rules (even among some exalted experts of the genre, you will find astonishingly poor misconceptions); and, the few that do possess such vision may yet prove vulnerable to the sways of ego, nationality, and personal associations.
The delegate's cure might easily prove worse than the disease.

Do not trust to logic, it has completely forsaken this realm.

The best hope is that some complete outsider would come forth, and lay down a logical fairy codex.
Preferably, this would be an innocent child, genetically detached, raised by computers in some remote, neutral territory, with proficiency in library science, game theory, algorithm design, and international copyright law.
You might as well call that my fairy codex prophesy.

Given that few can agree on even a consistent naming convention, we might as well assign random prime numbers to independently describe each fairy element.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=9388

No more posts
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2

MatPlus.Net Forum Fairies Circe Assassin