Erich Bartel: vom Dual 2.-- Kf2/Kh2 abgesehen C+ PY V4.41.--- (2008-11-07)
A.Buchanan: This is cooked in Popeye because White can't castle as long as bK controls f1! This is quite reasonable behaviour in monochrome: compare to en passant! So no solution (2022-02-18)
comment

Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.11 63 Sekunden.
Keine Lösung: BP 29.5, BP 30.0. (2023-04-15, hidden) more ...
comment

Silvio Baier: Der wesentliche thematische Inhalt ist bereits nach 31,5 Zügen erreicht. Bis dahin ist es C+ (Euclide 0.98). (2010-08-04)
James Malcom: Is this fully C+ then? (2021-01-27)
Henrik Juel: No, only the first 31.5 moves are tested OK (2021-01-27)
James Malcom: No Henrik, as in is the entire problem testable. (2021-01-27)
Henrik Juel: I guess that testing the entire problem would take an unreasonably long time (2021-04-06)
A.Buchanan: It might be possible these days: the motivation for stopping at 31.5 is that the promotion theme had been demonstrated by then. But there’s still e.g. bSb8 as random impostor (2021-04-07)
Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.11 50:24:34 Stunden.(hh:mm:ss)
Keine Lösung: BP 34.5, BP 35.0. (2023-05-08)
Henrik Juel: Thanks for your patience, Moldenhauer; more than two days... (2023-05-08)
comment

Moldenhauer: Ergänzung: Stelvio 1.2. Keine Lösung BP 15.5, BP 16.0. (2023-05-20, hidden) more ...
comment

Silvio Baier: C+ (Euclide 0.93) (2009-05-12, hidden)
Moldenhauer: Ergänzung Stelvio 1.2. Keine Lösung BP 25.5, BP 26.0. (2023-05-20, hidden) more ...
comment

paul: Correction of P0001580 (2010-09-25)
Silvio Baier: Mit 30....dc+ ist das C+ (Euclide 0.98, Retractor für den letzten Zug) (2011-07-08)
James Malcom: So this is fully C+? (2021-01-27)
Henrik Juel: No, another problem in 30.0 moves ending with 30. Tc2 dxc4+ is tested OK (2021-01-27)
Silvio Baier: Mit 30....dc+ ist das C+ (Euclide 0.98) (2011-07-08, hidden)
Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.11 65:30:51 Stunden. (hh:mm:ss)
Keine Lösung: BP 30.0, BP 30.5. (2023-05-08, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: If Black may castle, his latest move must have been e3xf2, so last move was e2-e4. (Orig. wPg2 promoted on g8, so g7xh6 happened early). 1.dxe3 e.p. 2.fxg1=B 3.0-0 Tg4# (2003-03-21)
James Malcom: Is this the only know one-sided Valladao in a regular series-mover helpmate? Also, can wPh2 be shifted to h4, and the White king moved as well to h2, so that the solution must have 2. fxg1=S? (2020-12-08)
James Malcom: Well, the only known one that is in minimum form, i.e. 3 moves, I mean. (2020-12-08)
A.Buchanan: This is nice. I don't know of any other AP ser-h#3 with Valladao, but there could be. Just been cleansing PDB data today. Yes I think wKh3 and wBh2 can be transposed, and then promote to S instead of L. (2020-12-08)
A.Buchanan: The legality of intermediate positions in seriesmovers is of course irrelevant. However, each proof game that leads to the diagram position with BTM can be appended with a black move and then a "flip" that changes the player to move. We can repeat this process, and then the fact that Black retains castling rights implies that they had castling rights in the diagram position. I think this is the right formal way to handle AP with seriesmovers. (2022-03-21)
comment

