Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
18:39 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Capture-Bound -- a new goal? |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | | (21) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 09:16] |
"<I wonder why he didnt use a 1-5 Leaper for another solution 1.ab 15L 2.15L g2, L*g2-h1#>
Good question! The answer is simple: for the same reason he doesn't want to call this fairy condition anything but a stipulation!
The very same reason he refuses to accept that parry-series is a fairy condition."
Sorry Mr.Kevin. My comment about 1-5 leaper was meant for another thread. Another correspondent has rightly pointed out the error. My apologies to all.
| | | (22) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 09:28] |
@Kevin.
<Key questions: is this an aim realizable in orthodox chess, and does it alter (or expand, or limit) the orthodox rules of movement?
Like h==n, this does not alter the rules of movement.
However, also like h==n, it is not an aim which is realizable in orthodox form -- therefore, it cannot be a valid aim.
There is no such thing as semi-stalemate in a game of chess -- it requires a fairy condition to define such an aim.
Neither would I consider any stipulation based upon this (as a goal, or sub-goal) to be valid.
Valid aims are: check, checkmate, stalemate, capture, en passant, promotion, castling, etc (things which can happen in orthodox chess).>
My suggestion was to use the term 'semi-stalemate' as I thought it correctly describes the conditions Mr.Dan had in mind. I am not unduly bothered by whether it is a fairy stipulation or orthodox.
But I think he (Dan) has the feeling that his condition (fairy or otherwise) can be applied to direct-mates also. I still do not grasp the full implications of it.
Are capturing moves simply prohibited after the last move of the solution or whether there should be at least one capture move to which (white or black) would be bound?
| | | (23) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 11:11]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-19] |
@seetharaman,
>...I still do not grasp the full implications of it.
>Are capturing moves simply prohibited after the last move of the solution or whether there should be at least one capture move to which (white or black) would be bound?
Originally, the intent seems to have been to treat captures as a new kind of checkmate (note the attempt to use the reserved "x#").
Later, this was changed to (~x) -- ignoring the fact that "~" is also a reserved symbol (by popeye).
The final captures are deliberately being truncated out of the solution, because they would be considered duals.
Take his h~x3.5, with 1.Na3...
I maintain that this is a hsx4 (help-self-capture in 4) + "CaptureBound" fairy condition (read: no check on the final move).
When viewed in this context, the 5 possible final captures become duals -- read: the problem is "1.1.1.1.1.1.1.5".
This would be a serious flaw.... What to do about it? Go back to the drawing board?
No, just mask the fairy condition within a stipulation form (as in pser-), truncate the final moves (as if warranted by stipulation), and pretend there are no such duals.
But, it doesn't stop there.
Let's take the alternative view -- pretend this h~x3.5 were a valid stipulation (assuming the reserved symbol gets dealt with).
Why cannot I have h~#3.5 ?
You see, any valid stipulation would allow for a change of aims, so let me change the aim from capture to checkmate.
After all, h~ is the style of play (plus implicitly restricting fairy condition), x is the aim (a well known aim: capture), and 3.5 is the number of moves.
Of course, Dan would say that ~x is a newly defined aim (he might say goal, but he means aim).
[Goal is a term I used to describe either an aim, or a sub-stipulation (which reduces, by iteration, down to an aim). For example, h#n = black plays n moves, and both sides conspire to achieve the sub-goal: white to play and #1. The sub-goal (or sub-stipulation, w-#1) reduces, by iteration, down to a final aim (black stands checkmated). The implications of Goals are better seen in more complex stipulation structures, which I'll not go into here.]
>Capture-Bound is the GOAL (read: AIM):
>checkmate = "The side on-move is in check, and has no legal moves."
>stalemate = "The side on-move is not in check, and has no legal moves."
>capture-bound = "The side on-move is not in check, and can only move to capture."
Checkmate and stalemate are, more precisely, aims... so, here Dan attempts to define capture-bound as a new aim.
Unlike checkmate & stalemate, C-B is not an orthodox aim (ie, not something you would in any way notate in an orthodox chess game).
