 No.640 Nicolas Dupont (France) |
Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2014 (III): September – December →Previous ; →Next ; →List 2014(III) Please send your original fairy problems to: julia@juliasfairies.com |
No.640 by Nicolas Dupont – Yet another curious problem for the discussion, including null-move, ep-capture and Circe Parrain effects! (JV)
Definitions:
Circe Parrain: After a capture, the captured piece is reborn only after another piece of its own side has moved. The line between capturing square and rebirth square is parallel with and of same direction and length as the move of this other piece. Pawns can be reborn on 1st and 8th rank. From their own base rank, they may move one-step; if reborn on the promotion rank, the Pawn at once promotes, the promotion piece being determined by the Pawn side.
Rose(RO): (1,2) Octagonal Rider (extents the move of the Knight on a circular path e.g. a4-b6-d7-f6-g4-f2-d1-b2 or a4-c5-e4-f2).
|
No.640 Nicolas Dupont |
Solutions: (click to show/hide) |
|
white ROc3 Pa3b2
black Ka5 Pa4a7b6
h#2 1.2.1.1 (3+4) |
|
Thank you very much Nicolas for the dedication.
I am honored!
I love this Rose which invents a new french saying:
“prise en passant, mat en piaffant” :o)
Dominique.
It’s nice but again showing a disrespect to the viewers.
Write here the rules or at least provide some reference or link to where the applied rules are written.
I still haven’t seen the rules which would allow 2.axb4-b3.
Sorry, Py2Web shows ep-capture this way, the original move is 2.a4*b3 ep. Probably, I should ask D.Turevski to leave ep. as it is without any transformation..
Julia, it’s the author who should announce the change of default rules.
The available “presently” default rules define a capture as moving to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece and allow bPa4 to move to b3 only when that square is occupied by an opponent’s piece, capturing that piece.
Which particular rules are “presently valid”?
Nikola,
Your last text is in no way a correct definition of ep capture. You seem to be the only person to follow your “strict” approach – this should be at least a hint that everything is not so simply as you see it.
Please also read my message in Forum.
Nikola, please… I believe, each author can have his own opinion and the site is free tribune in this respect. Therefore, if something seems abnormal, it does not mean yet that this is a general rule. Plus, keeping in mind the fact of different interpretations by different programs… We have too few of “general rules” it seems, but on another hand we might have many different creative views..
there is no change of rules here… and this problem is C+ with Winchloé which accept “null moves”!
Popeye did not implement the null move ( neither for Rose,Ubi-Ubi or Hamster…)
but it’s only a lack of this programm ( Popeye) not of the compositeur here.
the viewer use Popeye for showing us the solution which can’t describe the null move
( as Julia explains in the solution, she kindly use an artefact to the lack of Popeye’s viewer )
it’s a legal nul move and, for me, a magical mate by “a pawn invocation”
It is more a matter of notation than a matter of rules: I decided – or more precisely I agreed with Py2Web, to replace axb3-ep by axb4-b3 (as Geoff also recently done in his own problem 636) to emphasis that the b-Pawn has been captured on square b4.
I felt this notation was necessary in the Parrain-Circe context precisely to avoid disrespecting readers. Indeed it is a Parrain-Circe rule (at least this is the way each problem involving Parrain-Circe and ep-capture is going) that the Parrain-rebirth occurs on square b4. Hence the notation axb4-b3 (+Pb4) emphasizes this fact, although the notation axb3-ep (+Pb4) would be disturbing.
In fact my favorite notation is axb4-b3 (without arrow) and not axb4->b3 (with arrow). Indeed this latter suggests that the a-Pawn successively captures on b4 and then goes to b3. I fell more accurate to consider that the a-Pawn is capturing on b4 and is reaching b3 (via the direct path a4-b3 and not via the composed one a4-b4-a3) at the same time.
A leading problem magazine would use the (false, in my opinion) notation 1…Pxb4 e.p. to describe the en passant capture a4xb3 e.p. I disagree with Nicolas’s notation axb4-b3, too. The notation “axb3 e.p.” would suffice to describe what happened during the solution. Nikola’s insistence of a capture occurring only on a square occupied by an opponent’s unit fails to take into consideration the case of en passant, when the capture occurs on a square that is not currently occupied. En passant is a special case of a move, and as such, any attempt to describe it as normal is destined to fail logically. Nicolas’s problem is, of course, correct and needs no further explanation: The pawn will have to be reborn on b4 and not on the occupied square b3-how would that be even possible-capturing the black pawn (by rebirth)?