Korrektur s. P1402012
Henrik Juel: -1... h4xPg4ep -2.g2 e2xTd1=L -3.Sc6 0-0, 0... Tf7 1.Td8#. (2004-09-09)
Mario Richter: Lots of Cooks, e.g.
R: 1. ... h4xg3ep+ 2. g2-g4 d2-d1=L+ 3. e3-e4 Kf7xSg8, dann 1. c1=T Dg6# (2022-06-17)
James Malcom: Seems the diagram is wrong then. Perhaps something like +sBd2 will fix it? (2022-06-17)
James Malcom: Wait, nevermind on the fix idea. (2022-06-17)
Mario Richter: Hi James, there is already a correction by the author himself, s. P1402012. (2022-06-18)
James Malcom: Thank you, Mario. It only took 25 years to find its way into PDB! The online Quartz archive dates back only to 2007. (2022-06-18)
Mario Richter: James, you may want to take a look at http://www.stere.ro/, where I think a complete run of all 'quartz' issues, starting with the very first number 1 of 1996 can be found ... (2022-06-18)
A.Buchanan: Please use “superseded by” keyword, where corrections or objectively clear improvements are published in PDB. Apart from helping avoid important info being available in comments section, it is also extremely handy for filtering in search. (2022-07-10, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: Completing the key isn't legal, 1.'Rd1'/'-bPc5'/'e8S'+, but omitting the promotion in the mating move is, 1.Sxe7+ Bxe7 2.'f8'#. Excellent joke. (2003-09-19)
James Malcom: A very witty joke Valladao! (2020-09-24)
A.Buchanan: Really like this joke (2020-09-25)
Henrik Juel: To see the illegality of completing 1.fxe8=S+?, note the captures:
Black captured fxDe, so [Pg7,h7] were captured on their files, while the other six missing black men were captured by white pawns
The illegality of completing 1.0-0-0,bxc6ep? is rather obvious (2020-09-26)
James Malcom: And for those you don't find it obvious: If the White king hasn't moved, then where did wRa5, and wBb8 if bPb5 has just done a double-step, come from? Neither can be promoted pieces, as White still has all eight pawns. Trying to finish castling and en passant therefore both produce illegal positions and thus cannot be the solution. (2020-09-26)
Henrik Juel: Continuing beating the dead horse...
How does the white player actually perform an entire move?
1.0-0-0+: Ke1-c1 and Ta1-d1
1.bxc6ep+: Pb5-c6 and remove sPc5
1.fxe8=S+: remove sYe8 and Pf7-e8 and replace wPe8 with wSe8 (three fractional actions)
2.f8=Y#: Pf7-f8 and replace wPf8 with wYf8
So a marginally better stipulation might be: 'White to move mates in less than 2 moves' (2020-09-26)
A.Buchanan: Hurray I've got the animation working! I agree with Henrik's stipulation. There is a dummy pawn on f8, but not by the Dummy Pawn rule. Instead it's the joke that does it. If Dummy Rule applied, the move would be full length! :) (2022-02-09)
A.Buchanan: All three tries are full #1.5 not as the solution currently has it #0.5. Really fine joke! (2020-09-25, hidden)
Henrik Juel: The legal mate could be written better:
1. Sxe7+! Lxe7 2. f8=B# (Omitting the promotion) (2020-09-26, hidden)
A.Buchanan: I've tried to set up some intermediate diagrams to allow us to show the animation, but the pieces seem to move even for words which are not moves (and marked italic/red). It's quite baffling. It's almost as if someone with privilege has gone in the background and assigned moves to those dead words. If so, that's extremely unhelpful. Gerd was quite active on this site for a month in German lockdown, for which I'm grateful, but one key task is still waiting: to empower the editors by documenting exactly how the animation decides what to do based on the diagram(s) and stipulation. (2020-09-27, hidden)
A.Buchanan: The PDB stipulation field should be non-text form to drive the animation. Where the stipulation is non-standard, there should be a Unicode representation of the original, and translations into German, English and French. But cannot overwrite any original non-standard stipulation, in my opinion, as it is part of the composer's work. (2020-09-27, hidden)
A.Buchanan: I no longer think this is Dummy Pawn: instead it's a truncated regular promotion move. (2022-01-26, hidden)
A.Buchanan: Hurray I've got the animation "working"! I know this *looks* like a dummy pawn promotion, but if the famous Dummy Pawn rule applied here, then W2 would constitute a full move, not a fractional one! :) This is a truncated orthodox promotion instead! (2022-02-09, hidden)
A.Buchanan: Hurray I've got the animation "working"! I agree with Henrik that this is #2. We end up with a dummy pawn on f8, but not by the Dummy Pawn rule. Instead it's the joke that does it. If Dummy Rule applied, the move would not be considered to be truncated! (2022-02-09, hidden) more ...
comment

paul: La question est si les Blancs sont a jouer et le reponse est affirmative. Les seuls retro-jeux plausibles sont:
1.Rc1-b2 0-0;
1.Rc2-b2 e6xf6 e.p. 2.f7-f5 Tg6-a6+;
1.a2-a1F.
Donc le task Valladao. Le coup matant est 1.Tb1#
Est interessant a voir pourquoi ne va pas le retro-jeu h5-h4?.
L?analyse demontre que le seul Pion blanc transforme en en h8 a ete Pc2 et la sequence des coups a ete c2xd3xe4xf5xg6xh7-h8F. Le P blanc h6 vient de h2 sans captures, donc le P noir h4 a effectue deux prises, don?t une d?un F blanc de camps noirs. Donc h5-h4 est illegal. (Quartz 4/1997) (2010-03-22)
Henrik Juel: For the benefit of readers, whose French is a bit rusty:
Paul points out that the retroplay given on top is incorrect. Ph4 is [Pf7] who captured the dark-squared [Lc1] on its way to h4; so its latest move was g5xh4, not h5-h4. (2010-03-26)
Paulo Roque: Henrik:
Not R: 1.h5-h4. See also that [Pa7] was promoted in the square a1, at some point. But I think also possible Ph4 is [Ph7], by: h7xg6-g5xh4 or h7-h6xg5xh4 (2010-03-27)
Henrik Juel: You are right, Paulo; my mistake, not Paul's. I should have written: Ph4 is [Pf7] or [Ph7], who captured the dark-squared [Lc1] on its way to h4; so its latest move was g5xh4, not h5-h4. (2010-03-27)
James Malcom: Question: What prevents the Black king from going to c1 after castling is retracted? (2022-06-17)
comment

