Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
1:05 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Take&Make and its Antiform |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 | | (1) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Wednesday, Aug 7, 2013 04:49]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-08-07] | Take&Make and its Antiform
In Take&Make Chess (hereafter T&M), the basic rule - aside from a consideration of certain aspects involving captures of Pawns - is that, if X captures Y, then Y disappears off the board and X makes a further, non-capturing move as if it were a Y. If this proves to be impossible, then the capture is illegal.
In what has been named Anti-T&M (known as "Circe T&M" in Popeye), Y does not disappear off the board but makes another non-capturing move. I contend that this is *not* the antiform of T&M, that the name Anti-T&M should be dropped for this variant, and that it should universally be known as Circe T&M.
What is the true Anti-T&M then? I say it is this: if X captures Y, then Y does not disappear off the board, but makes another non-capturing move as if it were an X. I further propose that the combination of T&M and this true Anti-T&M be dubbed SuperT&M. Thoughts?
| | | (2) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Wednesday, Aug 7, 2013 07:44] |
I'd say your suggestion is not a good idea. Once the spirit is out of bottle (or worms out of can) trying to get them makes more harm than good. I.e. once the problems are composed and published under one name, changing the name of the condition would mean confusion for anyone coming to them for the first time with changed name. Consequently, I am against such changes even if the originally chosen names are not very logical.
| | | (3) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Aug 7, 2013 08:12] |
You are right Ian that Anti-Take&Make is not the correct anti form of T&M. I suggested to Diyan much earlier that it is correctly described as a variant of circe, as the captured (?) piece simply makes a move after capture. It is rightly classified now as a circe variant in Popeye. Diyan pointed out that even Take & Make is only a variant of Anti Circe ! and he was right I think. Anyway what is done is done. Dont think it would be feasible to alter now.
| | | (4) Posted by Geoff Foster [Thursday, Aug 8, 2013 00:44] |
What Ian calls the true Anti-T&M would still be a worthwhile condition, but it would have to be given some other name.
| | | (5) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Thursday, Aug 8, 2013 05:45] |
What Ian calls the true Anti-T&M was suggested here at MatPlus forum as early as in October 2010 by Kevin Begley under the name ... well, you've guessed it - "Circe T&M"!
http://www.matplus.net/start.php?px=1375932685&app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=799
| | | (6) Posted by Diyan Kostadinov [Saturday, Aug 10, 2013 05:31]; edited by Diyan Kostadinov [13-08-11] |
First I want to start with the explanation that I usually don't participate in such discussions, because unfortunately the only result is that somebody hurts another person of our comunity even without to understand that he do it (you can see this in many discusions here), but when you speak about AT&M as an inventor I feel that it is my duty to explain my point of view, some facts, history etc.
I really respect all composers and their opinions, so hope that you will not accept my words personally!
Ian, before to start changing names, re-define definitions etc. I think that will be correct if you first consult with the inventor about his reasons and decisions... Am I right?
About - is the Take & Make and Anti Take & Make are variants of (Super) Anti Circe and (Super) Circe? NO!!! They are not! Because in these conditions the pieces make MOVES not REBORNS as in Circe variants. And this lead to some specific effects (in case of En Passant, Castlig, capture of Chameleon etc.). But this is not a main question in this discusion, so I will not start the explanations now. Probably will do it in some article, because I need more space and there should be noted also another similar conditions as Tag, Oppo Tag, Kick, Oppo Kick etc., which many composers even don't know, but they are important for such explanations.
So, about the name. First some explanation what is "anti-form" in condition which occur capture between two pieces and some active effect. Basicly the anti-form can occur in two ways: 1.If the active effect is in reverse and 2.If the pieces are in reverse (reverse roles, reverse colours).
In Take & Make (T&M for short) we have two pieces - Captured and Capturing and the "active effect" is the movement.
In T&M:
- the CAPTURING piece moves using the nature of the CAPTURED piece.
So there are three possible anti-forms:
- the CAPTURING piece moves using the nature of the CAPTURING piece
- the CAPTURED piece moves using the nature of the CAPTURED piece (as in Anti Take & Make)
- the CAPTURED piece moves using the nature of the CAPTURING piece (which I was called "Take & Make Reverse" in the begining - see below)
All these variations can be interesting and can be called as Anti Take & Make, Take & Make Reverse, Oposite Take & Make etc. (why you are not agree with it Ian???)
