Die Schwalbe

6 problem(s) found in 4062 milliseconds (displaying 6 problem(s)). [COMMENTDATE>=20200919 AND NOT K='Hilfsrückzüger' AND NOT K='Inder' AND K='Rücknahme illegaler Zug'] [download as LaTeX]

1 - P0001141
George Hume
Jamaica Gleaner 12/1891
Weihnachtsturnier 1891
1. Preis
P0001141
(9+9)
Auf welche Gedanken kommen Sie bei dieser Stellung?

Der Ld6 ist keine UWF und der sBg7 wurde auf seinem Ausgangsfeld geschlagen. Nach dem Autor muss der letzte Zug also Lf8-d6 gewesen sein, also illegale Stellung.
Datum der Originalpublikation nicht 100% sicher, laut ACM aus der "Jamaica Gleaner Christmas column".

Originalforderung: How has the position been arrived at and who is the winner, and in how many moves?

From the Jamaica Gleaner: "White mates in two moves. The last move made was by Black playing his Bishop and announcing mate. As it can be demonstrated that the Bishop is not a promoted Pawn and that Black's King's Knight's Pawn was captured on its original square by White's Queen's Knight's Pawn the Black Bishop must have been played from Bishop's square (f8) to Q3 (d6). This being an illegal move, White enforces the penalty of compelling Black to retract it and move his King whereupon White plays 1 PXB(Q) ch (1.gxf8=Q+) and mates next move by 2 Q-B4 (Qf4#). The following is a brief but pointed analysis, demonstrating the false move: White's Pawns have made six captures all on black squares. The Q Kt P (Pb2) made five of these and consequently captured the Kt P on the square upon which it now stands (g7). They could not have captured the Q B which is also lost. The White Bishop is the QRP (Pa2) promoted, the original KB having been captured on its own square as the unmoved Pawns show. To allow this promotion Black's QRP (Pa7) made two captures, the QKtP (Pb7) one, and the QBP (Pc7) two. The KRP (Ph7) has also made a capture, which accounts for the seven pieces White has lost. The Black Bishop is not a promoted Pawn, as if the Black KBP (Pf7) had played to the 7 th square (f2) and then captured a White piece on K or Kt square (e1 or g1) the captures by White Pawns cannot be accounted for without including the Black QB or KRP neither of which is available. As it can be demonstrated, then that the Black Bishop is not a promoted one, and that the KKtP was captured by the White Pawn which now stands on that square, in order to reach Q3 the Black Bishop must have an impossible move.

Der Kolumnist des ACM merkt aber zurecht an:
ACM: The above is a very fine piece of analytical work; but there is a slight flaw in connection with the minor condition, 'mate in two'. In a position of this kind we believe only that which can be proved; thus we do not think that White has any right to enact a penalty, as neither the analysis nor the conditions show that the Black Bishop came from Bishop's square on his last move; indeed, that Bishop may have played outside the Pawns on the very first move of the game which, being played, brought about the position.
HBae: White plays 1 PXB(Q) ch (1.gxf8=Q+). Muß der sK nicht auf f5 stehen? (2019-10-22)
Henrik Juel: Last move (supposedly) was Lf8-d6#, which is obviously impossible and hence illegal
The penalty for this is that Black must replace Ld6 on f8 AND instead make an arbitrary move with his king
So the forward play is
0... Kf5,Kf6,Kh6 1.gxf8=D+ Kg5,Ke5 2.Df4# (2019-10-22)
A.Buchanan: One long-standing approach to resolving illegal diagram jokes is to suppose that only the last move was illegal, with all prior play legal. The illegal move is then retracted, and play continues. Of course, the “illegal move” might in principle be from *any* legal position (even the game array!). So for sanity, we say the illegal move is a simple but somehow illegal shift of a single piece.

So here, candidates for the last move include Pe5-a4+, Sf4-e1+, Ke5-g5+ & B?-d6+. For all of these, White has 6 visible pawn captures, all on dark squares, so Black light-squared bishop is excluded. wPa must have promoted to light-squared bishop, so if the three Black pawns on a-file remain, there is only one unaccounted capture. Thus bPh could not promote, and must be bPg6 now. Thus bPg7 was captured at home, and bBf8 was thus locked in.