Kostas,
Suppose that, centuries ago, the guy who invented the en-passant capture has denoted it axb4-b3. Are you sure that nowadays some composers would claim to denote it axb3-ep?
I don’t like this latter notation because it tells nothing about what is hidden behind it. If, at the very beginning of the story, ep-capture would have been denoted axb4-b3, things would have been clear enough because this new notation correctly mimics what’s really going on here – the a-Pawn captures on b4 and, simultaneously, goes to b3 (a Locust-like move).
Of course by “really” I mean the way both Popeye and WinChloe are handling ep-capture. With a supplement – square b3 must be empty (the reason why the Begley/Caillaud problem is not C+).
Centuries ago, that guy would be told: “An interesting joke, but we are trying to develop the standard chess rules and not to invent some kind of fairy chess”.
And even today, the Locust-like move belongs to fairy-chess and not to the system of standard/normal/orthodox chess.
The point where we disagree (you probably have noticed it too) goes as follows:
– You think that the above way ep-capture is defined could not be correct, as it isn’t a direct consequence of official rules.
– I think that the above way ep-capture is defined should be correct, as it is a direct consequence of how solving programs handle it.
Saying otherwise, when in front of a hole, you are waiting to an official stop-up rule, while I consider the hole to already be stopped-up by programmers – providing of course enough problems have been published so that it leads to a jurisprudence.
Nicolas
I can hardly understand what you’re talking about.
“…- I think that the above way ep-capture is defined should be correct, as it is a direct consequence of how solving programs handle it…”
What do you mean? That we should solve, analyze or compose problems without knowing the rules?
Am I really the only one who needs to know the rules?
Do you compose by randomly putting the pieces on the board and when the program shows some solution, you choose it, or reject, continuing the random process?
Or you have an idea based on the rules you know in advance?
Are the programs’ rules clear and available in public. And are they somewhere announced as the default rules which do not have to be particularly mentioned with the published problem?
“…while I consider the hole to already be stopped-up by programmers…”
Which hole you’re talking about?
So many posts avoiding to detect the clear point for discussion.
People believe that wP can be captured on b4 by bP moving to b3. So what?
There’s a hole in their reasoning and it’s a hollow belief. So what? – I don’t care.
But where is the hole in the rules?
That’s what I care and ask about.
The inventor of a fairy condition might forget to rule out some border lines cases, while the programmer is, in a certain sense, protected against this danger – otherwise the condition will simply not run, or bugs will soon be discovered. That’s why I trust more into a programming than into a definition.
There are tons of cases handled by programs but not by rules, you now that better than me. So what, does some lack inside a definition be enough to not working with the related fairy condition/piece? I already provided this example – put an Imitator on a1 and a Rose on c3. Is the null-move from the Rose allowed?
There is almost no chance to get the answer from the respective definitions of null-move, Imitators and Roses – otherwise those definitions would be too much long. Is it a definite obstacle disallowing us to create a problem using this border-line situation? I don’t think so, btw the answer is “no” according to WinChloe.
Parrain Circe vs ep-capture is a good example, as programmers were forced to answer the question “on which square occurs the ep-capture?” – The lack of “official” clear answer to this question is the hole in the standard rules you are asking for.
Julia, the author may invent completely new rules and announce them. A problem with unknown rules is meaningless.
If the new rules are given by a particular program, that should be announced just as any fairy condition under the diagram.
And the definition of these rules should be available.
Without such announcement and definition, it should be supposed that the default rules are valid.
The only default rules I’m aware of, are determined by WFCC as FIDE rules.
If everyone here but me, knows what are the default rules, it would be polite to mention it here, at least. Providing a link, or quoting a relevant paragraph, would be certainly better.
Since no such thing has happened, we have been probably all the time referring to the same default rules as defined by FIDE.
Any personal interpretation must not violate the rules.
A “hole” in the rules would allow various interpretations which don’t violate the rules.
The interpretation that bPa4 may move to the empty square b3, capturing a wP which occupies b4, violates the given rules.
I have asked for several times: which rule allows that?