Also, unlike checkmate & stalemate, C-B restricts the legal rules of movement (no check ending) -- as only a fairy condition can.
But, OK, let's ignore this, and treat this as a fairy-aim... what's the harm in that?
If this is treated as a fairy-aim, so too might be ~#.
When viewed in this context, it becomes clearer that the real point is to subvert the theory of duals -- particularly w/2 help-self problems.
Suppose I have composed an orthodox hs#2, which has no check in the end, but some unavoidable duals (e.g., "1.1.1.5")...
Now, I can make my hs#n read like a h~#m -- and, magically, I can pretend that my duals are no longer duals.
I'll just truncate the duals out of the solution.
The same can be seen, of course, with ~x -- a subversion of the theory of duals will occur here, w/2 help-self-capture problems.
Might it be worthwhile to subvert the theory of duals in help-self problems?
It might, indeed; but, we have yet to see an argument for why such a subversion is worthwhile.
We have yet to see any acknowledgment of the costs, in treating this as a stipulation (rather than a fairy condition).
If you want to show that this idea has merit, take the following steps:
1) remedy the current symbolic form (~ is reserved, and has a well known meaning)
2) acknowledge that this proposed "aim" contains an implicit fairy element -- don't hide it, don't deny it (as was done w/ pser-).
3) recognize & explain the implications of defining numerous fairy-aims (as opposed to one, blanket fairy condition):
a) explain how, as a stipulation (rather than fairy condition), this subverts the present theory of duals in help-self problems.
b) explain why this subversion justifies multiple stand-alone aims (~x, ~#, ~=, ~+, etc etc etc).
c) explain how this subversion justifies the masking of a fairy condition into a stipulation.
d) explain why dual-theory for help-self problems deserves two interpretations (otherwise, why not just allow help-self duals?).
e) explain why the subversion of dual-theory for help-self problems should ONLY be allowed for non-checking finales.
4) give concrete examples, which aim to validate the implications of this proposal.
When you start pulling the threads of a half-tailored idea, it unravels.
I can pull at this one for days, but to no end -- if the idea's emperor wants not to see.
So, I hereby give up...
I'll eagerly await the unveiling of this dartboard stipulation...
But, if it's not treated properly, just wait until you see the monkey wrenches (in problem form) that I can throw at this one!
I may yet prove, on a chessboard, that 2 = 3. :-)
[ps: I never directly considered your comment about the 1,5 leaper. I misused it as a spring-board, but it took me where I was going.]
| | | (24) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 14:02] |
Hi Kevin,
Thank you very much for your posts. This logic just calls to be extended, how about these speculations:
QUOTE
Valid aims are: check, checkmate, stalemate, capture, en passant, promotion, castling, etc (things which can happen in orthodox chess).
Being the ultimate goal of the orthodox game doesn't really make checkmate a basic aim. It would be just as logical to get rid of this extra entity and talk about capturing the opponent's king. This has funny implications:
- Orthodox chess may be viewed as a fairy variant of some basic chess with non-royal kings.
- Checkmates (or more generally royal units) may be viewed as a conspiracy to hide duals when the king flies to a doubleguarded square or ignores a doublecheck (and these are real duals, not multiple moves by non-helping side as in self- problems).
| | | (25) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 14:17]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-19] |
Hi Dmitri,
>Being the ultimate goal of the orthodox game doesn't really make checkmate a basic aim. It would be just as logical to get rid of this extra entity and talk about capturing the opponent's king. This has funny implications:
>- Orthodox chess may be viewed as a fairy variant of some basic chess with non-royal kings.
>- Checkmates (or more generally royal units) may be viewed as a conspiracy to hide duals when the king flies to a doubleguarded square or ignores a doublecheck (and these are real duals, not multiple moves by non-helping side as in self- problems).
A very astute observation, indeed!
This might be why we constantly strive for single-checking ideal mates, but all too often settle for much less. :-)
| | | (26) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 14:23] |
In the old days any stipulation which wasn't direct mate was labelled 'fairy chess' - so selfmates and helpmates were put in the same basket as series-movers, maximummers etc.
