1 problem(s) found in 2410 milliseconds (displaying 1 problem(s)). [COMMENTDATE>=20200919 AND NOT K='Hilfsrückzüger' AND K='goldenes Zeitalter' AND G='Studies'] [download as LaTeX]
1. Sf7! Txf7 2. Ka8 Txc7 3. b8=B! ... Patt
Keywords: Dummy Pawn, Golden Age (Dummy Pawn)
Genre: Studies
FEN: 1K5N/pPP3rr/8/6p1/8/4p1k1/4P3/8
Reprints: (14) MatPlus.net Forum 13/5/2020
Input: James Malcom, 2020-02-11
Last update: A.Buchanan, 2023-08-04 more...
Genre: Studies
FEN: 1K5N/pPP3rr/8/6p1/8/4p1k1/4P3/8
Reprints: (14) MatPlus.net Forum 13/5/2020
Input: James Malcom, 2020-02-11
Last update: A.Buchanan, 2023-08-04 more...
Show statistic for complete result. Show search result faster by using ids.
https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/search.jsp?expression=COMMENTDATE%3E%3D20200919+AND+NOT+K%3D%27Hilfsr%C3%BCckz%C3%BCger%27+AND+K%3D%27goldenes+Zeitalter%27+AND+G%3D%27Studies%27
The problems of this query have been registered by the following contributors:
James Malcom (1)
1862 British Chess Association rule:
"Code of Laws of the British Chess Association" In that code, Law XIII said, "When a pawn has reached the eighth square, the player has the option of selecting a piece, whether such piece has previously been lost or not, whose names and powers it shall then assume, or of deciding that it shall remain a pawn."
Die Umwandlung in Dummy-Bauer wure erst 1904 offiziell abgeschafft. Daher würde ich bei Aufgaben aus jener Epoche nicht von "Scherzaufgaben" oder "Umwandlungsscherzen" sprechen. (2020-02-12)
James Malcom: While you are correct, it is the best possible classification for them in the modern era in my opinion. We shall speak of them as such, but shall we at least classify them as such? (2020-02-12)
Mario Richter: Alfred is only partially correct: this strange Law XIII was only valid in the British Chess Association - many other countries had rule sets without allowing dummy pawns (e.g. Germany, Russia, France, to name a few). Or to put it with the words of the 'Philadelphia Times' 03.01.1886 p.7: "the 'Dummy pawn' code of 1862 ... , has never, outside of a very limited circle, received any recognition."
I have nothing against the classification as "joke" and "joke promotion", since we're classifiying the problems from a today's perspective.
In an alternative for is to be found, Daniel VanArsdale, in his Web-article about Loyd's dummy pawn problem (P1265742) uses the term "Liberated promotion" (s. a href="http://www.silcom.com/~barnowl/Sam_Loyd%27s_Dummy_Promotion.html"http://www.silcom.com/~barnowl/Sam_Loyd%27s_Dummy_Promotion.html/a) (2020-02-12)
A.Buchanan: Mario, thanks for the link to VanArsdale's sympathetic article. You allow that a Dummy Pawn problem can be a joke, but so could *anything*, so you conceded nothing. We can do much better than this to respect the diversity of our history, our present and our future. Key idea: there is nothing about "today's perspective" that warrants special treatment.
Different rule sets, different generations of FIDE Laws, different Codex editions, different individuals across time and space are in fundamental disagreement about relatively minor aspects of the rules and problem conventions. A random example today is that the problem world silently ignores the USCF Laws. Is this fair? Probably not. Because their assumptions disagree with one another, not all problems can be "orthodox". But to say that the punishment for losing a theological debate is to be banished to the realms of fairy or joke is too great. It makes a completely unnecessary and cruel zero-sum game of the business.
I think there is merit in moving beyond these secondary squabbles to find a "canonical" set of problem chess rules (1) as a foundation for fairy chess (2) a basis for programming, especially retro conventions and (3) a more comprehensible world for newcomers who are increasingly attracted to our hobby. How to do this without theological acrimony? This canonical set should involve a minimum of imposition: it should based on be a careful but not over-literal reading of the FIDE Laws and Codex today, and grounded in a formal specification language to avoid ambiguity. I've got a plan for this and have shared the first pseudo-code draft with some people already. If you are interested, please get in touch.
So what about problems that don't fit? As a principle, I propose that all problems which were for some group or at some time completely legal and orthodox can *never* lose that status. They are in a special immortal class: "Golden Age". They are neither joke nor fairy, neither illegal nor unsound. They are both orthodox and unorthodox. And we record carefully how each such problem class differs from the canon. We make sure they never become unintelligible. Some are historical but many are being composed today, and there is no shame attached to them. They light up the evolutionary journey of our hobby, and in their rarity they are in some ways more interesting than the vast number of orthodox problems which may be forgotten more quickly.
If a Golden Age problem is submitted to a tourney today, then the "genre" would probably be fairy or retro, but of course this classification is the coarsest level of roll-up for tourney purposes only, and does not mean that the nature of the problem is necessarily fairy or retro.
Dummy Pawn was enjoyed by some, including World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz, and excited wrath among others, including World Champion wannabe Howard Staunton. Now that the dust of controversy from the 1800s has settled, its value today is (1) as a fresh, fecund and paradoxical design space and (2) as a relatively uncontroversial poster-child prototype for Golden Age as a mechanism to allow us all to better agree to disagree. (2022-02-08)
comment