So Bf8-d6 is certainly a possible illegal move, but so are e.g. Be8-d6 (as the light-squared bishop is otherwise unexplained) and Pe5-a~. This is an example of an "implausible" joke according to Dawson & Hundsdorfer, because there is more than one retraction to the current position, and one just has to arbitrarily pick the one that makes the forward logic work. (2023-04-02)
A.Buchanan: Another issue is that according to the 1883 laws, White cannot force Black to move their king. The 1883 rules stated:
- If a player touches a piece or Pawn of his own he must move it.
- If he touches one of his adversary's he must take can be taken.
- If he touches plurality of pieces or Pawns of the same colour, in either of these instances his adversary may elect which such piece or Pawn he will call upon him to play or to take, as the case may be.
- If the rules governing the moves of pieces do not admit of the adversary exacting penalty as above, the player must move his King, but may not Castle. If the King cannot be moved without exposure to check, no penalty can then be exacted
So according to this, Black must play Bf8xPg7 as the penalty move.
Was there another revision to the rules between 1883 & 1891? (2023-04-02)
more ...
comment
Keywords: Illegal position, Joke, Retract illegal move (stuck at home), Touch Move, Volet Pawn, Obvious promotion (L)
Genre: Retro
FEN: 6B1/4p1P1/p2b2p1/p5kq/p7/4P1K1/2PPP1PP/3n4
Reprints: American Chess Monthly 1, p. 11, 03/1892
Jamaica Gleaner 30/04/1892
17 Europe Echecs 14 10/1959
Input: Gerd Wilts, 1995-06-03
Last update: A.Buchanan, 2023-04-02 more...
2 - P0002006
Benjamin Glover Laws
Leeds Mercury 12/12/1891
P0002006
(4+7)
#1
Beide Könige stehen im Schach. Schwarz hat zuletzt gezogen, nimmt seinen illegalen Zug zurück und muß stattdessen einen Strafzug mit dem König machen, worauf W mattsetzt.

R: 1. ... d2xSe1=S, dann 1. Kxc3 Dh8#
play all play one stop play next play all
Lösung gemäß 'Retrograde Analysis':
"... both Kings are in check, and we are obviously confronted with something decidedly illegal.
...
In No. 7A Black has just played Pd2xS=S. Replace the move and exact the King move penalty. Then Qh8 mate."
Henrik Juel: Accprding to Retrograde Analysis, 1915, the intended solution does not involve adding pieces as such, rather:
Black retracts the illegal move Pd2xSe1=S+ (exposing Kb2 to a selfcheck from Dh2)
and instead pays the penalty of a king move, Kxc3 (only possibility)
Then White mates by 1.Dh8# (2023-04-13)
Mario Richter: @Andrew: Why did you remove the "illegal position" keyword?
Instead of removing this keyword, I suggest to remove the "Add pieces" KW ... (2023-04-14)
A.Buchanan: Hi Mario, yes good question. I removed "Illegal position" from some genuine "Add pieces" compositions, because it suggests some error in the composition. But on reflection, I think I will put the "Illegal position" back for these, and instead edit the description for the keyword.

