Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
0:09 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Mars Circe |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Jan Hein Verduin [Monday, Jun 6, 2011 20:02] | Mars Circe
Should -for reasons of consistency- Mars Circe not be called Mars anti-Circe, as it’s the capturing unit that is reborn, while the captured unit disappears? And if this is true, is there, or should there be, a variant that is true Mars-Circe, i.e. the captured-to-be unit is reborn before being captured, so for instance a white Bf6 can by moving to d8 capture a black Queen that is anywhere on the board as she is reborn on d8 prior to capture. This would imo even go if said queen were pinned; white then simply plays 1.Bxd8, the queen is removed and the subsequent result is black is in check.
But then what if white plays 1.Bh8 and there happen to be two (or more) black rooks on dark squares? Are they all removed?
| | | (2) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Jun 7, 2011 20:29]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-06-07] |
Mars (Martian Chess?) is neither a Circe-, nor an AntiCirce-, Form.
In Circe-Forms, the captured unit is reborn, after being captured, according to some set of rules.
In AntiCirce-Forms, the capturing unit is reborn, after capturing something, according to some set of rules.
In Mars, it is claimed that the capturing unit is reborn, prior to the capture -- but, as such, it does not constitute a conventional form of "rebirth."
You make a good point -- Mars is closer to a form of AntiCirce, if only because it affects the capturing-unit (rather than the captured unit).
But, this fact remains: Mars is not based upon "rebirth" -- it falls demonstrably beyond the domain of both Circe-, and AntiCirce-, Forms.
The only reason "Circe" is part of this name, frankly, is because the Mars idea borrowed the "return to home squares" concept, from Circe.
A better naming convention was required (something to indicate that Mars borrows from, but is not a form of, Circe).
note: I have argued that "Take & Make" should be recognized as an AntiCirce-Form (e.g., AntiCirce Take&Make). This implies a few minor changes are required (e.g., castling with reborn units, pawns on the 1st rank, etc), to conform to established AntiCirce-standards. Does this not otherwise constitute a form of plagiarism? After all, the crux of the idea is certainly anticipated -- T&M simply offers a new set of rules governing the rebirth of the capturing unit.
I'm not clear how you will realize an Anti-Form of Mars Chess, if you insist upon "pre-rebirth" of a would-be-captured unit (prior to any actual instance of capture).
Perhaps instead, you might allow "orthodox" capturing moves, but insist that non-capturing moves are preceded by "pre-rebirth" of the unit (onto its home square).
I'll concede that there are shortcomings in either of these forms of Anti-Mars.
But, I do wish you luck -- hopefully, it helps to correct a widespread misnomer.
Unfortunately, direct attempts to correct obvious errors in fairy chess (which are more numerous than comparisons to sands, stars, and chess moves) are typically met with stubborn and irrational resistance (from sloppy inventors), and widespread apathy (from all those content to pounce upon lemons).
Nevertheless, the corrections are inevitable... it's just a slow matter of allowing a cowardly community to wait upon all things worth fighting for.
| | | (3) Posted by Jan Hein Verduin [Wednesday, Jun 8, 2011 19:10] |
Kevin,
Re Mars/Martian: when I wrote the first post, I was not sure whether it was Mars or Martian Circe in English. In Dutch, it’s Mars Circe and not Martiaans. But in French (where it was christened), it’s Circe Martiens. But the FIDE-album where I looked it up said Mars in the English text, although I now realize that those books are not written by native English speakers. Anyways, I’ll stick to Mars from here on (not gravitationally speaking, of course).
I would say that whether or not Mars Circe is a Circe form depends on one’s definition of what Circe variants are; it’s a matter of personal definitions and classification, and for that reason I think it would be difficult to demonstrate Mars Circe is beyond the Circe domain. For instance, I don’t know which forms of rebirth you would call conventional and which not (aren’t all rebirths unconventional from an orthodox chess POV?). I would still classify Mars Circe as a Circe variant - and not just because of the name, but because rebirth takes place – regardless of which piece it is and of whether it is pre or post capture. But at least we agree that “Mars Circe” is a misnomer, if for somewhat different reasons.
As for the anti-form of mars circe, that was not so much a serious attempt to create a new workable variant as it was me musing over the implications of combining circe-type of re-apparitions (is that even a word?) and Mars. The Antiform where captures are orthodox and non–capture are rebirths (that is, in the way for instance Anti-Andernach opposes Andernach) is not what I had in mind; after all, Anti Circe is not defined as “captures are orthodox, but non-capturing moving pieces reappear”.
| | | (4) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Jun 8, 2011 20:20]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-06-08] |
By the way, if Take & Make were reclassified (and slightly altered) to be an AntiCirce-Form, why not also have it in Circe-Form?
