Grasshopper(G): Moves along Q-lines over another unit of either color to the square immediately beyond that unit. A capture may be made on arrival, but the hurdle is not affected.
Bishophopper(BH): Moves along Bishop-lines over another unit of either color to the square immediately beyond that unit. A capture may be made on arrival, but the hurdle is not affected.
Rookhopper(RH): Moves along Rook-lines over another unit of either color to the square immediately beyond that unit. A capture may be made on arrival, but the hurdle is not affected.
AntiCirce Calvet: 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. AntiCirce Cheylan: As AntiCirce Calvet except that captures on the rebirth square are not allowed.
No.1262Michel Caillaud &
Jean-Marc Loustau France original – 22.12.2017
4-fold Lacny theme combined with original twinning with 2 pairs of variations on the
same squares (d3, c3)
White Correction by the Rook f4, in the 2 phases, with different keys
In position a):
-> Anti-dual couple between variations 1... Gd3 and 1... Gc3
-> The couples of variations on d3 and c3 can be seen as 2 2nd degree couples (arrival correction), the primary harmful effect being respectively the interference of RGd6 and the blocking of c3
I love subtle twinning, and this is more subtle than most: not a change from one fairy condition to another, but a change between two forms of the same fairy condition! So the changed play (Lacný) is caused solely by the right for a piece to capture on its own rebirth square: legal or not?
The mechanism depends on the fact that b1-c1-d1-e1 are rebirth squares both for white attackers and for black defenders (because they are all fairy pieces). So part b (Cheylan) is fairly automatic: Black leaves a thematic square, so White is able to go there (no capture) but Black is unable to defend by going back (with capture). Part a (Calvet), however, has required constructional tricks: the defences must let in other thematic mates according to the Lacný pattern. This has succeeded very well.
A valuable extra feature is the fact that the two parts have different keys. Naturally, this differentiation is also caused by the difference between Calvet and Cheylan.
Kjell Widlert
December 25, 2017 01:06
(If you read between the lines, you can see that I too find the problem excellent!)
Jacques Rotenberg
December 27, 2017 06:22
Nice
a) better than b) but it does not really matter here .
Can be shown in a less conventional way:
2# anticirce
the solution being split in two
– if you mean “Cheylan”
– if you mean “Calvet”
Superb !
I love subtle twinning, and this is more subtle than most: not a change from one fairy condition to another, but a change between two forms of the same fairy condition! So the changed play (Lacný) is caused solely by the right for a piece to capture on its own rebirth square: legal or not?
The mechanism depends on the fact that b1-c1-d1-e1 are rebirth squares both for white attackers and for black defenders (because they are all fairy pieces). So part b (Cheylan) is fairly automatic: Black leaves a thematic square, so White is able to go there (no capture) but Black is unable to defend by going back (with capture). Part a (Calvet), however, has required constructional tricks: the defences must let in other thematic mates according to the Lacný pattern. This has succeeded very well.
A valuable extra feature is the fact that the two parts have different keys. Naturally, this differentiation is also caused by the difference between Calvet and Cheylan.
(If you read between the lines, you can see that I too find the problem excellent!)
Nice
a) better than b) but it does not really matter here .
Can be shown in a less conventional way:
2# anticirce
the solution being split in two
– if you mean “Cheylan”
– if you mean “Calvet”