Now this problem was in fact incorrectly marked as Add pieces. It's one of Dawson & Hundsdorfer's canonical examples of an "implausible" joke. I.e there is no reason why the intended retraction is the right one, except that it works. These too should be marked as illegal position. Sorry for all confusion (2023-04-14)
comment
Keywords: Joke, Retract illegal move, Illegal position
Genre: Retro
FEN: 6B1/8/8/8/1n3p2/b1N2K2/1k5Q/r1q1n3
Reprints: 7A Retrograde Analysis 1915
Input: Gerd Wilts, 1995-06-03
Last update: A.Buchanan, 2023-04-14 more...
3 - P0004870
Hans Apholte
Mannheimer Morgen 1961
P0004870
(5+3)
#0
R: 1. 0-0?
play all play one stop play next play all
See P1388763
James Malcom: Black has no last move, so they must have castled illegally out of checkmate. (2021-04-18)
A.Buchanan: “dann” is used in retractor animation when shifting from retro to forward moves (2021-04-19)
comment
Keywords: Joke, Retract illegal move, Castling
Genre: Retro
FEN: 3R1rk1/5N1n/4KB1P/8/8/8/8/8
Reprints: (XV) Die Schwalbe 8 04/1971
Input: Gerd Wilts, 1995-06-03
Last update: A.Buchanan, 2021-04-19 more...
4 - P1260207
Charles Henry Wheeler
892 Dubuque Chess Journal 05/1874
P1260207
(4+7)
s# in wieviel Zügen?
1) R: 1. ... 0-0-0, dann 1. Txg6#
2) R: 1. ... 0-0-0, dann 1. Df7#
play all play one stop play next play all
Weiß kann Selbstmatt ohne einen eigenen Zug erzwingen.
Schwarz rochierte im letzten Zug, obwohl er im Schachstand und ignorierte dabei auch das Schach auf d8. Beides ist illegal. Er muss diesen Zug zurücknehmen und statt dessen Df7# oder Txg6# spielen.
A.Buchanan: No retro analysis to show that last move was in fact castling. Position is not illegal. (2019-10-21)
James Malcom: Perhaps that's why it labeled as a joke then. Andrew. (2020-10-20)
A.Buchanan: Yes it’s a joke but there is an existing species of problem where the position Is illegal. This is kind of like Conan Doyle vs Agatha Christie: here we are only told the key clue after the fact. I am sadly interested in classifying the main families of jokes, identifying which ones are fairies as well etc. This one is not fairy I think. In constraint promotion into foreign units can be joke depending on stipulation, but is definitely fairy (2020-10-21)
comment
Keywords: Joke, Retract illegal move (castling)
Genre: s#, Retro
FEN: 2kr1b2/p3p3/4K1Br/B3R3/8/5q2/8/8
Input: Frank Müller, 2013-01-19
Last update: Alfred Pfeiffer, 2019-10-22 more...
5 - P1340386
Georges Emile Barbier
Recreationist 06/1873
P1340386
(6+8)
#2
1) R: 1. ... 0-0, dann 1. Kxd8 Lf6+ 2. Ke8 De4#,bxc8=D/T
1. ... bxc8=D/T+ 2. Kxc8 Da8#
2) R: 1. ... 0-0, dann 1. Tg8,Tf8 De4+ 2. Kxd8 De7#
play all play one stop play next play all
Heft 7 (08/1873) S.91: The position being one occuring in actual play with White to move, the question is 'What was Black's last move?'. Clearly not a pawn or bishop. Neither could it have been the Kt, for it must have moved from B4 or Kt5, and from either square it would have checked the White K, which must consequently have moved, and therefore could not occupy K 3, as given on the diagram. Nor could the Rook have moved from K square for a similiar reason, the check requiring one of the white pieces to cover it, or the King to move. Then the Black King must have moved - but from where? Not from B or R squares, which are guarded by two pieces. It must have moved therefore from K square, which necessitates the placing of the Rook on its square. Black therefore Castled on his last move, which by the Chess law was an illegal move, and he must pay the penalty by replacing the King and Rook on their original squares, and move one of the pieces touched.
Originalforderung: How is it possible for White to effect mate in two moves by strict chess?

'Recreationist': "A CHESS PUZZLE. We give below an interesting position which is to be looked upon as an end game occuring in actual play. It is calculated to test the ingenuity of those of our subscribers who delight in unravelling mysteries."

Erinnert von der Machart her an P1323153 und ähnlich gelagerte Probleme.

Interessanter Leserbrief von F. Dunne Okt. 1873 S.121: "It appears to me (albeit I amone of the solvers), that Mr. Barber's 'logical' solution of his Chess Puzzle is 'il'-logical, and I believe the following will clearly prove it so. Mr. Barbier says, 'What was Black's last move? Clearly not a pawn or bishop'; and he proceeds to prove that Black 'must' have made a false move with his King, 'because' he could not legally have moved it or any other piece into the position it or they now occupy.
Now surely that is not 'logically' proving that he 'must' have moved his King! For by the same 'logic' I can prove that he must have made a false move with, say, the Knight or any other piece.
'What was Black's last move? Clearly not the King, for all the squares from he could have reached the one he now occupies, are already occupied, either by his own, or by his opponet's pieces, or under the range of the latter's pieces; and he could not have Castled, as the square over which he would have to pass is commanded by one of the adverse pieces.
It is quite evident the pawns have not been moved, and, therefore also, not the bishop. The Rook cannot have been move last, or the White King would not occupy the square he now does. The he 'must' have moved the Kt, and as he could not legally have moved this piece to the square it now occupies, he must have made a false move with it.
Now, one conclusion is as logically arrived at as the other, and by parity of reasoning any other of Black's pieces can be proved to be te one last moved, as Castling across check is no more strict Chess, than wrongly moving a piece."

