Chris Feather

Original Fairy problems
01.01.2022 - 30.06.2022

Definitions / Определения

No. 1687 Chris Feather
original - 29.01.2022

white Ke1 Pd4c4 Sh6 Bf8 black Pf3c5h7 Kh8
ser-h#8*            2 solutions            5+4
Take & Make
Circe Equipollents

Solution: (click to show/hide)

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 31, 2022 06:31

Just wondering how Chris Feather accesses this site, since apparently he doesn’t like to use use internet 🤔

Geoff Foster
Geoff Foster
February 2, 2022 00:37
Reply to  Seetharaman

Chris Feather uses snail mail to correspond with editors and chess friends.

February 2, 2022 17:55
Reply to  Geoff Foster

Thanks Geoff. That doesn’t however answer my question 😃

shankar ram
shankar ram
February 2, 2022 18:08
Reply to  Seetharaman

Maybe he gets a printout by post?🤔

Geoff Foster
Geoff Foster
February 4, 2022 00:36
Reply to  shankar ram

Whenever I write to Chris Feather, I tell him about problems of his that have recently been published.

Walter Lindenthal
Walter Lindenthal
July 4, 2022 15:44

It seems important to mention that the inventor of take&make (Laue) did NOT express priority over ANY other FAIRY condition with which it is combined! He specifically only mentioned check and pawn promotion in this respect (Schwalbe #229). Later (feenschach #233) he himself presented his idea of Circe-t&m (priority Circe) versus t&m-Circe (priority make), and he even appreciated the fact of a different implementation in PopEye and WinChloe of both versions! So there seems actually to be no reason left, why any other fairy condition “must” give in to make’s priority after take.

Walter Lindenthal
Walter Lindenthal
July 5, 2022 16:39

Apart from my former comment concerning the alleged “priority” issue, there is another issue to be discussed! Even though you see both part-moves of take and make as some kind of “unbreakable entity” (which is definitely not the intention of the inventor, see HIS(!) Circe-take&make vs take&make-Circe), why should this – in addition(!) – change the location of the capture field??? When you write (in standard notation) 1.c×d4-d5[wPe4] this would presume (under Circe Equipollents) that capture took place on d5. But there was no capture on d5, but on d4, the square where the take-move ended by capturing the pawn (if it’s not a captured pawn, then the make-move could possibly lead to so many other squares – this would result in undefined chaos)! Consequently it’s 1.c×d4-d5[wPe3]… Not to mix that up with an e.p.-capture, where (under same conditions), eg 1.e7-e5 d5×e6-e5 e.p.[bPf6]; also here the capture square for any following Circe-“action” (Equipollents) is the square where the captured pawn stands before capture (= end of take-move)!
The same problem is with your 1… Bg7#(?), because the defending reaction could be 2.K×g7-f8[wBf6]; the capture square must be defined by the take-move, not the make-move! So, no matter if it’s [wPe4] or [wPe3] both open the diagonal to a1, but there would be no escape for the bK after 1… Bg7  2.Kxg7-a1??, because the rebirth square of wB would still be f6#, resulting in illegal self-check!
Lots of disagreements… still, your original solution would stand, because the rebirth square of both wP (e4/e3, b4/b3) seem to be irrelevant for this solution. But I would feel there is definitely no justification for transferring the capture square to the end of the make-move…

Walter Lindenthal
Walter Lindenthal
July 19, 2022 19:33

On further probing this issue the problem seems to be of a different kind as first assumed. At first here it looked like the rebirth square vector from the take-move was attached to the end of the make-move. Now I rather think the whole of the compound move (take AND make) produces the vector here, and such it is attached to the capture square in order to find the rebirth square, once the make-move has been finished. If so, I’d like to figure out if this is the agreed upon conception, even though it seems to conflict with some definitions of Circe Equipollents where only a “capture” move (= equivalent to the take move “only”) seems to define the vector?
And further, following H. Laue’s own idea of Circe-take&make, where after the take-move primarily the Circe rebirth takes place, even before the make-move happened (although PopEye seems to not provide this variant). Would this not contradict the idea of a vector resulting out of the whole compound move from take AND make?
Thanks for your thoughts!