MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

23:18 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-Oct-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General Republican Chess proofgame
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Geoff Foster [Monday, Aug 18, 2008 08:54]

Republican Chess proofgame


In Republican Chess there are initially no Kings. If the side which has just played can put the opposite King on a square where it would be mate, then they may do this (it is not mandatory). In Republican Chess II, the side which has just been "mated" can defend against that mate by inserting and mating the opposite King. The mate resulting from inserting the opposite king has to be a legal mate in orthodox chess.

In an earlier thread, Kevin Begley said that he once had the idea of making a Republican Chess Proofgame based on avoidance of mates and stalemates. That idea won't work, because mates and stalemates are not mandatory, but I've had another idea for a Republican Chess Proofgame. The idea is to have both kings present in the diagram, which can only happen if the position is checkmate. Here is an example.

(= 13+13 )

Proof game in 8
Republican Chess II

1.h4 b5 2.Rh3 b4 3.Rc3 bxc3 4.bxc3 d6 5.Ba3 Bh3 6.Bxd6 c5 7.Bxe7 Qxe7 8.e4 [+bKc4] Qxe4 [+wKe2]#

This is not very good, so who will show us something much better?
 
(Read Only)pid=2632
(2) Posted by Eric Huber [Tuesday, Aug 19, 2008 22:55]

The problem with proof games in Republican Chess is... you don't have Kings on the board. Kings are rather useful in composing SPGs; thanks to their presence, you can force a move order or a promotion; plus the possibilities offered by castling. Therefore, the future of Republican SPGs looks rather bleak.
At least one proof game with Republican Chess type II has been published. It's not especially good but it uses the definition with mandatory mates (hello Kevin) in order to justify a specific move order. You and Kevin Begley may find it interesting.

Eric Huber & Vlaicu Crisan
Quartz 25, Autumn 2004
(= 15+14 )
SPG 8.0
Republican Chess type II

1.e4 Sf6 2.e5 Se4 3.e6 f6 4.exd7 e5 5.dxc8=S Bb4 6.Se7 Qc8 7.Be2 Rd8 8.d4[+bKc4]+ Kxd4[+wKd2]#
The inversion of moves 7.d4 Rd8 8.Be2[+bKc4]+ Kxd4[+wKd2]# is not possible because after 7.d4[+bKc4]# (mandatory mate) it is mate too soon.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2647
(3) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 01:09]

Very nice, Eric.
Seems you took my idea, before I ever had the idea.
And by sheer laziness, I avoided certain anticipation.
Procrastination is a wonderful thing.

I'd have liked to see more moves determined by mate avoidance... but, nonetheless, well done...
If you say the prospects here are limited, I may take you at your word.

Kevin.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=2648
(4) Posted by Eric Huber [Wednesday, Aug 20, 2008 03:17]

There are still prospects, even if they are limited - the proof game unfortunately ends after the Republican mates. You can try to develop the idea and multiply the avoided mates; for instance, with subtly motivated promotions. It looks difficult, but all the more meritorious if you succeed.

( While thinking about it, you can also watch "Procrastination", a 4'27" animated film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojcEQO74taQ )
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2649

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum General Republican Chess proofgame