I appreciate your efforts on the precise definition, but in this case you are wrong. The first sentence of the…
On Disparate – PART I (P.A.P.)
It seems that Winchloe after a color-change doesn't see the same piece as it was before the change. Otherwise in…
On No.568 (PR)
The convention with Paralysing pieces is unfortunate. I am sure that the inventor of Madrasi never intended such a condition…
On Disparate – PART I (P.A.P.)
Yes, but in this case wS is not paralyzed by its own move.
On Disparate – PART I (P.A.P.)
Georgy, the same question you can ask for the same position even in orthodox chess. What would be the answer?
On Disparate – PART I (P.A.P.)
I can not understand meaning of this question. Mate, of course, after 1.Sf2# or 1.Sg3#. What is not clear here?
On Disparate – PART I (P.A.P.)
Thanks Petkov, Julia and Geoff Foster for this excellent article. The examples are brilliant and instructive. Part (d)(1) correctly explains…
On Disparate – PART I (P.A.P.)
Of course I was wrong ! White simply moves the intended neutral piece away after black king move !
On No.566 (PAP)
Pretty idea! It seems that Anti Andernach condition not necessary if Neutral R & B are used. I could be…
On No.566 (PAP)
That's exactly what I expected. The problem is very nice, with reciprocal capture of neutral mating pieces achieved in a…
On No.565 (JV)