If “the unquestionable personal belief” in the possibility which is defined as illegal by the rules, is supported by many other “believers”, the change should be propoesd to FIDE or WFCC.
If a “supposed” majority” wants to unofficially impose their beliefs to the”supposed minority”, then at least these beliefs should be clearly formulated.
“…Nikola’s insistence of a capture occurring only on a square occupied by an opponent’s unit fails to take into consideration the case of en passant, when the capture occurs on a square that is not currently occupied…”
Kostas, you should say clearly that you don’t care about the FIDE rules (if that is the case), for I insist only on applying these rules.
If you can find in these rules a definition of a capture which allows a capture on an empty square, please refer to it.
Since I don’t expect it, I’ll stop torturing you all and myself, every was always free to believe whatever he/she wishes. The power of the mayority can violate all formal rules and disobey the logical reasoning too.
I apologize, I was rather naive, waiting for any interpretation at least indirectly legible in the rules.
I would gladly accept any possibly reasonable interpretation.
Enormous waste of my time for hearing the only “proof”: “We all believe that wP is “obviously” captured on b4,g4,h4 etc.”!
I can’t communicate this way and why should I?
Nikola,
I can only repeat what was said before.
You write:
The interpretation that bPa4 may move to the empty square b3, capturing a wP which occupies b4, violates the given rules.
According to everyone else, except you, this is not true. You do not really insist on applying FIDE rules (as I have said before, the rules define only how the position changes, not exact procedure of “capture” or any “principles” the rules are based on.), you insist on applying your interpretation of these rules, and you do not want to hear anyone pointing at it.
Nobody except you is really interested in wordplay, but I can do it if you insist. For example, where I am expected to find opponent’s pawn which has advanced two squares in one move from its original square?
Nicolas, the notation “axb3 e.p.” fully describes the move: A black pawn from a4 captured a white pawn b4 en passant and it ended on b3. Any other attempt for a different notation, although comprehensible, is unnecessary. I can see that you try to avoid the “e.p.” part of the notation, and as such your attempt is commendable, but as a matter of fact it feels unusual and sometimes confusing, if for no other reason, at least because of tradition. The notation “Pxb4 e.p.” is also comprehensible, as the e.p. addition tells us that the pawn ends on b3, but it is not clear from which square it departed, unless we look at the diagram.
Nikola, I am not sure what you are asking me to do: Refer to “a definition of a capture which allows a capture on an empty square”? Any manual of the basic rules of chess usually has two diagrams to explain the en passant capture. One “before” shows the two pawns side by side (e.g. on a4 and b4) and the second “after” has only the black pawn on b3. This is not a usual capture as any other in the chess rules; it is an en passant capture and it occurs on an empty square (b3). It is the exception to the rule about captures and at least the orthodox form of it (not the fairy implications) should not cause any ambiguity as to what exactly has happened (capture on the empty square b3 of a pawn standing on b4, by a pawn coming from a4). I am sorry, but I fail to imagine a different way to describe this move in orthodox (FIDE, if you wish) rules of chess. In different fairy forms, some complications may occur, but if you follow the same rule for the en passant capture as in orthodox chess, it is much easier to understand and accept the capture on an empty square and whatever rebirths follow.
Georgy and Nicolas, you just repeat your own beliefs without referring to the official rules. And these beliefs are not even exactly the same, so you should discuss it between yourselves.
There is no hole in the rules, you should simply apply what they tell you. The rules do not need to mention that you should first abandon your own wrong beliefs.
You think you “know” the rules before you learn them and
you see a “hole”, because the rules do not fit into your beliefs.
3.7.d defines which opponent’s piece my be captured and on which square.
What the capture means is defined in 3.7.c and 3.1 telling you which square occupies the piece which may be captured.
If you exclude your beliefs and pre-judices, there will be no hole in the rules. If it looks strange, that’s your problem. We all still see the sun moving across the sky.
Nikola,
During this discussion I have read FIDE rules at least ten times.
P.3.7d. says that black may capture pawn b4 with pawn a4 as if it is staying on b3. There is no real doubt that Pb4 is captured as I cited: opponent’s pawn which has advanced two squares in one move from its original square. And hypothetical (this is your word) part “as if” is used to avoid contradiction with p3.1.