Henrik Juel: The ep capture is well hidden, and it is not obvious that Sc8 is promoted as Sg1-c8 also takes five moves
Interesting that Euclide 1.01 is 10 times faster than Natch 2.3 here (2021-07-04)
James Malcom: The diagram is utterly nowhere near the given position. (2021-07-04, hidden)
James Malcom: The diagram is utterly nowhere near the given solution. (2021-07-04, hidden)
Henrik Juel: Quartz no.5 is not available for me
Assuming that the diagram is correct, last moves were something like
21... g5-g4+ 22.f2-f4 gxf3ep+
so it suffices to test the position with Pf3 on g5 and a wP added on f2 (2021-07-04, hidden)
Henrik Juel: This position, with Black to move, is C++ Euclide 1.01 with solution
1. Bh2-h4 Ba7-a5 2. Th1-h3 Ba5-a4 3. Th3-b3 Ba4xb3
4. Sb1-c3 Bb3xa2 5. Bb2-b3 Bd7-d5 6. Lc1-a3 Lc8-f5
7. Dd1-b1 Be7-e6 8. Ke1-d1 Dd8-g5 9. Bh4xg5 Bc7-c5
10. Bg5-g6 Sb8-c6 11. Bg6xh7 Bg7-g5 12. Kd1-c1 Lf5-g6
13. Kc1-b2 Bf7-f5 14. Db1-d1 Sg8-f6 15. Sc3-b1 Th8-g8
16. Bh7-h8=T 0-0-0 17. Th8-h1 Lf8-h6 18. Kb2-c3 Tg8-g7
19. Kc3-d3 Bc5-c4 20. Kd3-e3 Bc4-c3 21. La3-c1
so I expect that the stipulation should be BP in 22.0
(C++ means C+ plus that no shorter solution can be found) (2021-07-04, hidden)
Henrik Juel: The given solution in 11.5 moves clearly belongs to a different diagram, as do the Keywords and the solution comment
The Valladao in this fine proof game consists of 16.h8=T, 16... 0-0-0, and 22... gxf3ep+ (2021-07-04, hidden)
Henrik Juel: The BP in 11.5, which has been confused with Gianni's problem in 22.0, is also C++ Euclide 1.01
Its diagram is tsS2l1t/2b3bb/d2k1s2/b7/8/7L/1BB1BB1B/TS3TK1 (11+11)
and its solution is 1. d4 e5 2. Lg5 Dxg5 3. a4 Dxg2 4. a5 Dxg1 5. a6 Dg6 6. axb7 a5 7. dxe5 Da6 8. Dxd7 Kxd7 9. Lh3+ f5 10. exf6ep+ Kd6 11. 0-0 Sxf6 12. bxc8=S+ (2021-07-04, hidden)
Henrik Juel: Final comments, for now...
We have two correct proof game problems, but it is not clear which one was composed by Gianni, perhaps both were
The BP11.5 tests in less than a minute, but it is hard to compare Euclide 1.01 and Natch 2.3, so it is not clear which problem was tested by Natch in 11 minutes; my guess is the BP11.5 (2021-07-04, hidden)
A.Buchanan: Hi yes the diagram for this composition got over-written very recently by another. I have restored the correct diagram, which matches solution, keywords etc, and is validated against WinChloe. Now to find out where the other diagram belongs...
I will hide all the comments here (including this one after you've both had a change to read it), so that you can respond just to Gianni's Quartz 11.5. (2021-07-04, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: This fine proof game by Gianni is faster to solve by hand than by computer
Last move was not 19.Lb5xPd7+, because Sa1 did an uneven number of moves; 18.Lb5xPd7+ fails, because White needs 19 moves, since Td1-d5 must happen early. So [Pd7] has promoted, and Black must play 1... d6 and 2... Dd7 or Ld7; only the latter works
Partially tested by Natch 3.1 in 18.0 moves with wLb5 and sDTLSPd7; only L works (2018-12-14)
Henrik Juel: Typos: solution should end 18.Td3 L6d7 19.Lxd7+ (2018-12-14, hidden)
Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Euclide 1.11 nach 237 Std. 28 Min.
Keine Lösung bei BP 17,5 , geprüft in 1 Min. (2023-01-22, hidden)
Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ auch Stevio 1.11 00:27:56 Minuten. (hh:mm:ss)
Keine Lösung: BP 18.0. 4994/419k Histogramm. (2023-03-16, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: Partial testing with Natch 3.1
18.0 moves with sDTLSPe7 and wTd5; only sSe7 works (2018-12-14)
Mario Richter: @Henrik: Did you mean "... and wTe4"? (2018-12-15)
Henrik Juel: Yes, I did, Mario (2018-12-16)
paul: Checked by Stelvio 1.2 in about 5 hours. (2023-05-29, hidden)
Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.2 04:02:35 Stunden. (hh:mm:ss)
Keine Lösung BP 17.5, BP 18.0. (2023-05-30, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: Natch 3.1 did nothing for an hour (2018-12-13)
Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.0 © Reto Aschwanden
33 Minuten, 1 Lösung, Notation OK.
Stelvio Histogramme/Strategien 40, vor der Lösung wegen der Lösezeit
mit Stelvio berechnet. (2023-02-08)
comment

Henrik Juel: White has the move. -1... Sf8 -2.g5 Se6 -3.g4 Sc5 -4.Sd8 Sg7 -5.Se6 Ta2 ... -9.S=h7 Ta2 ... -13.h2! h3xSg2 -14.Sf4 Ta2 ... -17.Sb3 Ta1 -18.La2 Tg1 ... -22.La2 Te7 -23.Td3 Td7 -24.Tg3 d3 -25.Tg1 d4 -26.Ta1 d5 -27.Lb1 h4 -28.Sc1 h5 -29.Sd3 Lf8 -30.Sb4 e7xLf6 -31.Lg5 d6 -32.Lc1 Kd4 -33.d2xSc3 etc. Enjoyable. (2004-01-05)
Henrik Juel: In the official solution 16.Sd8-e6 is illegal, because wKc6 is checked (this seems fixable)
My 2004 solution also works, so the problem is almost cooked (2023-07-23)
comment

Vladimir Rey: 24. bxc3 Lf5+ (2022-06-23, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: Natch 3.1 found the solution quickly, but did not finish in more than an hour (2018-12-16)
Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.0 nach nur 1 Sekunde. (2023-02-09)
Henrik Juel: and no solution in 17.5 moves, so C++ Stelvio 1.0 (2023-02-09)
Henrik Juel: Fine motivation for the round trip: making room for white Sd7-b8-a6 (2023-02-09)
comment