When I searching some new theme for the 3rd Bulgarian Wine Tourney I started to thinking about all of them and the possibilities which they can present. Then I saw that in MatPlus forum Kevin Begley was wrote about the one of these variations. I sent him an email that I planning to present these anti-forms of Take & Make and it will be correct to invite him as a co-inventor, because he already wrote about one of them and we can write an article about these possible anti-forms and to popularize them during the WCCC in Japan as a theme for the 3rd Bulgarian Wine Tourney. I already was organize almost all - tourney announcement, lecture for WCCC, opinions of other fairy composers, short article and was discussed the possible computer check with the programmers (Stephen Emerson and Christian Poisson).
Kevin answer me that he don't want to participate because he was not agree that T&M is not a Circe form (really guys I don't understand why you are so stick to this Circe!!??). So I take the decision to not present all variants of T&M anti-form, because it will be not correct to him and I choose the one which looks promising to me. My choice was also because Poisson answer me that he can programming it, but he can not programming the other interesting option (so called T&M Reverse).
So finally I decided to present this anti-form of T&M (using the name "Anti-T&M" instead of "T&M-Reverse" or "Oposite-T&M" because it was more common and it is easy to be understand and remembered) and organizing the 3rd Bulgarian tourney. In my opinion it was right decision because so many beautiful problems with AT&M was composed till to now and I am really happy that presented it.
In my opinion the most important in some fairy piece or condition is not the name but the possibilities which it gives!
P.S. Each chess problem is like a child for the author. Each fairy invention is like a child for the inventor. He is happy with it, he enjoy with it, he feel it as his child... So guys why you really want to hurt "the father" changing the name of his child even without asking him and really without some serious reason? Would you be more happy if I was called it "Take & Make Reverse", "Take & Make Oposite" or "Take & Make Kostadinov"??? I don't think so...
| | | (7) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Sunday, Aug 11, 2013 05:54]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-08-11] |
@Diyan "Ian, before to start changing names, re-define definitions etc. I think that will be correct if you first consult with the inventor about his reasons and decisions... Am I right?"
Diyan, I agree. However, I was unaware of who was the inventor of AntiT&M: the first I read about it was in the January 2013 issue of "The Problemist".
Where I do disagree with you is in your definition of antiform - which is the UNIQUE situation where EVERYTHING is reversed relative to the grundform (there being one and only one true antiform). This is not the case with your AntiT&M, hence my suggestion for the name-change. Perhaps a better name for "X takes Y, Y moves on like X" - the true antiform of T&M - is ContraT&M?
| | | (8) Posted by Diyan Kostadinov [Sunday, Aug 11, 2013 14:58]; edited by Diyan Kostadinov [13-08-11] |
Ian, I agree that the perfect "anti-form" is when everithing is changed. But even when we changed in reverse some main element it can be called "anti" in my opinion (even that it is not complete form). In my opinion all three possible anti-forms of T&M have interesting possibilities for composing and will be good if someday they can be programmed for computer testing.
The T&M pattern: "X capture Y, X moving like Y" have three possible anti-forms:
- X capture Y, Y moving like Y (now known as "Anti T&M")
- X capture Y, Y moving like X (initially planed as "Reversed T&M" (or T&M Reverse) in the article about T&M anti-forms, but "Contra T&M" suggested from you is also good)
- X capture Y, X moving like X (probably "Own-power T&M", "Self-T&M", "Opposite T&M" or?)
| | | (9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Aug 25, 2013 10:54]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-08-25] |
I believe that I was first to note the anti-form of T&M.
I consider T&M to be a form of anti-circe, and that is why I gave the anti-form the PROPER name, of "circe T&M."
I find it laughable that anybody would defend an improper name (T&M fails utterly to pay proper homage to the anti-circe form, from which it borrows mightily), yet problemists are spoiling to alter the correct terminology, which I provided, for the anti-form.
Proving, yet again, that problem chess is ruled by cronies.
ps: interesting that these discussions continue, but no notification went out about MatPlus remaining active.