If someone tells everyone that “John drank beer as though it was water”, then the point of view that John really drinks only water does not look well supported.
Georgy,
The example can’t be related to 3.7d, the following is much more equivalent:
“John may drive after he drank beer as though it was water”
Then you look in the article which defines “may drive” and you find out that driving after drinking is allowed exclusively if the beverage was water, or alternatively if the beer was non-alcoholic. So, “may drive” directly tells that beer which John drank, surely contains no alcohol “as though it was water”.
What you might think about such beer, is entirely your trouble, it’s irelevant for the application of the rule.
3.7.d says “A pawn…MAY CAPTURE this opponent’s pawn…” and 3.7.c defines “may capture”. This directly tells that the particular square is occupied “as though the latter had been moved only one square”
But you repeatedly read it as though it was written: A pawn MAY MOVE to a particular square “as though it captures this opponent’s pawn ‘as though’ the latter had been moved only one square.”
Read it 11th time.
“… P.3.7.d says that black may capture pawn b4 with pawn a4 as if it is staying on b3…”
And that is again just your “creation”, it is said which pawn may be captured by which pawn. So it is easy to see which square the captured pawn must occupy in case of ep. capture, for “may capture” is defined in 3.7.c” and nothing in 3.7.d says that “wP occupies b4” in case of ep. capture.
And “… which has advanced two squares…” is used to avoid contradiction with p3.1.
In a hypothetical case that it was written “…which has moved to a second square along the same file” someone might aks: how wPb4 can occupy b3?
I still wonder, where in the rules you read that in case of ep. capture wP may occupy or occupies b4.
Through the centuries, it has been actually questioned: if the ep. capture is possible, then “when wP arrives to b4 at last”, and not “does wP occupies b3”?
The essential point of this discussion is the prospect of extension of the validity of rules known during their generalization in a Fairy context.
Your vison of the capture in the pep is your, neither better nor the worse than our, and both are respectable, however it seems that the question was already cut well before our controverse.
Consider the case of the “universal pep” used by Albert H. KNIEST ( Schachmatt 1946) in a study where all pieces can capture “en-passant”. We have to examine where occurs the pep in all cases. Now, if we say that the piece never reach the square occuped before the pep we block on the Nicolas’paradox explained during the discussion about “Sebastien Luce’s Problem n°626” : https://juliasfairies.com/problems/jf-2014-iii/no-627/#comment-38259.
Remember the position by Nicolas Dupont ( October 30, 2014 at 16:43)
W: Kg8 Ba1,
B: Kg6 Qg7 Pa3, this latter equipped with ep-power.
1.Ba1xg7 a3xb2ep. (only move)
If you consider the bishop never reach g7 , it never capture the queen! You change the past of the game! It’s a paradox and it cannot be accepted. Nicolas clearly demonstrate that your vision of the pep can change the past of the game ! Nothing less
The notation 1…a3xg7-b2 ep. Is the real description of the move under this condition, and , in “universal pep” the pep by a pawn follow the same path: after 1.a2-a4 a black pawn on b4 can play : 1…b4xa4-a3 ep.
Of course in the case of the orthodox chess we don’t care about this, the black pawn b4 go on b3 and the white pawn disappears! But under fairy condition the paradox is unbearable.
And it is not a problem of programming! “universal pep” is not implemented as I know.
It’s just a problem of coherency with fairy composition.
If an alternative leads to a paradox, it is necessary to try the other one.
I find brave on behalf of Nicolas to want to clarify a defect hampering(bothering) in the world of the composition by creating a notation which raises any ambiguity.
“the change should be proposed to FIDE or WFCC.” Why not?
Dominique,
are you trying to say that any possible fairy invention is a proof that the standard rules are wrong?
If I read the rules incorrectly, this should be proved by correct reading of the same rules and not by inventing some new rules.
And the meaning of ep. capture is literally expressed by the given name “in passing”. The Locust-like behavior was pretty surely not the idea half of millennium ago.
While a pawn is passing across a square on 3rd/6th rank it occupies that square and may be captured by a relevant opponent’s pawn.
That was the original idea.
Nikola,
my purpose is not to contradict you at all costs, and I respect you sincerely, I want just to argue a point of view which approves me.
I’m not ”trying to say that any possible fairy invention is a proof that the standard rules are wrong?”
