Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

18:19 UTC
ISC 2022



Remember me

Forgot your
Click here!
to create your account if you don't already have one.

Rating lists


MatPlus.Net Forum General The superluminal Rosehopper Paradox.
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 20:51]

The superluminal Rosehopper Paradox.

If a returning neutral unit (e.g., neutral rosehopper) travels its path fast enough (say faster than the speed of light), in the process of making a move, theoretically, it could capture itself.

(= 1+1+5N )

h#2? Parrain circe
= Neutral Rosehopper

I doubt any solving tool will find the intent, but I wonder if this is explicitly disallowed:

1. ...nRHg4
2.nRHxg4+ (moving fast enough along its path, g4->f2->d1->b2->a4->b6->d7..., that when it hops over wK @ f6, it will see a nRH still sitting on g4, and thus, it may capture itself!).
2. ...Kxe7[+nRHf5]#
(Read Only)pid=10938
(2) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 22:02]

Why do you need a Rose-hopper for that, a Rose isn't enough ?

To go further in your direction, with this way of moving the Rose : a Rose -Lion g4 on an empty board could jump over itself and then capture itself !?
(Read Only)pid=10939
(3) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 22:37]

Right, a rose works too.
Any neutral unit which can return home, could theoretically capture itself.
(Read Only)pid=10941
(4) Posted by Adrian Storisteanu [Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 22:48]

Based on this thought, cylindrical boards are even more convenient as they allow all sorts of neutral pieces, such as the run-of-the-mill rook and bishop, to self-annihilate!?
(Read Only)pid=10942
(5) Posted by Adrian Storisteanu [Thursday, Sep 19, 2013 22:54]; edited by Adrian Storisteanu [13-09-19]

Moreover, other - more peaceful - moves would also be possible: a lonely G on the surface of a cylinder jumping over itself (after circling the cylinder very very fast), playing both hopper and hurdle...

[PS Hmm, and maybe a royal rook could castle all by itself?! :-)]
(Read Only)pid=10943
(6) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Sep 20, 2013 01:21]

In France there is a comics named "Lucky Luke" story of an american bounty hunter who "shoots faster than his shadow"

So perhaps these pieces should be named Lucky Luke pieces.
(Read Only)pid=10944
(7) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Friday, Sep 20, 2013 06:36]

"Normally" it seems incorrect to consider a piece as still standing on board while it is making a move.

At the same time I am very unsure about situation with, for example, WLIb4 BKd4 on a cylinder board, or WRLg2 BKh4. In these positions the Lion or RoseLion may hop over black king, continue its movement and reach black king again. Should it be considered a check?

And this even was one of reasons why a proposal to also allow chinese Rose in fairy section of 9 WCCT was not accepted).
(Read Only)pid=10945
(8) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Sep 20, 2013 07:59]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [13-09-20]

The way Kevin proposes to move the pieces is completely abnormal.
So what ?
That's why I propose a specific name.

The question you suggest has no relation with it.

In the examples you give the black king is in check. With no question.
(Read Only)pid=10946
(9) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Friday, Sep 20, 2013 09:12]

Awesome idea.

But, please correct me if i'm wrong:
... when it hops over wK @ f6, it will see a nRH still sitting on g4

Even if such causality distortion effects are indeed observed in the reference frame of the moving rosehopper, they are still not observed in the reference frame of the board, players, solver and judge, aren't they? In other word, in a reference frame where you check legality and apply all other rules.

Funny, you don't have to go superluminal to show relativity effects in fairy chess. *Any* speed can make difference in maximummer.
(Read Only)pid=10947
(10) Posted by Frank Richter [Friday, Sep 20, 2013 12:14]

Why so complicated?
Let's simply define that a neutral piece may capture itself on it's initial field.
(Read Only)pid=10948
(11) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Sep 20, 2013 13:06]; edited by Nikola Predrag [13-09-20]

The Grand Theory should incorporate some other ideas:
(Read Only)pid=10949
(12) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Friday, Sep 20, 2013 13:52]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [13-09-20]

Chess in Alice's wonderland ?? Reminds of this paradox .... if a snake catches its tail and starts swallowing, can it swallow itself ? :)
(Read Only)pid=10950
(13) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Sep 20, 2013 14:54]

@Frank : it is not exactly enough : a Rose-Lion g4 on an empty board could jump over itself before it eats itself.