Gerald Ettl: Wie lautet der Cook? (2023-09-28)
comment

paul: Démoli : 1.e4 d5 2.e5 d4 3.d3 Dd5 4.Dh5 D×e5+ 5.Rb4 D×h2 6.D×h7 Rd7 7.D×h8 Re6 8.Dh3+ Re1 9.Rb5 Cd7 10.D×d7 R×f1 11.Dd8 Dh5+ 12.Re8 Dd1 13.f3 Re1. (2020-12-12)
comment

Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.5 in 00:25:47 Minuten. (hh:mm:ss)
Keine Lösung: BP 28.0. Stelvioprüfung mit 8 Seekern/2 Playern.
Notation: 1.a4 h5 2.a5 h4 3.a6 h3 4.Ta5 hxg2 5.h4 Th6 6.h5 Tb6 7.h6 g5
8.h7 g4 9.Tg5 f5 10.h8=D f4 11.De5 f3 12.Db5 fxe2 13.f4 g3 14.Sf3 g1=L
15.Lh3 Lc5 16.d4 g2 17.Kd2 e1=T 18.dxc5 Te3 19.c6 Ta3 20.bxa3 d5
21.Kc3 d4+ 22.Kb2 d3 23.Sd4 d2 24.Df3 dxc1=S 25.Td1 Sb3 26.cxb3 g1=D
27.Sc2 Dgd4+ 28.Ka2 Da4 29.bxa4 (2023-08-31)
Olaf Jenkner: Wieso cooked? (2023-08-31)
comment

Henrik Juel: Natch 3.1 did nothing in half an hour
Hard to see that Ta8 is promoted (2018-12-20)
paul: Stelvio found the solution. Then I skipped the strategies with d1=Q and d1=B. HC+ (2023-02-05)
ras@bsiag.com: In fact C+ with Stelvio 1.0 in 25min (2023-02-06)
comment

Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.0 01:13:11 Stunde.
Keine Lösung: BP 19.0, BP 19.5. (2023-03-01)
comment

Henrik Juel: Natch 3.1 produced little in an hour (2018-12-16)
Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.11 00:34:52 Minuten. (hh:mm:ss)
Keine Lösung: BP 20.0, BP 20.5. Histogramm 44/0k. (2023-03-16)
comment

paul: 11.Thg8 (2022-09-16)
comment

Henrik Juel: Natch 3.1 did little in half an hour
Stopped at pos. 1 (2018-12-22)
Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.11 00:05:37 Minuten. (hh:mm:ss)
Keine Lösung: BP 23.0, BP 23.5. (2023-04-02)
comment

paul: 1.a4 e5 2.Ra3 e4 3.Rd3 exd3 4.a5 dxc2 5.a6 cxd1=B 6.axb7 Bxe2 7.bxc8=S Bf3 8.Sd6+ Kf6 9.Ba6 Qe8+ 10.Kxe8! Kg6+ 11.Kxf8 Sf6+ 12.Kxh8 Sc6+ 13.Kxa8 Sd8+ 14.Kxf3 Se4 15.d3 Sd2+ 16.Ke1. An wK journey. (2010-07-11)
paul: cooked : 1.c4 e5 2.a3 B×a3 3.R×a3 e4 4.Rd3 e×d3 5.c5 d×e2 6.c6 e×d1=B 7.c×b7 Ke7 8.b×c8=S+ Kg6 9.Sd6 Qe8+ 10.K×e8 Bf3 11.Ba6 Sf6+ 12.K×h8 Sc6+ etc. (2021-09-14)
comment

MTri: Keyword: Kraftopfer (2022-03-24)
comment

Henrik Juel: Natch 3.1 did little in half an hour
Stopped at pos. 1 (2018-12-28)
Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: Keine Lösung: BP 23.5, BP 24.0 (2023-04-19)
comment

hans: . (2014-09-09)
Henrik Juel: A record in comment brevity... (2014-09-09)
Michel Caillaud: cooked using Jacobi 0.7.5 with constraints :
1.Sf3 Sc6 2.Sh4 Sd4 3.f3 Sxe2 4.Kxe2 b6 5.Kd3 Tb8 6.Kc4 Tb7 7.Kb5 g5 8.Ka6 b5 9.Ld3 Tb6+ 10.Kxa7 Tc6 11.Te1 Tc3 12.Te6 g4 13.Ta6 e5 14.bxc3 e4 15.La3 e3 16.Lc5 e2 17.Sa3 e1=S 18.Lf1 b4 19.De2+ De7 20.Db5 Sd3 21.Te1 g3 22.Tee6 Se5 23.Tec6 d5 24.Lg1 d4 25.cxd4 Sd7 26.Sc4 Sb8 27.Se5 Dd8 (2021-07-29)
A.Buchanan: Mario: sorry to read this. Is it fixable do you think? (2021-07-29)
Henrik Juel: Solution:
1.Sf3 e5 2.Sh4 Lb4 3.f3 Lc3 4.bxc3 d5 5.La3 d4 6.Lc5 d3 7.Sa3 dxe2 8.Kxe2 Ld7 9.Kd3 b5 10.De2 b4 11.Kc4 Sc6 12.Kb5 e4 13.Ka6 e3 14.Db5 e2 15.Sc4 e1L 16.Le2 Lg3 17.The1 Ld6 18.Lg1 Lf8 19.Lf1+ De7 20.Te6 Td8 21.Tae1 Sb8+ 22.Kxa7 g5 23.Ta6 g4 24.Tee6 g3 25.Tec6 Lc8 26.Se5 Td4 27.cxd4 Dd8
Shielding against check with switchback, quadrupled: Lc8-d7-c8, Sb8-c6-b8, Lf1-e2-f1, Dd8-e7-d8. Lf8 is promoted (Pronkin) (2014-09-09, hidden)
Henrik Juel: Natch 3.1 did little in half an hour
Stopped at pos. 143 (2018-12-26, hidden)
Henrik Juel: the C+ label should be removed (2021-07-29, hidden)
James Malcom: Fixed. (2021-07-29, hidden) more ...
comment

