The Lithuanian chess composers’ society announces a jubilee tourney Albinas Bičiušas – 80.
Theme: h#2 with Take & Make and Annan Chess condition. Neither fairy pieces nor other conditions are allowed. Entries on diagrams must be sent by 30th of October, 2017, to director of tourney Borisas Gelpernas, Vytenio g. 27-15, LT-03112 Vilnius, Lithuania or by e-mail: Borisas2011@gmail.com. Write your post address.
The judge will be Albinas Bičiušas.
Prizes: Lithuanian books of chess composition. The award will be announced in „Šachmatija“ in the beginning of 2018.
So both conditions should be used in the competing h#2s? Or just Annan h#2 would be fine too?
I’ve asked the same question to Vilimantas Satkus who asked to place the announcement, and was told that combination of the both conditions. Agree, sounds a bit unclear.
Thank you for both providing the answer very quickly and for informing about the tourney at all.
In this combination, does the ‘make’ move occur like the type of movement of the captured piece, or like the moves that that captured piece can do at the moment of capture?
E.g. wRa1, wSa2, bPb3. Does the pawn move like a knight or a rook after capturing on a2?
To make matters even more complicated, different vesrions of popeye interpret this combination differently:
For the example given by Thomas Maeder, WinChloe gives the same solutions as Popeye 4.63 (the “make” part of the move is performed by Annan rules). In my opinion this is the natural and most interesting convention.
I received very strong argument. The black king is not a front piece of the same color (in the position showed by Mr Turevski), so it can not move like white knight by Annan rules after capture on d4.
I received the opinion of Pierre Tritten (the author of problem showed in Mr Turevski post). He tells: “When capturing on d4, black King does not capture a Bishop, but a piece playing as a Knight, so it has only the possibility to play a Knight move and cannot go to a1 or g1.
Black King never goes on d4 as Take & Make capture is only one move”.
The “correct” interpretation cannot be proved by logic. But according to current approach, there should be no transition of power: if, for example, we have white Rc2, Sc3, Bc4, then Bc4 moves like knight, not like rook (see examples in WinChloe database, like 458980, 557614).
So, I think the interpretation of newer Popeye is more correct.
Sorry Georgy but I missed your point (the relationship between the current question and the lack of transitivity of power in Annan).
The question goes as follows: if a black piece takes the Bc4 of your example, it then makes a bishop move or a knight move?
It seems there is a quite large consensus for a knight move. Pierre’s explanation is fully convincing to my eyes – in fact the black piece doesn’t capture a bishop, but an hybrid (looking a bishop but moving as a knight), and hence the black piece must make a knight move to end its full T&M move.
I probably was too brief.
We really have a two-stage check here.
1. Black king captures a bishop. Period.
2. We may or may not require to check the properties or this bishop. As I said, there is no logical reason to strictly prefer one approach over other.
I have called this peculiarity “a transitional power”: the movement of knight is transferred via bishop to the king.
Then I said that such transitional power should be applied (or not applied) uniformly: either in all cases or never.
After this I have shown the case when this transitional power is not applied: in position with white Rc2, Sc3, Bc4 bishop moves like knight, not like rook.
So, I concluded that under current rules transitional power is not applied.
Thanks, I now understand your argument, but don’t find it convincing!
1) What is clear is that there is no “transitional power” in Annan (it is even a rule if I remember).
2) Your idea is to say that, when a black piece is taking Bc4, and then make a knight move, this is a “transitional power”, and hence should be avoided.
This argument would be neat if the “transitional power” involved in 1) and 2) were the same, but they aren’t! They even look quite different – a tower of 3 white pieces in 1), and a black piece (after some T&M capture) over a white piece in 2).
1. Yes, I have found full definition – there is no transitional power.
2. Then it is even easier: when we capture a knight, it is a knight, and not a hybrid – the same way as with column with white pieces.