That's a nice way to manage dissent.
| | | (10) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Aug 25, 2013 17:52]; edited by Hauke Reddmann [13-08-25] |
I'm begley-ed tonight, which is fine...I've done it before and I do it again :-)
Kevin, the possibility exists that - while the MPF database has our emails
and the "autospam" still works - noone of the team who made it, at all, *run* again
has the tech savvy to send out a "Up again!" roundmail. I know it
only because I never lost hope and tried again after a month.
Hauke
| | | (11) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Aug 25, 2013 23:41] |
Hauke aye,
My conspiracy theory better fits the shenanigans of this thread.
Don't Andernach-Hop me, bro -- given the artificial position, I'm trying to avoid the conformance of neutrality (and preserve my angst).
| | | (12) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Thursday, Aug 29, 2013 09:15]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-08-29] |
@Kevin. Circe T&M is *NOT* the true antiform of T&M, because only half of the effects are reversed (i.e. the captured unit Y makes another move as itself, and not as its capturer X).
| | | (13) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Aug 29, 2013 09:47]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-08-29] |
@Ian,
>Circe T&M is *NOT* the true antiform of T&M, ...
If you properly define T&M to be "Anticirce T&M" (and it clearly is an anticirce form -- where the capturing unit is reborn, according to specific rules)...
Then, you will understand why "Circe T&M" *MUST* be its antiform.
>...because only half of the effects are reversed (i.e. the captured unit Y makes another move as itself, and not as its capturer X).
That's a false assumption, Ian.
There are (at least) three possible forms of circe T&M, just as there are (at least) three possible forms of anticirce T&M:
1) the capturing unit determines the rebirth pattern,
2) the captured unit determines the rebirth pattern, and
3) either unit may determine the rebirth pattern.
In the antiform, called "Circe T&M", Ian, the captured unit (not the capturing unit) is reborn, according to the same rules.
It's only inconsistent if you define T&M to be inconsistent (by appendage, of one of the three possibilities, given above).
To the degree that appendages are useful, I would encourage you to adopt them, accordingly.
Had the inventor properly credited his invention, as a form of Anticirce, then castling would be possible with a reborn Rook, and pawns could be reborn onto the 1st rank (and, these elements could be rendered illegal, by some additional, UNIVERSAL fairy condition -- which are likely to also be useful for other circe/anticirce forms).
Furthermore, this would also allow for additional fairy appendages (e.g., rex exclusive), which the circe/acirce forms have developed (and may continue to develop).
Perhaps the inventor might have even realized that he had invented at least two conditions (up to six), rather than merely one.
In the interest of consistency, and precedent, and proper credit, T&M should be recast as "Anticirce T&M" (with some appendage for the various rebirth patterns possible).
Consider the inventor of Platzwechsel Circe (aka Circe Exchange), who insisted that his invention be called "PWC" (and not cast as a form of circe).
Who was he fooling, to attempt to deny that his invention fit the established pattern of a Circe-Form ??
He lost that argument -- even folks who call it PWC will observe that the default rules now generally obey those of the circe form (save for pawns on the 1st rank, which has never been consistent).
Fairy inventors should observe precedent (or it may be imposed upon them) -- that has been established, in several cases.
Tweaking the defaults is a flawed practice, which is bad for the fairy genre.
And, beyond that, it suggests that the defaults may have been tweaked, in order to profit from hiding the extra conditions.
The rules of both the circe- and anticirce-forms have been well established, for decades (spanning thousands of fairy problems, under dozens of rebirth options).
The default rules still lack some conformity (e.g., pawns on the 1st should default to one form, and we can get rid of Rex Inclusive, and just use Rex Exclusive), but the foundation is there.
Ask yourself: why did the inventor of T&M try to reinvent the wheel?
Nothing is gained -- it only makes fairy chess that much more difficult to follow.
If you fail to foresee the alternative forms, which naturally spring from this one invention, you might think any name will suffice.
When you look at the bigger picture, you understand how a consistent naming scheme is a great benefit for the fairy world.
That is why it *MUST* be called "CIRCE T&M" (and the inventor of T&M should acknowledge proper credit for the AntiCirce form, from which he clearly borrowed).
And, if you can't accept that, just remember this: I was the first to notice, and publish this anti-form possibility (for T&M).
I gave my invention a proper name, which acknowledges the proper form.
So, I don't see that you have any credibility in pushing your own favored name, here.
I reject your proposal (and so should fairy chess enthusiasts).
| | | (14) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Thursday, Aug 29, 2013 23:20] |
@Kevin.