Nowadays selfmates and helpmates are no longer considered fairy chess by most people - the reason being (I suppose) that, though the aims may unorthodox, the play still conforms to the normal rules of chess.
This implies that some form is considered 'fairy' if :
a) a move can be made which can't be made in normal chess
b) a move isn't allowed which would be allowed in normal chess
This takes the emphasis away from stipulations and on to conditions, pieces, boards etc - so selfmate isn't fairy, but relflexmate is (under rule b).
So any stipulation which doesn't invoke a) or b) - no matter how unusual - must be considered 'orthodox'.
(There's no such thing as 'valid' stipulations - the composer is free to stipulate anything he wants!)
By this argument 'Capture-bound' isn't a fairy condition but just another stipulation.
But anyway I don't think the idea is so interesting - as has already been mentioned, we already have something very similar in zugzwang type selfmates (are these to be renamed 'Mate-bound'?).
In this new idea, instead of being obliged to mate, black is obliged to capture - I don't see how that is any kind of progress.
| | | (27) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 15:15]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-19] |
Hi Neal,
>Nowadays selfmates and helpmates are no longer considered fairy chess by most people -
>the reason being (I suppose) that, though the aims may unorthodox, the play still conforms to the normal rules of chess.
Exactly -- that, coupled with widespread popularity (among problemists), was instrumental in moving these into the orthodox realm.
StrateGems, it would seem -- according to Dan -- also views as orthodox: all forms of stalemates, series-movers, and his brand new invention of parry-movers...
[note: assuming that non-fairy equates to orthodox.]
From Dan's response to GM Petkov's article, in SG:
>"In fact, the StrateGems editors decided many years ago to initiate a new forum for (non-fairy) Series-Movers & Stalemates, for that very reason."
Valid arguments can be made regarding the orthodoxy of series-movers and parry-movers (well known to mask fairy conditions).
And, valid arguments can be made about the popularity of stalemates, and parry-movers (the latter, being brand new, remains unproven).
It's not entirely clear whether StrateGems actually (ever) made such a claim (or which editors made it)... still awaiting details.
If it is true that anything appearing in SG's S&S section is [non-fairy], then a parry-consequent problem of mine may be, remarkably, orthodox!
[edit: perhaps the wording, non-orthodox, is meant only to suggest "no other fairy elements present." However, in the context of his parries-are-not-fairies argument, a much broader meaning is certainly suggested.]
>This implies that some form is considered 'fairy' if :
>a) a move can be made which can't be made in normal chess
>b) a move isn't allowed which would be allowed in normal chess
>This takes the emphasis away from stipulations and on to conditions, pieces, boards etc - so selfmate isn't fairy, but relflexmate is (under rule b).
Actually, semi-reflexmates *might* be considered an orthodox stipulation.
In the context of goals-driven stipulations, they do NOT violate rule b) -- this is an important point!
Reflexmates, on the other hand, are less clear -- much depends on whether you're willing to consider counter-goals as motivations.
What does this really mean?
semi-r#n = white begins, and plays n-1 moves, with the opponent resisting, to achieve the goal: w-h#1 (which is, itself, only a sub-goal).
Note: White plays n-1 moves to achieve not an aim (wK mated), but only a sub-stipulation (a position in which white has a valid w-h#1: w b#).
This sub-stipulation (or sub-goal) iteratively descends into the final aim (wK is mated).
How does this definition improve upon the old interpretation?
There is no reflex-action required here -- the solution merely shows the iteration of sub-goals, clear down to the final aim.
Therefore, in this context, there is no alteration to any of the orthodox rules -- no violations of your a) or b)!
Reflexmate could be similarly defined, but of course, this would require that the play-style be expanded (to include counter-goals).
That is, the opponent resists the goal, AND may refute the goal by simply achieving the counter-goal (read: if black has h#1, the gig is up).
>So any stipulation which doesn't invoke a) or b) - no matter how unusual - must be considered 'orthodox'.