Again, there is no reason why we cannot decide otherwise, but this will be another small inconsistency (or we can have Annan and transitional Annan with slightly different rules in both cases discussed).
we have to take care of the version used to verify our problem:
Popeye 4.69 output is “bugged” too for this conditions
whith this postion :
white Kf2 Bf3d4 Sf4
black Ke7 Re8
popeye 4.69 lost a demolition of the problem:
Option Variation NoBoard
Condition AnnanChess Take&MakeChess
white Kf2 Bf3d4 Sf4
black Ke7 Re8
Popeye Windows-64Bit v4.69 (512 MB)
1.Ke7-b7 Bf3-g3 2.Kb7-a8 Sf4-d5 #
solution finished. Time = 0.087 s
so : it don’t find the démolition :
1.Ke7-b7 Sf4-e5 2.Kb7-a8 Bf3-e4 because of the considération of the “incorrect parade” : 3. Re8xFe5-c6 ?? but the rook have to move like a bishop for the the second part of its move, not like a Knight.
no problem with Winchloe 3.38 here:
1.Rb7 Fg3 2.Ra8 Cd5‡
1.Rb7 Ce5 2.Ra8 Fe4‡
In the “annan condition” a Knight in front of a bishop do move like a bishop during “all the ply” and not like a Knight after a capture as if there was no annan condition.
a capture do not change the condition.
Please read this discussion from the beginning – this issue was discussed very thoroughly.
I read all the discussion before posting!
my purpose is to make to consider that a condition have not to be changed during a ply!
if a Knight have to move like a bishop “before” a ply we must consider to move it like a bishop until the end of the ply.
The Take Make condition have to respect the Annan condition otherwise there is no interest to associate them.
i think like Joost de Heer, Geoff Foster, Nicolas Dupont here, and Pierre Tritten non the “thomas-maeder/popeye ” discussion
Oh, this contains a good argument.
According to it, it does not matter how this combination of conditions should be treated “normally” or “traditionally”. The composers should follow the intention of the person who proposed the theme.
In this case we should receive the clarification of theme’s author – this discussion may continue in general, but the conditions of the tournament should be unambiguous.
yes! i agree, the conditions of the tournament should be unambiguous.
From the T&M definition found here at JF: “Having captured, a unit must immediately, as part of its move, play a non-capturing move in imitation of the captured unit from the capture-square.”. This implies that the capturing piece moves like the captured unit would (imitation), i.e. uses the Annan-movement and not the original movement.
I found the original definition of T&M: Take&Make chess: When capturing, the capturing piece must make an additional move, like the piece captured. If this extra move isn’t possible, then the capture is illegal. Checks are orthodox. Pawns may never appear on the bottom rank (1st rank for white, 8th rank for black). The move isn’t finished until after the extra move has been made. Rebirths, promotions, etc, occur after the extra move.
Again, “Like the piece captured” implies, at least to me, that the ‘Annan-move’ should be made.
So, for the Tourney, De Heer’s last comment (25 Sep) should apply , I suppose. I request therefore the Tourney conductor may confirm this for the benefit of the participants.
Vilimantas Satkus in the email to me: “Today I talk with Bičiušas. His opinion is that having captured an Annan-piece (a piece that stands in front of the another piece of the same camp) you must do the Annan-movement. On the other hand we cannot discuss the correctness of different solving programs. So all problems that are correct according some solving program are acceptable. Please indicate what solving program you used. In the judgement the ideas, content and other features will take part, but not the machining.“
This looks a bit confusing. The couple (Annan and T&M) viewed as a single condition should have a unique and coherent set of rules.
This is not the role of solving programs to tell us how some mixed condition should work, but to us to tell solving programs how to handle it…
Anticirce rules has two types: Cheylan and Calvet. As well, Annan + Take&Make could have two interpretations.
This is the best proposal until now.
I would like to see Transitional and Non-transitional Annan.
In Non-transitional Annan the piece is considered original for all purposes except its movement.
For example: WBc2 Sc3 Rc4 BSd5
a) Annan: Rc4 moves like Knight
b) Annan+T&M: Sd5xc3-d5 is correct
c) Annan+Circe: Sd5xc3 (Sg1) is correct
d) Annan+Madrasi: Sc3 is paralyzed by Sd5
In Transitional Annan the piece is considered a copy of below piece for all purposes until the end of the move:
a) Annan: Rc4 moves like Bishop
b) Annan+T&M: Sd5xc3-d4 is correct
c) Annan+Circe: Sd5xc3 (Sc1) is correct
d) Annan+Madrasi: Sc3 is not paralyzed by Sd5
Yes Paul, but this is not how the TT is working (unless Georgy’s proposal is accepted) – for the moment a problem which is cooked for each solving program except one, is acceptable.
With this définition for association of Annan and TakeMake i.e. “having captured an Annan-piece you must do the Annan-movement.” : Popeye v4.55 and Winchloé can be used and seems to be sure!
be careful there is a bug in Popeye v4.63 when a pawn have to go on Firts or last rank.