The issue comes down to how one defines antiform. My understanding is this: given a grundform (in this case T&M - whose connection with AntiCirce, though clear, is beside the point), its antiform is its inverse in ALL respects. Indeed, your "Circe T&M" is only a partial inversion of T&M, so by the above definition is not *the* antiform. I agree with you about logical naming, and that T&M insinuates a number of variants according to the criteria you list. However, the name T&M, imperfect as you have pointed out, is here to stay, so it makes sense to label such variants as [something]-T&M. Your Circe T&M is a fine cognomen, because it suggests its rules; I just disagree with you that your particular variant is T&M's true antiform.
| | | (15) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Aug 30, 2013 03:18]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-08-30] |
@Ian,
There is no doubt that T&M is an acirce form, which has several options (as I have listed).
Therefore, "Circe T&M" must be its antiform.
You keep claiming that "Circe T&M" is not a full antiform -- that's just false.
It is a complete antiform of T&M (which, once again, I must stress, should be renamed, and should properly default to observe a universal set of acirce rules).
What you are consistently failing to understand (or imagine), is that my list of options can be written in two ways:
We could have options for rebirth which depend upon capturing unit versus captured unit; but, we could just as easily have options which depend upon the rebirthing unit itself.
A great deal of imagination is not required to see that "CIRCE T&M" is completely (100%) consistent, as an antiform (which comes in at least 3 varieties).
The only difference is, my "CIRCE T&M" should be 100% consistent with all universal default rules of Circe -- just as Anticirce T&M should be compliant with all universal default rules of the antiform (acirce).
If they haven't implemented my invention this way, their implementation may be considered bogus (e.g., if you can't castle with a reborn rook, then they have stolen the name of my invention).
As for the name... No, the name "T&M" is not here to stay.
If that name is here to stay, then by your same logic, so too is my antiform name.
Understood? You are barking up the wrong tree.
Tell the inventor of T&M to reconsider his name, and explain why he should acknowledge that the default rules should be supplied by the default rules of the form (Anti-Circe), from which he borrowed (mightily)!
It's not enough to claim that you support a logical naming scheme, we are all obligated to back that statement up.
All forms of circe/acirce should default to a universal set of rules (whenever possible).
And, problem chess should provide some legitimate agency, to assure, by sanctioning authority, a logical consistency.
The poorly drafted whims of an inventor (whether misguided or uninformed) are not sacrosanct.
Fairy chess has an interest in maintaining its own consistency (in form, in default rules, and in name).
Inventors must endure some sanctioning process -- it's not enough to claim that an anticipated idea can shun the proper attribution, and just "stick."
If somebody mirrors your composition, should we let it "stick" ??
The inventor of T&M mirrored the form of acirce, and failed to properly attribute credit (where credit was due).
No -- that failure can not be allowed to stick around.
| | | (16) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Friday, Aug 30, 2013 04:03]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-08-30] |
@Kevin
"You keep claiming that "Circe T&M" is not a full antiform -- that's just false.
It is a complete antiform of T&M (which, once again, I must stress, should be renamed, and should properly default to observe a universal set of acirce rules)."
Incorrect! The true antiform of T&M is **uniquely characterized** (because T&M itself is well-defined) and would have the captured unit then move like its capturer - not as itself, as in your(?) Circe T&M. Indeed, you claim Circe T&M to be "an antiform [of T&M]", supporting my assertion that you're using the term antiform in an erroneous nonspecific manner.
As for renaming T&M, you'd better take that up with the inventor himself; it has nothing to do with me! Whilst T&M is indeed cognate to AntiCirce, as you point out, that has no bearing whatsoever on naming variants or on the definition of antiform (which - unlike your usage of the term - is unambiguous). Yes, AntiCirce is the antiform of Circe. But T&M has the additional move-element relative to (Anti)Circe, yielding further variant possibilities, so its antiform has to invert that aspect too. Your Circe T&M does not, precluding it from being *the* antiform of T&M. In the unique antiform of your Circe T&M, best labelled AntiCirce T&M, X captures Y then X moves as X. In T&M, X captures Y then X moves as Y. So we have:
GRUNDFORM
1. T&M {X takes Y; X moves as Y}
2. AntiCirce T&M {X takes Y; X moves as X}
ANTIFORM
1A. Contra T&M {X takes Y; Y moves as X}
2A. Circe T&M {X takes Y; Y moves as Y}
| | | (17) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Aug 30, 2013 06:10]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-08-30] |
@Ian,
>The true antiform of T&M is **uniquely characterized**
FALSE.