I just am trying to say that fairies conditions, such as they exist today, need an acute precision of the square where occurred the capture and where the piece disappear.
In orthodox chess there is no confusion because there is no importance for the fact that the pawn is captured on 3rd(respectively 6th) rank or 4th (5th) rank . So the orthodox chess rules don’t need to specify exactly the square where the pawn disappear after its capture.
In Fairies conditions it is different, we have to adapt them, without distorting them, while keeping them the most honorable possible. By thinking about it, we have to find the most acceptable consensus especially as there is no flexibility.
By the way, if this proposition don’t change the rules, clarify the use of the conditions and avoid a paradox, why not to have a look to it.
Friendly
Dominique,
I welcome you to contradict me, because I always re-question my own reasoning myself. And it’s easier when questioning comes from a new point of view.
The trouble with this discussion is that I’m not sure whether we are talking about the same thing. It seems that there is much more misunderstanding than the language alone would cause.
We should speak about a generalized concept of chess which would be a good flexible basis for many fairy rules.
But it’s not a good idea to ask for the change of FIDE rules.
WFCC Codex defines some conventions. An interpretation of rules which would have no practical effect in any OTB game, but would be useful in the problems, especially the fairy ones, might be created and proposed to WFCC, simply as a convention.
Of course, it should be convincing and commonly accepted.
Friendly
Nikola,
There is nothing wrong with your reasoning. The real problem is that it is not the only possible correct one. So, the approach “I am right – so everyone else is wrong” is not working here.
Moreover, such approach never works in fairy chess. So, instead of “correct” or “incorrect” we should discuss it in the terms of “better” or “worse”.
And in these terms I do not like your approach, as it closes paths instead of ordering them. And some other consequences like “fuzziness” of position and multijump movement of Locust does not feel comfortable for me.
P.S. I am 100% agree with Dominique that in otb chess it does not matter if “the square of capture” is defined at all. I am still thinking that my interpretation in the “Capture for Dummies” post is good and even “commonly accepted”, until I see any problem that uses different interpretation.
And yes, the Sun rises from the East and goes down in the West, unless there is extremely good reason to disagree with it.
Georgy, it’s irrelevant what “Nikola” thinks.
If the reasoning is correct, it offers one possible way of applying the rules. A different reasoning might be another possible way, but only if it is correct!
You and the others approach to the rules from a point of your previous personal experience with chess and you read what was not written.
A “Newcomer” who knows nothing about the chess, should read the rules and learn to recognize exactly what is legal and what not, without any previous “understanding” of the specific terms and concepts used in the rules.
The term “capture” may be understood only exactly as it is defined in the rules, without any effects of “previous personal beliefs”.
A Newcomer has every right to claim: “I don’t know your experience but that’s not what the rules say” and since a capture by moving to an empty square is ILLEGAL, any similar interpretation is clearly invalid.
Somehow you believe that a “capture” could be freely interpreted in case of ep. capture.
Article 3.10 says:
a. A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.
b. A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9
No “exclusive” article defines a capture on an empty square and a removal of a piece from another square. The Newcomer must conclude that “as though” means that the “alternatively advancing pawn” somehow must be considered to occupy the “first” square, at least in case of ep. capture.
Why would the Newcomer ever think, even for a moment, that the capture&removal could mean anything else? The terms and the respective concepts are clearly defined.
But the “alternatively advance” and “as though” are the new terms and the respective concepts should be understood. They are mentioned only in one paragraph and without a separate definition.
So, these concepts can only have a meaning as depending on the context of the clearly defined concepts.
The Newcomer doesn’t have to obey the science-fictional interpretations by Nikola or Georgy.
If “as though” by any chance may be interpreted as “not really occupying the square of capture” then “may capture” would mean “not really capture”. Perhaps a4xb3ep. would be legal with such an interpretation, meaning that bP may “exclusively” move from a4 to b3 without “really capturing”.
But what would justify the removal of wPb4, if it was not “really occupying b3” and not “really captured”?
Perhaps it should not be “really removed from b4”?
Please, point to a detail IN THE RULES (which I fail to see), which achieves the correctness of your interpretation.
At least say which elements you (by your personal decision) see as the “real” part of “as though reasoning” and which as “not real”.
Perhaps I would then be able to understand at least what you are talking.