paul: Verified by Jacobi in about 5 days. (2021-02-24, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: C+ by Natch 3.1 (2 m)
No solution in 17.0 (2018-12-29)
paul: For the record number of cross-checks, see P1348273. (2020-12-08)
A.Buchanan: Actually I think the record is now here P1360125... for now :-) (2020-12-09)
comment

paul: Le problème série noire dualistique a été tranché depuis 1989 dans feenschach:
Manfred Seidel & Hans-Peter Reich, feenschach 1989
11 Serienzüge, dann 2 Lösungen (en allemand):
1) 1. a5 2. d5 6. Ra4 7. Fg4 8. Fxe2 9. Fh5 10. Dd7 11. Dg4, puis 1. c3+ Dxd1#
2) 1. d5 2. e5 3. Fh3 4. Dg5 5. Dxg2 9. Rc4 10. Fb4 11. c5, puis 1. e3+ Dxf1#
La version non-dualistique a été résolue par Nicolas Dupont:
1.a5 3.Td6 4.b6 6.Fxe2 7.Ca6 8.Da8 14.Ra4 15.Fg4 16.Df3, puis 1.c3+ Dxd1# (2021-08-25)
comment

paul: Cook: 1.c3 2.cxd4 3.dxe5 6.e8=Q 7.d8=R 8.Ka6 9.b6+ Rxb6+ 10.Ka7 11.Ka8 12.Sd7 13.Sb8 14.Sa6+ Rxa6# (Jacobi) (2022-03-21)
comment

paul: Cook: 1.Rd5 2.Sc5 3.a4 4.a5 5.a6 6.a8=S 7.a7 8.d8=B 9.Sc7 10.a8=R 11.Sb5 12.Ra3 13.Re3 14.Sd4 15.Sbd3 16.b4 17.b5 18.b6 19.b7 20.b8=S 21.Sbd7 22.S7e5 23.f6 24.f7 25.f8=Q 26.Qh8 cxd5# (2022-06-08)
comment

paul: No less than 69 solutions delivered by Jacobi, with this input:
forsyth 4s3/8/4p3/2pp4/2ppp3/1b1sk3/p1P1pb2/8
option FirstToMove black
option InitialMoveNumber 1.5
stip ser-~3
stip ser-#7
cond Circe (2020-12-10)
comment

paul: Cook: 1.h4 2.h3 3.h2 4.h1=S 5.Sf2 6.Sd3 7.Sxb4 8.Kc5 9.Rxc6 10.Kb6 11.Kb7 12.Ka8 13.a6 14.Rd7 15.Ra7 16.Sd3 17.Sc5 18.Sb7 Bxc6= (2022-06-08)
comment

paul: Author's solution: 1.Rd6 2.Kc7 3.Kd8 4.Re6 5.Ke7 6.Kf8 7.Rf6 8.Kg7 9.Kh6 10.Rf5 11.Kg5 12.Kh4 13.Rf4 14.Kg3 15.Kf2 16.Re4 17.Ke3 18.Kd2 19.Rd4 20.Kc3 21.Kxb4 22.Rd5 23.Kc5 24.Kb6 25.Rd4 26.Rh4 27.Rh1 28.h4 29.h3 30.h2 Rxh1=
Cooked by E. Huber: 1.axb4 2.b3 3.b2 4.Ka5 5.Kxa4 6.Rb5 7.Raa5 8.a6 9.h4 10.h3 11.h2 12.h1=Q 13.Qxf3 14.Qxc6 15.Qc3 Qxc3= (2022-06-08)
comment

Alfred Pfeiffer: Was bedeutet der Zusatz "non stop"? (2016-05-10)
paul: Cooked in 15 moves: (virtual mate Sc3#) 1.g8=S 2.Sf6 3.e8=S 4.Sd6 5.Sfe8 6.f8=Q 7.Qh6 8.Sf6 9.Sde8 10.h8=Q (no more helpful moves) 11.Q8h7! 12.Sg7 13.Q×d3 14.Qde3 15.Qhh3‡
This genre is explained in Quartz 6/1998) (2021-05-26)
Erich Bartel: Nachdrucke:
1) Phenix (39) III 1996,S.3111
2) feenschach (128) VI-VII 1998,S.317
3) V Quartz (7) V 1998,S.114 (2016-05-06, hidden) more ...
comment

'Quartz' (P. Raican): "The proof game is a correction of one published in Problemaz, December 2008, which was the last issue of this interesting chess magazine, edited by Abdelaziz Onkoud. The authors recently demolished the original problem with Jacobi. Lecturers are invited to solve this PG, even with the help of Labelle's program. After 10 years, the cook-hunters are now able to verify, even partially, the problems collected in this article, using the remarkable program Jacobi."
(mri: A small remark: 10 years ago it was already possible to "verify, even partially" at least some of the "Provocateur" PGs using 'rawbats').
Kostas Prentos: Solution:
1. h4 a5 2. h5 a4 3. h6 a3 4. hxg7 axb2 5. Th6 Ta3 6. Te6 Td3 7. a4 h5 8. a5 h4 9. Ta4 h3 10. Sa3 b1=D 11. Lb2 h2 12. Le5 hxg1=D 13. Lh2 Thh3 14. gxh3 f6 15. Lxg1 Kf7 16. Lg2 Kg6 17. Lc6 bxc6 18. cxd3 Lb7 19. Dxb1
C+ Jacobi v0.4.8 (711046 sec) (2022-12-08)
comment