You are still suffering from a failure of imagination.
>GRUNDFORM
>1. T&M {X takes Y; X moves as Y}
>2. AntiCirce T&M {X takes Y; X moves as X}
>ANTIFORM
>1A. Contra T&M {X takes Y; Y moves as X}
>2A. Circe T&M {X takes Y; Y moves as Y}
For starters, you are misapplying the term "contra."
Beyond that, it illustrates where your imagination fails...
Here is ONE totally consistent interpretation:
GROUNDFORM:
1. Anticirce T&M "original" (aka T&M): (X takes Y; X moves as Y) -- the rebirth is according to the captured unit.
2. Anticirce T&M "alternate" : (X takes Y; X moves as X) -- the rebirth is according to the capturing unit.
3. Anticirce T&M "o/a": (X takes Y; X moves as either X or Y) -- the rebirth is according to either unit.
Antiform:
1. Circe T&M "original" : (X takes Y; Y moves as Y) -- the rebirth is according to the captured unit.
2. Circe T&M "alternate": (X takes Y; Y moves as X) -- the rebirth is according to the capturing unit.
3. Circe T&M "o/a": (X takes Y; Y moves as either Y or X) -- the rebirth is according to either unit.
Here is an ALTERNATIVE -- still totally consistent -- interpretation (note the alterations, in bold):
GROUNDFORM:
1. Anticirce T&M "original" (aka T&M): (X takes Y; X moves as Y) -- the rebirth is according to the non-rebirthing unit.
2. Anticirce T&M "alternate" : (X takes Y; X moves as X) -- the rebirth is according to the rebirthing unit.
3. Anticirce T&M "o/a": (X takes Y; X moves as either X or Y) -- the rebirth is according to either unit.
Antiform:
1. Circe T&M "original" : (X takes Y; Y moves as X) -- the rebirth is according to the non-rebirthing unit.
2. Circe T&M "alternate": (X takes Y; Y moves as Y) -- the rebirth is according to the rebirthing unit.
3. Circe T&M "o/a": (X takes Y; Y moves as either Y or X) -- the rebirth is according to either unit.
As you can now see, there are TWO interpretations which are completely consistent (it is NOT **uniquely characterized** as you claimed).
So, Ian, next time you think something is unique, try using your imagination.
You may just discover that you are **PRESUMING** something that you have no credible reason to presume.
I hope that's enough to set you straight about your false claim -- upon which your entire renaming crusade is perched.
If not, once again, please remember: I was first to discover the antiform, I was first to publish this discovery, and I was first to name it (which I did in a manner COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with the form, from which it borrows -- namely the circe/anticirce form).
I suggest you persuade the inventor of T&M to reconsider doing the same.
I have made no error in consistency -- the only error here is your failure to imagine an alternative interpretation (which remains perfectly consistent).
It is rather absurd for you to claim that you can do nothing about his poor naming scheme, while you attack a naming scheme which is 100% completely consistent (and doesn't fail to acknowledge the cogent form).
C'mon Ian -- if you can do nothing to persuade the inventor of T&M to alter his name, how could you hope to persuade me to do the same?
Do you really imagine that I am the only problemist who can be persuaded by logic?
There are times when I might agree with that statement... but, it's just not so.
And, for the record, I frankly do not care how the three alternatives are labelled -- it's well beyond my focus of concern.
What matters most, is the following:
1) all of these possibilities must be correctly identified as members of the circe/acirce family,
2) the naming scheme for all 3 variations (under both form/antiform) must inform readers about the rules of rebirth (minimizing the need for definition lookup), and
3) the default rules must conform to the default rules of the form (circe/acrice) -- and any alterations of this must require an additional condition (so that it may be simplified, for universal use, with any other circe forms).
That's all I really care about, because these are the paramount issues, for the good of fairy chess classification (logical, easy, consistent, and respectful of precedent).
I suggest that the inventor of T&M should be consulted as to his preference regarding the two interpretations, and he should be first to suggest how to name the three alternatives.