So far, your argument has seemed as “my belief is more valid than the given rules”.
What suggests that wP may be captured on and removed from b4? Square b3 is a direct and correct option. Square b4 looks as incorrect, even absurd to me.
I don’t say that observing the Sun from the North pole, Earth’s orbit, Moon or other planets are the extremely good reasons. I just say that, despite the beliefs, the obvious concept of immobile Earth is very simply incorrect.
No “exclusive” article defines a capture on an empty square and a removal of a piece from another square. The Newcomer must conclude that “as though” means that the “alternatively advancing pawn” somehow must be considered to occupy the “first” square, at least in case of ep. capture.
Why would the Newcomer ever think, even for a moment, that the capture&removal could mean anything else? The terms and the respective concepts are clearly defined.
I know one former newcomer who had been many years ago charmed by e.p. capture that worked like “move black pawn from e4 to f3 and – miracle! – white pawn that just have moved from f2 to f4 disappears!” No thinking about anything placed on f3, just mere working of specific rule.
It was me. I always liked playing e.p. capture in game just for the simple special feeling of removing piece from totally different square than I have just moved to.
Which rules did you read? 🙂
Nikola,
You mysterious Newcomer does not have to be a lawyer to understand en passant capture.
He uses the following simple logic. (Q – question, A -Answer, J – Justification)
Q1. Which piece may make an en passant capture?
A1. Black pawn from the 4th rank.
J1. A pawn attacking a square crossed by an opponent’s pawn…
Q2. Which piece may be captured en passant?
A2. White pawn on the 4th rank.
J2. …opponent’s pawn which has advanced two
squares in one move from its original square…
Q3. How this capture is made?
A3. The same way as the capture of a pawn on the third rank.
J3.…as though the latter had been moved only one square.
Q4. Can you give more details?
A4. Yes.
J4.The pawn may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece, which is diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece.
So this Newcomer may be imagining some virtual pawn on the third rank, but on the second day of play he just remembers that pawn captures diagonally and no longer needs this imaginary crutch, until some legal adviser makes him to feel lame again.
So the Newcomer imagines and captures some virtual Pawn, but on the second day he no longer needs this imaginary crutch. In both cases the real Pawn which has advanced would not be affected.
Or both the real and imagined Pawn would be captured?
Or most simply, the advanced Pawn is removed, the capturing Pawn is moved to that diagonal square and the Newcomer remembers that the advanced Pawn was captured on the 3rd rank according to the rules.
If he forgets that, because it is not relevant in the otb practice, the rules are still the same. And when some fairy rule where this is relevant is added, the standard rules have to be checked again, because some “new” newcomer has every right to apply them correctly.
Of course, if some change of standard rules is not announced.
Worse than deaf one who does not want to hear.
“Newcomer imagines and captures some virtual Pawn.”
Of course not. He captures the piece mentioned in Q-A-J2.
But the capture is made by moving a black pawn to an empty square and he _at first_ needs imaginary unit according to J3 to resolve a seeming contradiction with J4.
Or most simply, the advanced Pawn is removed, the capturing Pawn is moved to that diagonal square and according to the rules that is all.
This is a fiction far beyond my abilities.
J4 – The pawn may move to a SQUARE OCCUPIED BY AN OPPONENT’S PIECE, which is diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing THAT PIECE.
If my understanding of English is sufficiently correct and applicable for this sentence, and if my understanding of logic relations is sufficiently correct and applicable to understand the logical meaning of this sentence, the Newcomer should conclude this:
THAT PIECE is a short expression related to AN OPPONENT’S PIECE WHICH OCCUPIES THE SQUARE to which the Pawn may move.
I’m too deaf to understand THAT PIECE as “some piece”.
So for me, Q3,A3&J3 is about THAT PIECE (which occupies the square to which the Pawn may move) as though THAT PIECE had been moved only one square.
– “the latter” is THAT PIECE (which occupies the square to which the Pawn may move) –
If you don’t agree with the statement above, then “the latter” can’t be captured by the mentioned Pawn.
There is no THAT PIECE, as the square on the third rank is EMPTY.
Georgy, you have said before that you interpret the rules literally.
But your interpretation is a mess of many mysterious personal beliefs which are not defined in the rules.
The rules are compound of separate definitions. They make the interdependent whole.