I would state this in corollary form:
Any stipulation which violates a) or b) is not a valid stipulation -- it is, instead, a fairy condition.
And, any valid (orthodox) stipulation must be built upon an orthodox aim (ie, something you would annotate in orthodox chess).
Thus, h==n may be considered a fairy-stipulation (it's not a fairy condition, but the ultimate aim is fairy).
>There's no such thing as 'valid' stipulations - the composer is free to stipulate anything he wants!
Not sure I understand how you intend to support your claim here...
There certainly are "valid" (orthodox) stipulations.
In fact, in the context of goals-driven stipulations (rather than aim-driven), there might be far more than you ever expected!
>By this argument 'Capture-bound' isn't a fairy condition but just another stipulation.
But, by your argument, everything could be a stipulation (circe, madrasi, isardam, horizontal cylinder, etc).
I maintain that there is a clear distinction between orthodox, fairy boards, fairy stipulations, fairy pieces, and fairy conditions.
And, I maintain that this distinction is very important -- and it should be carefully regarded by any creator of new fairy elements.
>But anyway I don't think the idea is so interesting - as has already been mentioned, we already have something very similar in zugzwang type selfmates (are these to be renamed 'Mate-bound'?).
There is a stipulation (or condition) already existing for s# by zz?
If true, this throws super-cooled water on the entire ~x idea.
That would allow a perfect modeling of this idea, simply by changing the aim (from # to x) of an already existing element!
>In this new idea, instead of being obliged to mate, black is obliged to capture - I don't see how that is any kind of progress.
To be fair, there are some very nice fairy problems which use capture (x) as the aim...
So, I wouldn't altogether rule this idea out, based only upon this change.
| | | (28) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 16:15] |
QUOTE
a) a move can be made which can't be made in normal chess
 (= 2+1 )
In ~x1 1.Bh2 is legal (why not?) and ~x-es black.
In normal chess 1.Bh2 is illegal due to the 'dead position' rule.
| | | (29) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 20:43] |
>>In normal chess 1.Bh2 is illegal due to the 'dead position' rule.
Really..? Illegal? Cant understand your point.
| | | (30) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 21:03] |
From FIDE handbook (www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf)
QUOTE
5.2.b
The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can
checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to
end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move
producing the position was legal. (See Article 9.6)
...
9.6 The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by
any possible series of legal moves. This immediately ends the game, provided that the
move producing this position was legal.
"Move producing this position" e.g. bKh2 x wSh1 was legal (black could have played Kh3 and eventually get mated), the game is immediately ended, Bh2 is illegal.
| | | (31) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 21:36] |
Not "e.g." but this is the only possible last move. :-)
http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1279568120&app=forum&act=posts&fid=xarch&tid=118
| | | (32) Posted by Mario Richter [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 23:36] |
QUOTE
Dmitri>e.g. bKh2 x wSh1 was legal
QUOTE
Siegfried>Not "e.g." but this is the only possible last move
The last move under the fairy condition "dead reckoning" could also have been bKh2xBh1.
And yes, for me 'dead reckoning' is a fairy condition. (And I think, this is in conformance with the current Codex of Chess Composition, see article 7 and footnote 12.)
| | | (33) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Tuesday, Jul 20, 2010 01:10] |
Ah, sorry. I confused that with that famous problem.
wKc7 Bg1 Ph2 - bKa8
White to move. Last move?
(Always nice to show that in chess club)
| | | (34) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 16:22] |
A little nicer version of example #4:
DM original (version)
 (= 2+4 )
h~x7 (2+4) C+
1.Sb3+ cxb3 2.f2 b4 3.f1S b5 ... 6.Sa1 b8R 7.c2 Rb3~x
Adds Phoenix and excelsior, plus promoted S replacing diagrammed S on a1. Ideally, we'd have a promoted S(a1) sac on b3, but haven't found a way yet. Any takers??
Thanks to Bojan for his lucid explanation of the "structured stipulation"!
| | | (35) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 20:56]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [10-07-21] |
Let me restate what I understand.