In Circe T&M, then, the capturing side must, if possible, rebirth the captured unit, by making a non-capturing move of that unit.
If no move is possible, the captured unit is annihilated (in Strict Circe Take&Make, it would be illegal to capture a unit which has no "possible" move).
Checks would be determined after the rebirth, of course (that is, the rebirth need not escape from check).
It should be noted that this "rebirthing-move" is not an actual move. That is, in a series movers (say ser.h#), black may capture a white Pawn on the 2nd rank, and rebirth it two squares forward (onto the 4th), but may not then proceed to capture the reborn pawn via en passant.
The nature of rebirth may be debated here, but a marginal precedent does exist, in Circe Parrain, which suggests no en passant is possible upon a reborn pawn:
scheme:
 (= 1+1+4N )
Circe Parrain
There's a h#2.5 here, but there is no (legal) h#2.
The point being, the final move of this sequence is not accepted as legal: 1.bxc7 ...axb7[+nBd8] 2.c5[+nPb5] ...cxb6ep#??
As for castling, in Circe T&M, it certainly would not be possible to capture a white Rook, rebirth it onto a1/h1, and then rebirth-castle -- since castling is considered a move of the King. However, this might be possible in a Rex Inclusive form (following a capture of the King)!?
| | | (5) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Jun 8, 2011 20:56]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-06-08] |
Hi Jan,
>I was not sure whether it was Mars or Martian Circe in English.
Sadly, in Fairy Chess, each condition generally appears under many names, and each name generally has many different rules associated with it.
Naming conventions are a challenging work in progress -- and a hard sell, because of a strong desire for consistency with all previous mistakes made!
Given our poor track record, it seems clear such determinations should rely upon a group approved by congress, to sanction (and maintain) consistent Fairy elements.
>Anyways, I’ll stick to Mars from here on (not gravitationally speaking, of course).
hehe, yeah... and hopefully, we may live to see Chess on Mars. :)
>I would say that whether or not Mars Circe is a Circe form depends on one’s definition of what Circe variants are; it’s a matter of personal definitions and classification, and for that reason I think it would be difficult to demonstrate Mars Circe is beyond the Circe domain.
Obviously, I don't agree -- classifications of a game, like rules of a game, should not be considered a "personal matter."
This attitude only fuels the careless inventor.
All forms of Circe can be characterized by the rebirth of the CAPTURED unit (following its capture).
Each of these forms is differentiated by their alternative set of rules concerning placement of the unit to be reborn.
[note: their differentiation should, of course, be limited to this, but sloppy inventors frequently disrespect the very standards form which they've "borrowed."]
Mars is clearly not a Circe Form.
Similarly, all forms of AntiCirce can be characterized by rebirth of the CAPTURING unit (following capture).
And, these forms are differentiated by alternative rules concerning placement of the unit to be reborn.
Mars is clearly closer to an AntiCirce form, but here rebirth occurs prior to capture (which is certainly inconsistent).
Perhaps "Mars" should be characterized as: Mars Anti-PreCirce.
[edit: maybe somebody can suggest a better name -- it would be desirable to suggest a relation to AntiCirce, yet distinguish it from the Form, AntiCirce.]
>For instance, I don’t know which forms of rebirth you would call conventional and which not (aren’t all rebirths unconventional from an orthodox chess POV?).
There is differentiation within any set, of course, but the fundamentally shared characteristics still hold them together (as a set).
Just as whales are not a fish, Mars is not an AntiCirce (though, it may swim, somewhat like AntiCirce).
> would still classify Mars Circe as a Circe variant - and not just because of the name, but because rebirth takes place – regardless of which piece it is and of whether it is pre or post capture.
I somewhat agree on this point -- Mars borrows something from Circe (the concept of home squares, and an altered form of rebirth).
But, it uses this concept in a highly original way -- so much so, in fact, that it warrants its own, independent, classification (beyond the Circe Domain).
>But at least we agree that “Mars Circe” is a misnomer, if for somewhat different reasons.