Expression in some article may and must be substituted by an equivalent expression from another article.
So directly, without interpretation
“a pawn may capture” is defined in 3.7.c and may be substituted by:
“the pawn may move to a square occupied by (an opponent’s piece), which is diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that (piece).”
————————————————–
Then the article 3.7.d may be substituted by:
A pawn attacking a square crossed by an opponent’s pawn which has advanced two squares in one move from its original square may move to a square occupied by (this opponent’s pawn), which is diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing (that opponent’s pawn) as though the latter had been moved only one square. This capture is only legal on the move following this advance and is called an ‘en passant’ capture.
—————————————————-
Simple and clear, the pawn which has advanced is captured while occupying the square on which the other pawn may capture it. The square is determined by “as though…”
Now what of your “short” definition is written in the rules? Use only the terms and concepts exactly defined in FIDE rules and how short would be your definition? If you introduce some new term and concept, define it by FIDE rules.
Your recent reasoning is quite a gem:
” J4.The pawn may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece, which is diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece. ”
And:
” There is no THAT PIECE, as the square on the third rank is EMPTY. ”
So, the square is empty and there is no piece which may be captured.
It’s a reasonable description of a case when ep. capture, or any other capture, is not possible.
Make a reasonable reference to FIDE rules or say clearly that you do not obey them or some relevant part of them.
The concept “a pawn may capture” is perfectly clearly defined, there’s absolutely no mention of capturing on an empty square. The only exceptional concepts that could be found in 3.7.d are “advancing” and “as though being moved only one square”.
So, either ep. capture is never possible, or the undefined exceptional concepts must allow “the latter” to ocupy the 1st square.
Nikola,
J4 is a part of another paragraph not directly applicable to ep capture. The rules are written so that they underline similarity between ordinary capture and en passant capture, but they nowhere say that the pawn being captured ever visited third rank. They directly say (in J2) that this pawn stands on 4th rank. All this “as though” part is an explanation how the pawn captures something by moving to empty square. And this is enough for otb players to be able to make a move correctly (this is the goal of FIDE rules).
And as I said several times times the exact square of capture is not significant for the otb play, so this point is not emphasized in FIDE rules, and this allows us to continue this fruitless discussion.
It is fruitless, because the rule of thumb is “the rebirth square is determined by the position of captured piece before the capture”. I have even checked WinChloe database for all the problems with Circe Parrain condition and en passant capture (“e.p.” in solution). There are 15 such problems, including 2 by Begley/Caillaud with double capture. The list of authors consists of: Begley, Caillaud, de Heer, Tuovinen, Gruchko, Shifrin, Pacurar, Stun, Sobrecases, Prentos. All these people, without a single exception, compose under the assumption that the rebirth square of a pawn captured en passant is defined by its position on 4th rank. Nobody has ever supported your point of view in this discussion either.
So, I am no longer taking part in this kind of discussion at all, until you are able to support your point of view by any public work of independent expert (article, judgment, problem, public lecture, etc.). Until then please start any post on this theme with IMHO, as there is nothing else in it.
“… They directly say (in J2) that this pawn stands on 4th rank…”
Neither directly nor indirectly.
“Advance two squares” does not mean “move to a 2nd square”. Don’t take these two expressions as “poetically equivalent”.
Pieces are on their initial positions on the chessboard.
Although it’s not explicitly said that being “on a position on the chessboard (composed of 64 equal squares)” means “occupying a particular square”, the language justifies the equivalence of those two expressions as defining the same concept.
Otherwise, “occupying” would be undefined and inapplicable in the rules.
Pieces change their positions by MOVING to another square.
The mentioned Pawn would occupy 4th rank after MOVING two squares along the same file.
But exclusively for the case in 3.7.b, a sudden poetic inspiration has created the concept “may advance two squares…” instead of “may move…”.
The term “advance” is nowhere directly or indirectly connected with “moving to a square”.
Advance might mean “move forward/make progress, ahead of the times/before the due time”. It is moving forward (of some idea) in time or in significance, rather than moving a body in space.
Also suddenly, the “poetic inspiration” is gone and “as though it had advanced only square” is not in use any more. “As though it had been MOVED only one square” is used because “MOVING the pieces” changes their position on the board.
3.7.d says that the defined capture is called ‘en passant’ capture.