I would be inclined to follow his naming scheme -- so long as it conforms to the above 3 criteria: just acknowledge the proper form, respect the form's default rules, provide clear names for the alternatives, and offer any universal non-default options necessary to realize the rules, as they were originally intended (e.g., provide us a good name for the universal condition where pawns may not appear on the 1st rank).
This way, no T&M problem need be impacted.
| | | (18) Posted by Neal Turner [Friday, Aug 30, 2013 11:32]; edited by Neal Turner [13-08-30] |
I imagine that the inventor of T&M just thought he'd come up with an interesting idea without any consideration of an 'antiform', in which case he's got no responsibility for other people's elaborations.
Whatever crimes the antiformers have committed, we must at least be thankful that they didn't call it Ekam & Ekat!
| | | (19) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Aug 30, 2013 12:57]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-08-30] |
@Neal,
It's not really a matter of foreseeing the antiform.
Had the inventor simply accepted the form (T&M is acirce), he would have foreseen the antiform (circe) -- perhaps the derivative versions, too.
It all naturally shakes out, once the truth is accepted.
The inventor should probably have been aware of the Anticirce form (from which he borrowed heartily, without extending proper credit).
Maybe he didn't realize that his invention was not entirely original, at the time...
But, still, the fairy editor at the journal (where these rules were first published) should definitely have notified him.
If the fairy editor didn't spot this, then the readers should have notified the journal.
The reborn unit should ring everybody's bell: hey, this looks like a form of circe/acirce (it's only the most popular fairy form).
Anticirce has been around for decades, and it remains very popular (perhaps even more in retros, these days).
The longer the inventor waits to make this right, the more harm it does.
It doesn't just undermine consistency (when names fracture off), it also causes real work (for database and solving tool developers, who are ultimately left to account for this chaotic mess).
Fairy Editors (with little space as it is) have to publish updates.
It's far worse if you leave it alone.
Every generation of newcomers will have to go searching outside of the circe form, for alternative rebirthing options.
It's likely to be reinvented, many years from now -- without ever having been noticed (because it wasn't classified correctly).
And, what purpose does this mess serve -- nothing good is gained from this (unless the inventor has deliberately chosen non-default rules, to aid in the achievement of some specific idea, it's pointless to hide from the truth about the form).
Chess problem enthusiasts should never settle for this chaotic situation.
We are supposed to settle for this miserable situation, because nobody has the courage to tell their friend, the inventor, "Hey buddy, your invention is partially anticipated by something called circe/acirce (which is a popular form which has covered all rebirthing conditions, for many decades now). It's still a wonderfully original invention, don't get me wrong -- it simply has to be renamed (to fit the proper classification form), and a few rules have to default to those of that form. But, don't worry, we can still realize your invention, exactly as you want it, using one or two universal options, which are provided for this form (or may be added, if necessary)."
If he doesn't like it, then somebody has to tell him, "Well, obviously you can invent whatever you want, and call it whatever tickles your fancy; but, it will never be sanctioned (by WFCC) this way... and, no editor worth their salt is going to publish a non-sanctioned condition... and, the programmers might ignore you..."
You can't develop a logical classification system, if you are powerless to overcome the whim of every inventor.
And, if nobody has the courage to notify inventors of their oversights, then we might as well just drop units, and invent solutions (ignore soundness completely).
You want a babson -- just draw it up, and you have a fully sound, dual free, babson task.
Unless it's already been invented, I call this fairy condition: fleur de lis chess (whatever your heart desires).
Obviously, you can not solve these problems, but so what -- nobody solves 10x10 cyclone fairy-zoo directmates, either.
The point is, they are all sound problems, as they await a set of fairy conditions which proves them all sound.
| | | (20) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Friday, Aug 30, 2013 15:55] |
Now this is most probably incorrect, but in theory something like this would work then, I suppose?
 (= 4+4 )
SuperCirce T&M
h#3
1.f4 f8S 2.K:f8 (Kh7, Sd7) g4 3.f:g3 (g4-g5, g3-g2) g6 mate
What about 1.f4 f8S 2.K:f8 (Kh7, Sd7) Sf8+. Is that checkmate? Is K:g8 (Kh8) possible? Is the white rook captured, or is the move impossible since the rook has no move?
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net Forum General Take&Make and its Antiform |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