Mate:
A position in which the side to move IS in check and has no way to avoid immediate capture of his king. (This is the aim in the orthodox game and problems including in the Helpmate/selfmates)
Stalemate:
A position in which the side to move IS NOT in check and has no legal moves. (This is the aim sometimes in the orthodox chess game, in some of the orthodox ending studies and in the unorthodox 'Losing chess' with the added unorthodox condition of 'must-capture')
Capture bound:
A position in which the side to move IS NOT in check and has no moves except captures. I suggested the name "semi-stalemate" for such a position and Mr.Dan rejected it (as is his right).
All the above are clearly aims or goals. The third one is obviously unorthodox (as nobody plays to reach such a position in orthodox chess). I don't see why it cannot be a valid goal. A valid goal can also be unorthodox. I can think of other unorthodox goals also.
I can imagine positions in which the side to move is 'check bound' (ie. has no moves except checks) or 'promotion bound' (side to move has only promotion moves).
We can also imagine a position in which the side to move is in check, but can't avoid capture of his King except by one or more captures (What name to give such a position? SEMI-MATE ?!) I can imagine future "semi-mate in TWO problems". By his definition Mr.Dan excludes this aim.
HELPPLAY
In all the examples quoted by Mr.Dan, white aims to reach a position in which black is "capture bound" with black's help or black plays a series of moves and helps white to achieve white's aim.
Alternatively:
DIRECT PLAY
White can force black to a position of "capture-bound" in the stipulated number of moves:
SELF PLAY
White can play the stipulated number of moves that force to black to put White in this position.
I think these three are stipulations.
Am I right? Can Mr.Dan or somebody else confirm my understanding?
I want Mr.Dan to clarify whether in the following scheme black is 'capture-bound' or not:
BKa1, Bb b1; WK c3, WPa2.
~x 1.
Soln. 1.Kc2 !
Nothing in his definition prohibits white being in check. Since white has achieved his aim of putting black "capture-bound", the game (or the problem) ends. The question of self check does not arise I think.
| | | (36) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 21:38] |
Seetharaman,
First, just call me Dan. Mr. Dan is way too formal. :-)
Second, I agree with all your points, except:
(1) Semi-Stalemate: If we reserve "semi-" for forms like "semi-reflexmate", then it would be incorrect in this context. BTW -- I'm not completely sold on the name Capture-Bound. There's surely something better.
(2) Semi-Mate: Not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying a side is checkmated, and it would require more than one capture to alleviate the check? Again, "semi-" is probably incorrect in this context.
(3) Your last question is interesting! But... I'd have to say "no", 1.Kc2 is NOT a solution. There's no provision in Capture-Bound for moves outside the normal legal definitions.
| | | (37) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Jul 21, 2010 23:46] |
The unexpected dangers of using a concealed fairy condition (revelations from the Win Chloe database):
Albert H. Kniest
Frankfurter Notizen, 1966
 (= 2+2 )
s=14 "Les Noirs ne jouent que s'ils sont en échec"
(2+2) C+
("The Blacks only play if they are in check")
Intent:
1.a4! 2.a5 3.a6 4.a7 5.a8=Q 6.Qd5 7.Kc5 8.Kd4 9.Ke3 10.Kf2 11.Kg2 12.Qf3+ Kh4+ 13.Kh1 14.Qh3+ Kxh3=
This is not a pser-s=14 -- it is a fairy condition, which anticipates parry-movers (by more than 40 years)!
In fact, the Win Chloe db stores pser-direct-, pser-self-, and pser-PGs under the very same fairy condition (used by Kniest).
What is the difference?
The correction may affect the form of the solution.
For example:
Dan Meinking
StrateGems, 2009
 (= 5+6 )
Dan published this using his new stipulation (which masks the anticipatory fairy condition): pser-#6.
Note the intended form of his solution:
1.Re4? 2.Bf3 3.Rb4+ Ka6? 4.Rb5 5.Be2 6.Rb6#, but 3... Kc8!