The term “capture” is defined in 3.1 (moving to an occupied square) and the term ‘en passant’ explains that a pawn occupies 1st square WHILE PASSING across it. At the time when the pawn had been MOVED only one square, that pawn is positioned on 1st square.
This explanation allows the capture on the occupied 1st square.
The “advanced pawn” is on the 4th rank only in the idea which is “ahead of the times” but it’s position on the board is “passing” across 1st square towards 2nd square. At the time of ep. capture it is positioned as though it had been moved only one square. At the time after some other move, that pawn is no more ahead of the times and the idea is synchronized with the position on the board.
I’ve resumed the essence of my posts to paste in the relevant place of forum but I failed to log in, probably due to a wrong password. So, it’s here, until relocated.
————————
Georgy, it was indeed exhausting and more than enough.
I’m sincerely grateful for your patience and pointing out the critical issues.
For those who are curious to explore the basic essence of the concept of chess, here is a summary of my view, seemingly unsupported by anyone else.
Abstract thinking is recognizing the essential relevance.
The complete general essence of chess is given in 3.1 with the specific point in 3.9
Any abstract reasonong will recognize the relevance of that essence as mandatory. It governs the whole concept of chess.
Any interpretation which neglects that essence as irrelevant in some “exceptional” case, would corrupt the whole concept.
Paragraph 3.1 has THE mandatory relevance in chess and thus, in any little detail of any chess rules.
– No captures on empty squares – determines the frame for any valid interpretation.
So:
3.1 & 3.7.c – define the capture.
3.7.d – defines no exceptional suspension of 3.1 or 3.7.d
3.7.d – is not an explanation of a non-existing suspension
3.7.d – defines the specific details of 1.1 (the players make the moves by moving their pieces on the board so, when a piece has been MOVED, the opponent has the move)
3.7b – The pawn may MOVE as in 3.7.a, or alternatively it may ADVANCE two squares ALONG the same file.
ALONG means “through any part of the length of”, so the pawn may alternatively ADVANCE to the first and then to the second square of the same file, from its original square.
The ADVANCE does not define WHEN the move is MADE i.e. finished when the advanced pawn has been MOVED to ONE square or ANOTHER.
-The first of these two possibilities is defined in 3.7.d “as though the MOVE WAS MADE (finished)” WHEN the pawn has ADVANCED ONLY ONE SQUARE.
The shorter expression is written: “as though it had been MOVED only one square”.
The term en passsant explains the capture as “while the captured piece is passing across the attacked square”.
-The second possibility is not explicitly defined but it can only be considered that: if the move was not treated as made, when the pawn has avanced only one square, the pawn advances one more square, to the limit defined in 3.7.b, and the play continues “as though” the move was made by that last part of the advance.
Or shorter expression: if not “as though it had been MOVED only one square”, then “as though it had been MOVED two squares”.
So, it’s all about WHEN A MOVE IS MADE (finished) and WHEN the opponent will HAVE THE MOVE.
And that is exactly the issue argued about, for some FOUR CENTURIES!
And the OTB games have been played according to the various interpretations of that issue during these centuries.
It was clear that a player has the right to decide WHEN and HOW the opponent has made his move of “advancing two squares”.
One interpretation was: if “moving one square” is illegal, then the “two squares advance” is also illegal. So, moving two squares to parry a check, was illegal.
Another interpretation was that the right of deciding means: a player may choose the ep. capture if he finds it convenient, or choose that the opponent’s “advancing pawn” has been moved two squares, and then to claim that the ep. capture is not possible any more. So, in case of having no other legal move, beside the “privilege” of choosing the ep. capture, the player may claim a stalemate.
This interpretation was rejected only in 1860, with Morphy, Anderssen, Loyd etc. already on the scene.
I don’t know when the presently valid FIDE rules were formulated, but they deal quite extraordinarily with that extremely delicate issue.
The very essence of chess is preserved and at the same time, the players can unambiguously apply the rules, even without understanding the delicate details.
Expert-player can understand the essence of the strongest play, without understanding the essence of chess.
Expert in chess-concept can understand the essential basic concept of chess, without understanding what makes a good play.
Expert recognizes and understands what is relevant in his field of expertize.
Who is the expert that recognizes the relevant essence of the 4 centuries long history of the “en passant issue”?