Yes, and a widespread misnomer, at that!
| | | (6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Jun 8, 2011 22:07]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-06-08] |
For completeness, it's perhaps worth noting another strange possibility in Circe Parrain:
scheme:
 (= 1+1+7N )
hs#4
Circe Parrain
1.gxh7 ...g5[+nPh5] 2.hxg6 e.p.!? ...h5[+nPg3] 3.g7 ...g5 4.hxg6 e.p. ...g5[+nPg4]#
On black's first move, a pawn is advanced two-squares, which rebirths a pawn onto an adjacent square...
This gives rise to the question: can the reborn pawn now capture en passant?
Both popeye and Win Chloe agree that white's second move is legal (apparently, both check for white's en passant legalities after the completion of black's move).
I was never completely convinced -- one may argue that the pawn moved two squares forward, without having "passed" any opposing pawn.
After all, the opposing pawn is only reborn onto an adjacent square after completion of the double-step move -- so, it could not have "passed-by" the reborn pawn!
On the other hand, this convention may be entirely arbitrary (read: harmless) -- and hey, at least both programs agree here!
We really need a Fairy Codex, where the early chapters provide a consistent philosophical reference for special moves...
Especially en passant, castling, promotion, pawns appearing on the 1st rank (whether by rebirth, or otherwise), etc.
It must start from the most elementary truths, and build universally (such that all sanctioned fairy elements can depend upon a settled foundation).
It must provide clear definitions of elementary terms (what is an aim/stipulation/fairy condition, what are Circe-Forms, AntiCirce-Forms, what constitutes a dual, etc).
Yes, many rules would need to change... which leads to considerable anxiety.
Yes, many masterpieces would be "lost" (scrapped into piles of non-sanctioned elements)... and this causes some panic.
But, consider the alternative: we can continue erecting, upon wet cement, our own brand of Mystery House, full of staircases leading nowhere.
Just remember: it will, inevitably, be torn down, and replaced it with something architecturally sound (simple, pleasing, and lasting).
...so, I'm simply arguing that we should not leave this burden for yet another generation.
| | | (7) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Jun 9, 2011 02:41] |
Quotes from Mr. Begley on this thread:
"Unfortunately, direct attempts to correct obvious errors in fairy chess (which are more numerous than comparisons to sands, stars, and chess moves) are typically met with stubborn and irrational resistance (from sloppy inventors), and widespread apathy (from all those content to pounce upon lemons).
Nevertheless, the corrections are inevitable... it's just a slow matter of allowing a cowardly community to wait upon all things worth fighting for."
"Obviously, I don't agree -- classifications of a game, like rules of a game, should not be considered a "personal matter. This attitude only fuels the careless inventor."
"[note: their differentiation should, of course, be limited to this, but sloppy inventors frequently disrespect the very standards form which they've "borrowed."]"
Let's see: "sloppy", "careless", "cowardly" and disrespectful. Par for the course.
| | | (8) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Thursday, Jun 9, 2011 10:19] |
In fact I can agree that many inventors are "sloppy" in a way that they do not consider *all* possibilities and grey areas implied by their invention. But I can understand that.
Myself, I am often careless, because this carelessness is a small price to pay for my enjoyment of fairy elements without need to work out every small and usually unneeded detail.
Finally, cowardice is a hugely misplaced term in this context.
| | | (9) Posted by Frank Richter [Thursday, Jun 9, 2011 12:25] |
As far as I know, there are NO rebirths in Take & Make. Why shall it be a form of Circe or AntiCirce?
| | | (10) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Jun 9, 2011 21:59]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-06-09] |
@Dan & Juraj,
Extreme carelessness is, unfortunately, a common trait in many fairy inventions.
But, I will admit that I was wrong to label -- even non-specifically -- the inventors as "sloppy."
I do apologize, to all -- even though I intended no personal offense, to anyone.
And, I will concede, it would be near impossible -- even for the most careful planners! -- to foresee (and avoid) all ambiguities.
For example, it is non-trivial to expect the "super-castling" ambiguity to arise on the vertical cylinder.
But, whatever the inventor's competence level -- I now realize -- their errors should all be forgiven.
Any fault must lie in the larger community, which has continually failed in its responsibility to provide assistance (whether solicited or not) to these inventors.
...and also, to encourage unambiguous fairy elements, by sanctioning those which are well-considered.
Further, I do apologize for labeling the the larger community as "cowards."
I maintain that you will not find great bravery, here -- but, nevertheless, this term is harsh, and I regret that I did chose my words more carefully.
I should have simply said, "irresponsible."
