Anti-Circe: Anti-Circe Calvet (the default type): After a capture the capturing piece (Ks included) must immediately be removed to its game array square (necessarily vacant, else the capture is illegal). Captures on the rebirth square are allowed. Game array squares are determined as in Circe: R, B & S go to the square of the same colour as the capture; Ps stay on the file of capture; fairy pieces go to the promotion square of the file of capture.
Transmuted King: a King in check moves only in the manner of the checking piece. When not in check, such a King moves normally.
No.1242Ľuboš Kekely &
Ladislav Packa Slovakia original – 17.10.2017
As usually, this is a matter of tastes.
Personally I prefer in Circe, because the mates are more sophisticated (with the rebirths of W units) and some other reasons…
Notice that all the diagram could be shifted 1 square right, and it works fine also in both Circe and Anticirce Calvet; in Anticirce Calvet, I would prefer the diagram shifted, because the condition “Calvet” is used also in the solution 1… h8=B (and of course also in the solution 1… h8=R for the control of a1).
peter harris
October 24, 2017 18:44
I like problems such as this.
It was observant of Julia to see that the problem works with Circe as well as with AntiCirce.
With AntiCirce the first 4 half moves of each solution are full of interest. It is the last moves that are dull – with the bK simply being unable to capture because its rebirth square is occupied. The mates would occur even if the bPa2 was White.
Circe would bring an extra. The bK could capture but cannot because of the Circe rebirths. This would make a nice finale.
So there is a happy accident that the W checking pieces – the bishop in particular – are checking from squares in line of sight of their rebirth squares.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the authors did not realize this!
[With the Circe I would remove the wK and have a Hole h1 That is to say the Conditions would be stated: TransmutedKings Circe Hole h1. This would leave the bK and the two pawns – which would look very nice!]
I support Joost’s opinion. King is a normal piece, moreso if there is wP+bP+bK already on the board. wK then just makes regular quartet. Why introduce unnecessary new fairy element?
Hm… I think the missing king is also a fairy condition.
peter harris
October 26, 2017 17:41
Juraj
I expected somebody would write along the lines you did.
The wK intrudes and obtrudes. It is a distraction. It detracts from the purity of the author’s concept. It should be removed if possible.
The Hole h1 makes the authors’ concept stand-out in stark relief.
As a matter of fact the bPa2 could also be removed and replaced with a Hole – leaving only the bK and wP.
Having an additional Condition is often worthwhile – however horrendous it may seem to you – and others.
Regarding Seetharaman’s comments: why are say 4 conditions “ëxpensive” but not 6 different pieces? There are many who think this way – to the detriment of Fairy Chess.
seetharaman
October 26, 2017 21:27
I generally like problems with as few fairy elements as possible. This is just a personal preference.
Nikola Predrag
October 26, 2017 21:35
How many games & problems were created in history at the expenses of comprehending the same “orthodox rules”?
How many games & problems were created at the expenses of comprehending combination of certain 4 conditions+”orthodox rules”?
Raising the expenses by 1% to produce at least 1% more games&problems might look reasonable.
🙂
peter harris
October 27, 2017 18:18
LK&LP
I have been trying today to rehabilitate your AntiCirce condition.
And the following is the best I can do:
beg pie
whi pg7
bla ke3
stip h#2.5
cond transmutedkings
anticirce sentinelles
end
(Using wP and bK) I think if sentinelles or sentinelles pionadvers are added something better than the above should be possible – even having Q and S promotions as well.
Ľuboš Kekely
October 29, 2017 12:21
Hello all.
First we have send to Julia this quartet with condition CIRCE but still before its publishing it was changed into ANTICIRCE cause better sound for white king.
Funny that it has the same solutions also with NOCAPTURE instead both (ANTI)CIRCE.
I like also material balance on diagram position.
To suggestion of duo by using sentinelles – not good analogies – must be mate by rook and bishop not by pawn and bishop.
peter harris
October 29, 2017 14:06
Lubos,
(1) I do not know whether you are saying that your problem with AntiCirce is better than with Circe. If you are you are certainly wrong – as I explained in my first post.
(2) Remember that your idea is a TWO PIECE idea. All other pieces are surplus baggage. This is the plain fact of the matter.
(3) I suggest you and Ladislav compose a problem using only a wP and a bK using either Sentinelles or Sentinelles Pionadvers and either Circe or AntiCirce – but then neither of you may be interested in doing this.
(4) The necessity or desirability of ANALOGY is a concept with which I disagree. Analogy means sameness and a lack of variety or surprise. There is the misapprehension that beauty requires analogy or symmetry. It has almost become a mad fetish in the problem world.
(5) And so Lubos in the example I gave I PREFER one mate by B and one mate by P.
The main thing is that the wPs created by Sentinelles are fully used. It is great to have a P mate as a contrast. The mate by the R move by the P it leaves behind is very nice -and better than any mate by the R itself.
Ľuboš Kekely
October 29, 2017 18:38
But in sentinelles there are not ideal mates.
peter harris
October 29, 2017 21:04
Dear Lubos,
I love the idea in your problem.