paul: Author's solution: 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Qh4 3.e6 Qxh2 4.exf7 Qxg1 5.fxg8=K Qxf1 6.Kxh8 Qxe1 7.Kxh7 Qxd1 8.Rxd1 g5 9.Kg6 g4 10.Kf5 g3 11.Ke4 Bc5 12.Kd3 Bf2 13.e4 c5 14.Ke2 Be1 15.Kxe1.
Phoenix-Pronkin K
But White could play: 11.e4 Bc5 12.Kf4 Be3 13.Kxe3 c6 14.Ke2 c5 15.Ke1. (2021-09-13)
comment

paul: [wQ must be on e3] 1.d4 Cf6 2.Fh6 g5 3.é4 Tg8 4.Fg7 a5 5.Dd3 h5 6.h4 Ch7 7.Fé5 Fh6 8.Fg7 Cf8 9.Fé5 Tg6 10.Ff4 Fg7 11.Fç1 Fh8 12.f4 Tg8 13.Dé3 Cç6 14.Fa6 b5 15.g4 Tb8 16.Fb7 Ca7 17.Fd5 Fa6 18.Fb7 Cç8 19.Fd5 Tb6 20.Fç4 Fb7 21.Ff1 Fa8 22.ç4 Tb8. (the first 16 moves tested by Jacobi) (2021-08-25)
comment

paul: 1.b4 é5 2.b5 Cé7 3.b6 Ca6 4.b×ç7=T! b6 5.ç4 Fb7 6.ç5 Fd5 7.ç6 Tç8 8.ç×d7=D! R×d7 9.h4 R×ç7 10.h5 Rb7 11.h6 Tç4 12.h×g7=C! Té4 13.g4 F×g7 14.g5 Tf8 15.g6 Fh8 16.g×f7=F! T×f7. (the first 13 moves checked by Jacobi) (2021-08-25)
comment

Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 4 Sekunden.
Keine Lösung: BP 15.0, BP 15.5.
Notation: 1.Be4 Bb5 2.Lxb5 Sc6 3.Bd3 Bd5 4.Lg5 Lg4 5.Lxe7 Lf3 6.La3 Lb4+
7.Sd2 Sge7 8.Bc4 O-O 9.Da4 Te8 10.Dxa7 Kf8 11.De3 Ta4 12.Se2 Da8
13.O-O-O Sb8 14.Sb1 Le1 15.Tf1 Tb4 16.Sg1 Sg8. (2023-02-19)
comment

Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.6 ca. 20 Min.
Keine Lösung: BP 19.0.
Notation: 1.f4 Sc6 2.Kf2 Sd4 3.Kg3 Sxe2+ 4.Kh4 Sxc1 5.h3 Sd3 6.cxd3 c5 7.d4 c4
8.Ld3 c3 9.Se2 c2 10.Dg1 c1=S 11.Dh2 Sb3 12.Tc1 Sa5 13.Txc8 Sc6 14.Txa8 Sb8
15.Sbc3 Da5 16.Te1 Kd8 17.Sc1 Kc7 18.Te5 Sc6 19.Th5 Se5 20.dxe5 (2023-12-07, hidden) more ...
comment

paul: 1.h4 c5 2.h5 c4 3.h6 c3 4.hxg7 h5 5.a4 Rh6 6.a5 Rb6 7.axb6 a5 8.d4 a4 9.d5 a3 10.d6 a2 11.dxe7 d5 12.Sa3 d4 13.Rb1 a1=S 14.b4 Sb3 15.cxb3 c2 16.Kd2 d3 17.Kc3 h4 18.Bd2 c1=B 19.Be1 Bf4 20.e3 d2 21.Qe2 d1=Q 22.Sf3 Q1d5 23.Sd2 Qf3 24.gxf3 h3 25.Bg2 h2 26.Rf1 h1=R 27.exf4 Rh8. AUW monocolore contenant un Pronkin. (2021-08-25)
comment

Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.6 in 8 Min.
Keine Lösung: BP 17.5.
1.d4 d5 2.Dd3 Lg4 3.Dg6 hxg6 4.Lg5 Th3 5.Lf6 Td3 6.g3 exf6 7.Lg2 Lb4+ 8.Kf1 Le1
9.a4 Td1 10.Sa3 Tb1 11.e4 Ld1 12.h4 Lb4 13.h5 Lf8 14.h6 c5 15.h7 Da5
16.h8=D Dc3 17.Dh6 Lg4+ 18.Dc1 Lc8 (2023-12-15, hidden) more ...
comment