1.Bf7! 2.Rh7 3.Bd5+ (with 2 variations):
_ 3...Kc8 4.Rd7 5.Be6 6.Rc7#
_ 3...Ka6 4.Be6 5.Rh6 6.Bc8#
Here's how this appears in the Win Chloe database: #6 "Les Noirs ne jouent que s'ils sont en échec" (5+6) C+"
The corrected stipulation (which draws out the masked fairy condition) changes the form of the solution:
1.Bf7! (>2.Rh7 (>3.Bd5+ Ka6 4.Be6 (>5.Rh6 (>6.Bc8#)) 3…Kc8 4.Rd7 (>5.Be6 (6.Rc7#))))
If tries are requested, with variations, the following is obtained:
1.Re4? but 1...! (no variations)
16 more tries, with the same refutation (as above).
In this form, it appears to be a valid key, with a compound threat, absent even a single variation.
At least the solution is roughly equivalent here -- it may be much worse in the case of h~xn problems.
It is reasonable to expect that h~xn problems will appear as help-self-capture (hsxn), along w/ the appropriate fairy condition.
I've already described how this might result in unexpected duals on the final move (the examples given all showcase such duals).
We know now that, within problem databases (which will likely draw the fairy condition out from the wound), such duals might linger.
The always unpleasant C- might soon fall, unexpectedly, upon problems which were thought to be computer tested.
Such are the dangers of a defective fairy invention.
Very unfortunate that the inventor refuses to address these issues.
| | | (38) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 00:24] |
@Dan
>>>Semi-Mate: Not sure I understand what you mean
'Semi-stalemate", "semi-mate" are terms that just came to my mind (not well thought out of course). Do not appear appropriate now.
What I meant was that your 'capture-bound' is only a stalemate position in which captures are banned.
Similarly we can think of 'mate' positions where captures are banned. I just could not find more descriptive terms for such positions.
| | | (39) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 01:09]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-22] |
seetharaman,
If you really think Cap-bound is a valid aim, just list white's legal moves here:
 (= 2+4 )
~xn
Is white stalemated, or compelled to bind black into capture?
How can h7+ not be legal in the game of chess?
How can it be legal given the aim?
How can any answer make any sense here?
As I have explained, only a fairy condition can alter, expand, or inhibit legal movement.
So, Capture-Bound is not a valid aim.
It will be treated as a fairy condition.
Consider the rules of MAFF (a well known fairy condition -- not aim -- which redefines checkmate):
MAFF: a player is checkmated when having exactly one flight (not more, not less), and having no alternative method to parry check (other than this one flight).
Why is this a well known fairy condition, rather than a valid aim?
Because the inventor, Miro Brada, realized that it must inhibit an otherwise legal movement (the standard form of checkmate).
Same goes for OWU: (another well known fairy condition, which redefines checkmate):
OWU: A player is checkmated only if there is exactly one enemy unit the king's field of the player.
Again, this inhibits any standard checkmate from being played -- so it is a fairy condition.
Hope that helps you understand, but ultimately, it is the inventor's duty to know better.
He should have recalled this defective aim -- or at least issued a warning: may cause unexpected duals (see also C-, see also cooked).
But, if you think it's valid, have at it & good luck to you (may you dodge a million duals).
BTW: don't bother claiming stalemate inhibits checks too -- stalemate isn't only somebody's half-baked aim invention...
| | | (40) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 03:24] |
Kevin:
"This is not a pser-s=14 -- it is a fairy condition, which anticipates parry-movers (by more than 40 years)!
In fact, the Win Chloe db stores pser-direct-, pser-self-, and pser-PGs under the very same fairy condition (used by Kniest)."
Certainly a partial anticipation. A key difference in Parry Series is that check is NOT required on the last move. I'd be curious how many of these Kniest composed, and if he had any similar to recent pser-* problems.
Kevin:
"Is white stalemated, or compelled to bind black into capture?
How can h7+ not be legal in the game of chess?
How can it be legal given the aim?
How can any answer make any sense here?"
The answer is: your diagram has no solution.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
MatPlus.Net Forum General Capture-Bound -- a new goal? |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
