|
|
| (1) Posted by Arpad Rusz [Sunday, Dec 16, 2007 18:20]; edited by Arpad Rusz [07-12-17] |
New fairy condition: Countercheck Madrasi
I was wondering if the following condition was used before:
Countercheck Madrasi - a checking move is illegal if there is a countercheck with a piece of the same kind (leaving both kings in check).
Árpád Rusz
original
 (= 7+9 )
2#
Countercheck Madrasi
Solution:
1.Ra5! Zugzwang
1.-Bb2 2.Rd5#
1.-Rb2 2.Be5#
1.-Nd7 2.Ne6#
1.-b5 2.c3#
|
|
| (2) Posted by Thomas Maeder [Sunday, Dec 16, 2007 21:50] |
QUOTE
I was wondering if the following condition was used before:
Not that I know of.
QUOTE
Countercheck Madrasi - a check is illegal if there is a countercheck with a piece of the same kind
This needs some elaboration, I think. When you write "check" and "countercheck", do you mean "move delivering (counter)check"?
In this position:
 (= 3+2 )
Is the  c2 pinned, or can he expose his own king to the  a4 because the  c8 has a "check"?
And in this position:
 (= 3+2 )
Is g7 a legal check (i.e. does the "countercheck" ~ (with check by the ) count)?
|
|
| (3) Posted by Arpad Rusz [Sunday, Dec 16, 2007 22:17]; edited by Arpad Rusz [07-12-16] |
In your first position Rc2 is pinned, in the second position Bg7+ is illegal.
You can not expose your own king to check (as in the first position) even in the following conditions:
 (= 2+3 )
1.-Rh1+ is a legal move!
|
|
| (4) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Monday, Dec 17, 2007 00:47] |
This condition is a nice idea!
I think that it can offer some interesting possibilities.
 (= 4+10 )
h=7
Perhaps too long to be correct...
|
|
| (5) Posted by Arpad Rusz [Monday, Dec 17, 2007 01:15]; edited by Arpad Rusz [07-12-17] |
In the following position 1.Be5?? is an illegal move as black would annihilate both checking units by 1.-Bd4. But 1.Ba5 is a legal move!
 (= 3+3 )
Countercheck Madrasi
 (= 2+4 )
Countercheck Madrasi
In the second position the only legal move for white which gives check is 1.Qd4+! as 1.Qa1+?? would be followed by 1.-Qe3+!
1.-Qg7+ - which also gives countercheck - doesn't proves illegality as only one king remains in check!
|
|
| (6) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 08:52] |
Sorry Arpad. I made a mistake.
The h=7 would rather answer to another condition:
COUNTERCHECK ISARDAM:
A checking move is illegal if it leaves the possibility to the opposite side to countercheck with a piece of the same kind than one (at least) of the checking pieces (leaving both Kings in check, or not).
|
|
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Fairies New fairy condition: Countercheck Madrasi |
ISC 2024