But it should be presented using 2 pieces as follows:
beg pie
whi pg7
bla ke2
stip h#2.5
cond transmutedkings circe hole a2h1
end
This – you may be pleased to read – is the last comment I will be making on your problem.
It is necessary to precise that there are two sol. ONLY with Anticirce Calvet
(captures on rebirth squares allowed)
Julia asked: Why Anti-Circe is better than Circe here?.
I think Anti-circe is used to justify the white king, which is anyway needed to stop cooks.
As usually, this is a matter of tastes.
Personally I prefer in Circe, because the mates are more sophisticated (with the rebirths of W units) and some other reasons…
Notice that all the diagram could be shifted 1 square right, and it works fine also in both Circe and Anticirce Calvet; in Anticirce Calvet, I would prefer the diagram shifted, because the condition “Calvet” is used also in the solution 1… h8=B (and of course also in the solution 1… h8=R for the control of a1).
I like problems such as this.
It was observant of Julia to see that the problem works with Circe as well as with AntiCirce.
With AntiCirce the first 4 half moves of each solution are full of interest. It is the last moves that are dull – with the bK simply being unable to capture because its rebirth square is occupied. The mates would occur even if the bPa2 was White.
Circe would bring an extra. The bK could capture but cannot because of the Circe rebirths. This would make a nice finale.
So there is a happy accident that the W checking pieces – the bishop in particular – are checking from squares in line of sight of their rebirth squares.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the authors did not realize this!
[With the Circe I would remove the wK and have a Hole h1 That is to say the Conditions would be stated: TransmutedKings Circe Hole h1. This would leave the bK and the two pawns – which would look very nice!]
A hole, at least for me, is less economical than a king.
I support Joost’s opinion. King is a normal piece, moreso if there is wP+bP+bK already on the board. wK then just makes regular quartet. Why introduce unnecessary new fairy element?
W: Pe7
B: Kg8 Pd2
Mirrorcirce, Transmuting kings
(a) h#3
(b) ser-h#3
I like Joost’s sample with economy – sans WK!
But having two fairy conditions is expensive. Similarly also having hole at h1.
Sorry… original has also two conditions.
Hm… I think the missing king is also a fairy condition.
Juraj
I expected somebody would write along the lines you did.
The wK intrudes and obtrudes. It is a distraction. It detracts from the purity of the author’s concept. It should be removed if possible.
The Hole h1 makes the authors’ concept stand-out in stark relief.
As a matter of fact the bPa2 could also be removed and replaced with a Hole – leaving only the bK and wP.
Having an additional Condition is often worthwhile – however horrendous it may seem to you – and others.
Regarding Seetharaman’s comments: why are say 4 conditions “ëxpensive” but not 6 different pieces? There are many who think this way – to the detriment of Fairy Chess.
I generally like problems with as few fairy elements as possible. This is just a personal preference.
How many games & problems were created in history at the expenses of comprehending the same “orthodox rules”?
How many games & problems were created at the expenses of comprehending combination of certain 4 conditions+”orthodox rules”?
Raising the expenses by 1% to produce at least 1% more games&problems might look reasonable.
🙂
LK&LP
I have been trying today to rehabilitate your AntiCirce condition.
And the following is the best I can do:
beg pie
whi pg7
bla ke3
stip h#2.5
cond transmutedkings
anticirce sentinelles
end
(Using wP and bK) I think if sentinelles or sentinelles pionadvers are added something better than the above should be possible – even having Q and S promotions as well.
Hello all.
First we have send to Julia this quartet with condition CIRCE but still before its publishing it was changed into ANTICIRCE cause better sound for white king.
Funny that it has the same solutions also with NOCAPTURE instead both (ANTI)CIRCE.
I like also material balance on diagram position.
To suggestion of duo by using sentinelles – not good analogies – must be mate by rook and bishop not by pawn and bishop.
Lubos,
(1) I do not know whether you are saying that your problem with AntiCirce is better than with Circe. If you are you are certainly wrong – as I explained in my first post.
(2) Remember that your idea is a TWO PIECE idea. All other pieces are surplus baggage. This is the plain fact of the matter.
(3) I suggest you and Ladislav compose a problem using only a wP and a bK using either Sentinelles or Sentinelles Pionadvers and either Circe or AntiCirce – but then neither of you may be interested in doing this.
(4) The necessity or desirability of ANALOGY is a concept with which I disagree. Analogy means sameness and a lack of variety or surprise. There is the misapprehension that beauty requires analogy or symmetry. It has almost become a mad fetish in the problem world.
(5) And so Lubos in the example I gave I PREFER one mate by B and one mate by P.
The main thing is that the wPs created by Sentinelles are fully used. It is great to have a P mate as a contrast. The mate by the R move by the P it leaves behind is very nice -and better than any mate by the R itself.
But in sentinelles there are not ideal mates.
Dear Lubos,
I love the idea in your problem.
But it should be presented using 2 pieces as follows:
beg pie
whi pg7
bla ke2
stip h#2.5
cond transmutedkings circe hole a2h1
end
This – you may be pleased to read – is the last comment I will be making on your problem.
Peter.
Using holes is like setting weightlifting record with several big helium balloons tied to the weight.