Gedanken dieser Art haben vermutlich Roberto Osorio & Co. zur Einführung des Begriffs MDR (Minimum Deviation from the Rules) inspiriert (s. Hinweis P0005584)

Antwort vom Autor im 'Recreationist 12/1873 S.154: "In reply to Mr. Dunne's letter in No.9 I beg to say that the solution of the Puzzle cannot be taken apart from the conditions attached to it. Any solution means the solution of something or other, and must be taken inconnection with that something.
The question is to find a way in which White mates in two moves. I agree that if, saying nothing about a mate in two moves as a condition, I endeavoured merely to prove Black's last move, Mr. Dunne's argument would be perfectly sound. But the fact of Black's castling is not an absolute fact; it is only relative. He castled because thereby I can mate him in two moves which Mr. Dunne's move does not do, and which is the very thing that is required to be done.
Henrik Juel: So even if one accepts the dubious retro reasoning intended, the problem is cooked by 0... Kxd8 1.bxc8=DT,Lf6+ (2017-09-30)
A.Buchanan: Dubious or not, retract-and-replay *is* one of the canonical chess problem jokes that our great-great-grandparents must have split their sides laughing over. I am pretty sure there is a typo in the diagram. sLc8 should be b8. This restores soundness and adds a retro try. wBb7 is still necessary to cover c8. (2017-09-30)
A.Buchanan: Have pushed sLc8 to b8, to remove the obvious typo. (2018-10-06)
A.Buchanan: I would classify these problems as jokes, not because the positions are illegal, but because imprecise reasoning is required to determine the illegal move. This is a particularly nice example though. Any thoughts? (2018-10-06)
SP: Your "obvious typo" is imaginary; the intended solution after Kd8: is
explicitly stated to be 1.bc8:=Q+ Kc8: 2.Qa8# (p. 91, viii/1873), quite
impossible with a bBb8. Please correct the position. (2023-02-18)
A.Buchanan: Hi SP. thanks for your research. Have you got a link to this material - that would be very helpful for checking similar situations. Otherwise our discussions here are often speculative. Bad news for the composer though: what I had thought was a typo turns out to be a cook. It would be good to know the version of the touch move rules applying in 1873, as the rook penalty move is clearly thematic. (2023-04-03)
A.Buchanan: The stuff about bS having just made an illegal move is basically Dawson & Hundsdorfer's distinction between plausibility & implausibility. This is an implausible composition, and having said that, one need agonize no longer, and just enjoy it for the best it can be at this silly idea (2023-04-03)
comment
Keywords: Illegal position, Joke, Retract illegal move (castling), Touch Move, Castling
Genre: Retro, 2#
FEN: 2bN1rk1/1Ppp1pBp/6Nn/8/8/4K3/8/7Q
Reprints: 617 Dubuque Chess Journal 08/1873
Input: Mario Richter, 2017-09-30
Last update: A.Buchanan, 2023-04-03 more...
6 - P1387600
Fred Lazard
Bulletin de la Federation Francaise des Echecs 3, p. 24-25, 04-06/1922
P1387600
(13+13)
#1
Eingebettet in eine Geschichte "Une Partie Sensationelle"
Henrik Juel: Black just castled to avoid Lc6#, but as wLb4 controls f8, the castling is illegal
White points this out, and instead Black must make a legal move with his king: 0... Kd7 1.Lc6# (2021-03-19)
comment
Keywords: Retract illegal move
Genre: Retro
FEN: 1Q1N1rk1/2p2ppR/7n/b4R1p/PBP3P1/4KBp1/Prq3Pn/1b1N4
Input: Mario Richter, 2021-03-19
Last update: Mario Richter, 2021-03-19 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+NOT+K%3D%27Inder%27+AND+K%3D%27R%C3%BCcknahme+illegaler+Zug%27

The problems of this query have been registered by the following contributors:

Gerd Wilts (3)
Frank Müller (1)
Mario Richter (2)