I do believe most issues (e.g., establishing clear rules for pawns reborn onto their 1st rank, or providing clear guidance concerning duals in selfmates, etc) could easily be resolved by setting standards in congress, and publishing them in an accessible Fairy Codex.
With precise wording, it may even be possible to avoid future ambiguities (and inconsistencies).
I do hope we can all acknowledge that there are many unresolved inconsistencies in Fairy Chess, and it is the responsibility of this community to correct them.
@Frank,
Take & Make may be seen as a form of Anticirce (not Circe).
Following any capture, the capturing unit is immediately reborn into the diagram (in this case, according to a choice of the "possible" moves that would be at the disposal of the captured unit).
If the captured unit has no "possible" moves at his disposal, the capture of this unit is forbidden.
This follows exactly the pattern of all AntiCirce Forms -- AntiCirce, AntiCirce Equipollent, Super-AntiCirce, etc.
I am aware of two distinct difference in Take & Make:
1) Unlike Anticirce, here you may not castle with reborn units (K's and R's), and
2) Pawns are supposed to be forbidden from being reborn onto their 1st rank.*
* Except in the version which some were calling "Dupont T&M," wherein Nicolas won 1st prize with a nice Proofgame showing 8-pawns reborn onto their first rank.
Clearly, "Take & Make" borrows from Anticirce-Forms -- why was it not made a full member of the set?
Perhaps there are good reason for the above differences, but I honestly fail to see how they are more than arbitrary decisions.
It is possible that the inventor simply failed to recognize the AntiCirce underpinnings of his invention (btw, I consider T&M to be an excellent invention!).
It is well known that the inventor of PWC (aka Platzwechsel Circe, aka Circe exchange) did not intend for it to be considered a form of "Circe."
Nevertheless, I believe it was the correct decision, on the part of most in the larger community, to recognize it for what it was (it is a Circe-form).
So, why not clear up the matters of Take&Make, and Mars?
| | | (11) Posted by Dan Meinking [Friday, Jun 10, 2011 17:15] |
@Kevin: I have to say that I'm quite "careless", "stubborn", etc. on a regular basis. But, unlike Juraj, I'm not so freely willing to admit it. So... apology accepted, and reciprocated!
Unfortunately, I'm too apathetic towards Mars Circe to offer any meaningful advice. :-)
| | | (12) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Jun 14, 2011 00:23]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-06-14] |
@Dan,
Unfortunately, I'm too apathetic towards Mars Circe to offer any meaningful advice. :-)
I may have a different perspective, but I share some of your apathy...
While I do greatly admire a number of problems in Mars (including several composed by its inventor, R. J. Millour), I am troubled by one flaw...
As a consequence of relying upon the circe concept of "homesquares," Mars seems inherently arbitrary, and non-universal.
Homesquares are strongly rooted in the starting arrangement of chess pieces, which does not extend logically (e.g., beyond the 8x8 board).
And, anything cast in this shadow (including Mars, and Circe, and most forms of Circe), seems destined to lose radiance.
A number of Circe Forms have immunity to homesquares (e.g, Parrain-, Equipollents-, Platzewechsel-, Super-, Vulcan-, etc -- even "Anticirce Take & Make" would constitute a universal form), and, others have partial immunity (e.g., Antipoden Circe provides a unique rebirth square -- at a distance of [n,n] -- given any "2n x 2n" board... and this can easily be extended beyond its present limitation).
I suppose this explains why I much prefer these alternatives.
Obviously, in the absence of any universal terminology, the same might be said of caslting (perhaps even en passant, and promotion, as well).
Nevertheless, clear paths exist to make these standard elements universal (e.g., for any size board), whereas I know of no clear path for fairy elements which rely upon homesquares.
Consider proofgames, for example -- all begin with the pieces on their "homesquares."
This certainly implies they, too, are non-universal.
Still, there exists a universal form of this stipulation ("A->B"), and a compelling argument against constantly reprinting the same default ("diagram A").
Furthermore, it must be remembered that the non-universal flaws we (problemists) have inherited (chess had a long, winding journey in its evolution as a game) do not provide cover for our design flaws (even of a similar nature).
And, we are held responsible (equivalent to providing sanction) for every vessel in our harbor (whether unconsciously, or by formal invitation).
If this game continues to evolve, many non-universal inventions will fall away.
I take the long-view -- this must continue, or it can not survive.
So, why (other than for the joyous misadventure of demonstrating their folly), should I invest in unstable fairy elements?
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Mars Circe |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