What about circe-diagram ?

What about anticirce-diagram ?
(Read Only)pid=10951
(14) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Sep 20, 2013 15:42]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [13-09-21]

@ Kalyan :

I have a friend that once had this bet :

"...if I am wrong, I eat my head !"

fortunately he was right....
(Read Only)pid=10952
(15) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Sep 21, 2013 02:37]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-09-21]

I'm with Jacques.
Lucky Luke sounds like a good name.
[interesting character, too...]

But, I'm guessing this affects a whole family of units (essentially, any unit which may land upon its own vacation square, and self-capture -- whatever the unorthodox circumstances of that may be).

And, as such, that name might be excessive in length.
How about just "Lucky" for short (is that already taken)??

ps: I refuse to provide specific rules for all cases. lol. I'm just not fast enough to keep up with these units. :)
Make up your own special case rules. Knock yourself out!

I did worry some about self-hurdling -- the general idea was self-capture.
In fact, I made sure that my example rules out self-hurdling check to wK.
I think generally, self-hurdling may be possible.

As for circe effects, luckily, rebirths are defined to occur only after some movement (but before completion of the move).
I don't think circe effects have any impact upon these units -- at least not in the general case.

pps: I think this idea is probably best shown using neutral Hamsters !!?
(Read Only)pid=10953
(16) Posted by Eric Huber [Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 09:50]; edited by Eric Huber [13-09-22]

Superluminal Paradox fanatics might ask Popeye 4.63 to solve the following problem (many thanks to Cornel for mentioning it!):
Neutral DGd5 DGd4
Stipulation x1

(= 0+0+2N )

= Neutral Double-Grasshopper
Capture in one move: how many solutions can you see?

For the impatient, here is Popeye 4.63's delicious and über-relativistic answer:
1..d5*d5 x !
1..d4*d4 x !
Now we realize thanks to Kevin that it is not a Popeye bug, but an undocumented feature.

Furthermore, one aspect that has not been tackled yet is what happens when a unit superluminally captures itself and is reborn according to Circe condition. After the capture are there two pieces, one on the capture square and the second, superluminal one, on the rebirth square?
Popeye 4.63 has the answer :
(= 0+0+2N )

Capture in one move
= Neutral Double-Grasshopper
1..d5*d5[+nDGd1] x !
1..d4*d4[+nDGd1] x !
Schrödinger’s Cat is beaten to a pulp.
(Read Only)pid=10956
(17) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 11:56]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-09-22]


"Now we realize thanks to Kevin that it is not a Popeye bug, but an undocumented feature."

LMAO! Amazing discovery!!
This proves that Popeye is superluminal, but the documentation (unfortunately) lags, like Lucky Luke's shadow.

ps: the Higgs boson is its own anti-particle (which is not as strange as it sounds -- neutral particles, like photos, tend to be their own antiparticle).
Maybe it's the same story with the lucky neutral double-grasshopper (which might explain their strange annihilation properties).

So, I'm asking for a $7B grant, to build a (10-story tall) fairy element collider machine.
It's the only way to know for sure whether the virtual neutral hamster exists.
Disclaimer: Theoretically, it could create a microscopic hole on the board.
(Read Only)pid=10957
(18) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 13:45]

I can't resist to post an old obscure mathematician joke:

What's an anagram of Banach-Tarski?
Banach-Tarski Banach-Tarski.

(Read Only)pid=10958
(19) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Sep 22, 2013 19:00]

Very interesting ! Popeye gives similar result if the pieces are neutral reflecting bishops ! Try it with Anticirce!
But 'no solution' if we have two neutral roses on a4 and a5 !
(Read Only)pid=10959

No more posts

MatPlus.Net Forum General The superluminal Rosehopper Paradox.