Eine Korrektur erschien in Quartz 47 (2019), S. 803/804.
paul: Sol: 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 d4 3.Bd5 d3 4.Sf3 dxe2 5.0-0 exf1=S(+Pe2) 6.Kg2 Sg3 7.Qg1 c5 8.Kf1
c4 9.Ke1 c3 10.Bc4 cxd2(+Rf1) 11.hxg3 Kd7 12.Sh2 dxe1=S 13.Bd2 Sf3 14.exf3(+Ke1)
a5 15.f4 a4 16.Ba5 Kc6 17.Sd2 Kb5 18.0-0-0
Both castlings are made by the same side! (2021-08-21)
A.Buchanan: What is Memory Circe? Not documented amongst the numerous Circes here I think. (2021-08-22)
James Malcom: http://www.strategems.net/sections/fairy_defs.html gives this: "Any capture triggers the rebirth of the piece previously captured, on the same square where its capture occurred (if it’s not occupied), regardless of the color or the type of the unit just captured. The reborn piece resumes its normal course. If the square, where the capture occurred is occupied, then the captured unit is annihilated. A unit can exist in memory before the actual play starts." (2021-08-22)
Henrik Juel: The Schwalbe Märchenschachlexikon says
Memory Circe = Gedächtniscirce: Als Teil eines Schlagfalls wird der zuvor geschlagene Stein auf seinem Schlagfeld wiedergeboren, falls dieses unbesetzt ist. Falls es besetzt ist, verschwindet der Stein endgültig. Es ist möglich, dass sich in der Anfangsstellung ein Stein im Gedächtnis befindet. Wie bei Circe erhält ein auf seinem Ursprungsfeld der PAS wiedergeborener Turm wieder das Rochaderecht (ebenso ein bei rex inclusiv auf seinem Ursprungsfeld der PAS wiedergeborener König). (2021-08-22)
Henrik Juel: Apart from castling with a reborn king, this problem illustrates that under the Memory Circe rex incl. condition kings may walk into check, 8.Kf1 and 17... Kb5, and that during castling the king may pass an empty square controlled by the other side, 5.0-0 (2021-08-22)
paul: Using an advanced version of Jacobi, Dominique Forlot found the intended solution of 1st Prize (TT8 Quartz, Dupont) but a tricky cook as well: 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 d4 3.Bd5 (till now, as in Dupont solution) c5 4.Sf3 c4 5.Rf1 c3 6.Bc4 cxd2 7.Qxd2 d3 8.Qf4 dxe2 [+bPd2] 9.Qg3 exf1=S [+wPe2] 10.Qg1 Sg3 11.hxg3 [+wRf1] Kd7 12.Sh2 dxe1=S 13.Bd2 Sf3 14.exf3 [+wKe1] a5 15.f4 a4 16.Ba5 Kc6 17.Sd2 Kb5 18.O-O-O. N. Dupont fixed this PG with a Jacobi+ version (published in Quartz 47/2019) (2021-09-14)
comment

Eine Korrektur erschien in Quartz 47 (2019), S. 803.
paul: 1.Sc3 d5 2.Sxd5 Be6 3.Sb4 Bxa2( +Pd5) 4.Sf3 Bc4 5.Ra4 Bxe2(+Pa2) 6.Se5 Ba6 7.Bc4 e6 8.Ke2 Qg5 9.Kf3 Qxd2(+Pe2) 10.Sg4 Qh6 11.Bf4 d4 12.Qxd4(+Pd2) Qxh2 (-Pd4) 13.Ke4 Qh4 14.Rxh4 (+wPh2)
All 1st rank pieces are transported across the line of pawns and reach the 4th rank in the same formation. (2021-08-21)
Arnold Beine: NL: 1.Sf3 d5 2.Se5 Lg4 3.Sc3 Lxe2 4.Sg4 La6 5.Lc4 Dd6 6.Ke2 d4 7.Kd3 Dxh2 [+wBe2] 8.Ke4 Dh6 9.Th4 Dxd2 [+wBh2] 10.Sd5 Da5 11.Lf4 e6 12.Dxd4 [+wBd2] Dxa2 13.Sb4 Da4 14.Txa4 [+wBa2] mit ZU. (2021-08-24)
Arnold Beine: NL: 1.Sc3 d5 2.Sf3 Lg4 3.Se5 Lxe2 4.Sg4 Lb5 5.Lc4 d4 6.Ke2 Dd6 7.Kf3 Dxh2 [+wBe2] 8.Sd5 Dh6 9.Th4 Dxd2 [+wBh2] 10.Ke4 Da5 11.Lf4 La6 12.Dxd4 [+wBd2] Dxa2 13.Sb4 Da4 14.Txa4 [+wBa2] e6 mit ZU. (2021-08-24, hidden) more ...
comment

paul: 1.Pe2-e4 Pc7-c5 2.Pe4-e5 Qd8-b6 3.Pe5-e6 Qb6-b3 4.Pa2xb3 Pf7-f5 5.Ra1-a6 Pf5-f4 6.Ra6-c6 Pa7-a5 7.Bf1-a6 Pa5-a4 8.Ke1-e2 Pf4-f3 9.Ke2-d3 Pf3xg2 10.Sg1-f3 Pa4-a3 11.Rh1-e1 Pg2-g1=Q 12.Re1-e5 Qg1-g5 13.Kd3-e4 Qg5-e3 14.Pd2xe3 Pa3-a2 15.Bc1-d2 Pa2-a1=Q 16.Bd2-b4 Qa1-a5 17.Rc6xc8 Qa5-d8 18.Rc8-c6 Qd8-a5 19.Qd1-d2 Qa5-a1 20.Sb1-a3 Qa1-g1 21.Pc2-c3 Qg1-g5.
La Dame noire promue effectue 5 thèmes différents consécutivement, sans aucune capture dans son
parcours ! 17...Dd8 (Pronkin) 18...Da5 (switchback) 19...Da1 (Donati) 20...Dg1 (anti-Pronkin) et
21...Dg5 (coup répété). Dans le language des "parties justificatives du futur" il s'agit donc d'un (PR & SW & DO & AP & CR)(d), une nouveauté probablement (auteurs). (2021-08-25)
Henrik Juel: C+ Euclide 1.01 (27 minutes) (2021-08-25)
Henrik Juel: In case some kind poster wants to post the solution to this fine proof game, here it is in german
1. Be2-e4 Bc7-c5 2. Be4-e5 Dd8-b6 3. Be5-e6 Db6-b3
4. Ba2xb3 Bf7-f5 5. Ta1-a6 Bf5-f4 6. Ta6-c6 Ba7-a5
7. Lf1-a6 Ba5-a4 8. Ke1-e2 Bf4-f3 9. Ke2-d3 Bf3xg2
10. Sg1-f3 Ba4-a3 11. Th1-e1 Bg2-g1=D 12. Te1-e5 Dg1-g5
13. Kd3-e4 Dg5-e3 14. Bd2xe3 Ba3-a2 15. Lc1-d2 Ba2-a1=D
16. Ld2-b4 Da1-a5 17. Tc6xc8 Da5-d8 18. Tc8-c6 Dd8-a5
19. Dd1-d2 Da5-a1 20. Sb1-a3 Da1-g1 21. Bc2-c3 Dg1-g5 (2021-08-25)
comment

