Sébastien Luce 


Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2016 (II): July – December

     →Previous→Next ; →List 2016(II)

Please send your original fairy problems to:

Definitions: (click to show/hide)

No.1140 Sébastien Luce

original – 07.10.2016

Solutions: (click to show/hide)

white Ka4 Bd5 black Ke5 Bd6 Sb3 Pg8g7e6a3c2

h#3             4 solutions           (2+8)
Take & Make

Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Luce Sebastien
Luce Sebastien
October 9, 2016 22:36

I would like to add a comment about the way more logical in my opinion that Winchloe treats the combination T&M + PWC
Let us see the simple following position :

White : Kg8, Ph4h5
Black : Kh6

White to move stalemates black King by 1.Kh8 ! as the capture of h5 Pawn is impossible as the Pawn rebirths in h6 (PWC effect) prohibiting the move of make of black King.
If the priority is given to T&M (like in Popeye) there is no more stalemate and the Pawn doesn’t rebirth which seems nonsense in PWC !

October 10, 2016 10:49

Why would no rebirth in PWC be nonsense? There are piece/board combinations possible in which a piece captures and ends up on its starting square (hamster-locust for instance, or locust+cylinder). With PWC, this means that the rebirth square is occupied.

Vlaicu Crisan
Vlaicu Crisan
October 10, 2016 18:06

Let’s do some granular decomposition of how the mix Take&Make and PWC is working together:
1. Winchloe begins with the “Take” part of the move, then continues with the rebirth of the captured piece and ends with the “Make” part of the move.
2. Popeye begins with the “Take” part of the move, then continues with the “Make” part of the move and ends with the rebirth (if possible).
Which interpretation is actually correct?

In this fortunate case, we have a very detailed definition stated by Hartmut Laue – see Die Schwalbe 229 /2008. The relevant part is given here: “Es ist zu beachten, daß stets erst der take&make-Zug ausgeführt und erst dann über die Wiedergeburt entschieden wird und nicht umgekehrt”.

According to the above excerpt, we may conclude that Winchloe implementation of Take&Make doesn’t actually respect the requirements as stated by the inventor’s definition.

However, I wouldn’t say Sebastien’s or Winchloe’s Take&Make interpretations are illogical. To put it simple: they just don’t comply to the inventor’s original invention.

As this interpretation can lead also to some interesting effects, it could receive it’s own name, say “Take&Make Interrupted” (no pun intended).

Luce Sebastien
Luce Sebastien
October 10, 2016 18:49

To be very honest, Christian Poisson has not the same opinion than me !
He thinks that the two interpretations (Popeye/Winchloe) are of equal value.

But gentlemen, you didn’t comment about the little position I give. For you, stalemate or not stalemate ??

Nikola Predrag
Nikola Predrag
October 10, 2016 19:02

In T&M, a piece that makes a capture doesn’t actually play to the square of the capture. It plays across that square to its final square.
e.g. wBd3xbPb5-b4 means that wB moves from d3 to b4 ACROSS b5 but never playing TO b5 (just as wBd3-a6 across b5 would be possible if there was no bPb5).

Otherwise, the capturing Pawns would promote before “making” from the “furthest” rank.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x