LaTeX-import:
Author not uniquely identified: Raícan, Paul
Moldenhauer: Computerprüfung: C+ Stelvio 1.6 in 10 Sek.
Keine Lösung: BP 19.0, BP 18.5.
1.b4 a5 2.b5 a4 3.b6 cxb6 4.f4 Dc7 5.f5 Df4 6.f6 gxf6 7.Lb2 Lh6 8.Le5 Lg5
9.c3 h6 10.Dc2 Lh4+ 11.Kd1 Le1 12.h4 Dxf1 13.Sf3 Dg1 14.Sh2 Lf2+
15.Sf1 Lc5 16.h5 Ld6 17.Th4 Lc7 18.Tc4 Ld8 19.Txc8 Sc6 20.Txd8+ (2023-12-15, hidden) more ...
comment

paul: 1.c4 d5 2.Qc2 Bg4 3.Q×h7 Bf3 (guards d5) 4.Qe4 (interferes f3-d5) Rh5 5.h4 Rf5 (guards d5) 6.h5 g5 7.h6 Bg7 8.h7 Bd4 9.Rh6 Bb6 10.Rd6 (interferes d8-d5) f6 11.h8=Q Kf7 12.Qh2 Kg6 13.Qhe5 (interferes f5-d5) d×c4!! 14.Rd4 Qd5 (14.– Qd6? Qd6 never can capture on e5) 15.Qc2 Sd7 16.Re4 (once more f3-d5 is interfered) Q×e5 17.Qd1. (2021-08-25)
comment

paul: 1.Sc3 2.Sd5 3.c3 4.Qa4 5.Qh4 6.d4 7.Bf4 8.Rd1 9.Rd3 10.Rh3 11.e3 12.Ke2 13.Kf3 14.Kg4 Sh6+ 15.Kf3 16.Ke2 17.Ke1 18.Be2 19.Bg4 20.f3 21.0-0 [Kg3, Qf2] Sf5+ 22.Bxf5 23.Rh5 24.h4 25.Bh3 26.Rf5 27.Bg5 28.f4 29.Qf3 30.Kf2 31.Ke1

Would only this problem have been submitted, the tournament would have been a success! What a surprising (long) solution with two switchbacks of the white king after long marches. This is spectacular in a problem that resembles a series proof game. The problem demonstrates a perfect usage of the extra condition – with a good understanding of economy: It is not quantity that counts but quality! This is shown by the author’s remark “No other castling than the thematic one”. (2021-08-25)
Henrik Juel: Rochadeschach: Ein König darf von jedem Feld aus mit jedem beliebigen Stein beider Parteien, der mit ihm auf einer Diagonale oder Orthogonale steht - ohne dass ein anderer Stein zwischen beiden steht -, rochieren, falls er nicht im Schach steht und kein bedrohtes Feld überschreitet (er darf aber bereits gezogen haben). Dabei zieht der König zunächst zwei Felder auf seinen Rochadepartner zu, wonach dieser - aus jeder beliebigen Distanz - über den König springt und auf dem nächsten Feld hinter ihm landet.
In english, roughly:
In castling chess the kings (on any square) can 'castle' with any man
In this problem we have Ke1 and Dh4, after 'castling' Kg3 and Df2 (2021-08-25)
Henrik Juel: Schachzickzack: Schwarz darf nur Schach bietende Züge ausführen. Kann Schwarz nicht Schach bieten, setzt er aus. Weiß darf weder schlagen und noch Schach bieten. Bei "Schachzickzack, Typ Stapff" darf Weiß schlagen oder Schach bieten, wenn er auf andere Weise keinen Zug ausführen kann.
In this problem, the Stapff type is used: 22.Lxf5 is the only way White can continue after the check from the black knight, so he may capture (2021-08-25)
comment

James Malcom: The last move is surely not thematic, given the glaring point of this PG, and is probably unneeded. (2021-01-15, hidden)
Kevin Begley: James, your presumption is quite dubious.
The last move is thematic and beneficial for reasons you overlook:
1) it is beneficial that we returned the bishops to proper colors (highlighting the pawn structure as the only 'fairy' presentation in the diagram), and
2) the first and last move for w/b start and end on the same square (a theme you neglected to appreciate).
The last move ties it all in a bow, and it's well worth the risk. (2021-01-15, hidden)
Kevin Begley: ps: One could also argue 3) the last full move achieves a rundlauf (albeit by rebirth) for both bishops. (2021-01-15, hidden) more ...
comment

Korrektur zu P0008675
A.Buchanan: The notation is a bit wearying. Do you think “-2.5, dann h#1” could work? (2022-06-19)
Mario Richter: Yes, I wasn't happy with the notation too, since it could lead to the wrong impression that White first makes two series-retractions followed by three series-retractionsd by Black.
I'm not 100% satisfied with the “-2.5," since IMHO it lacks the nnformation who starts the retractions ... (2022-06-19)
comment

SCHRECKE: a)+b): C+, popeye 4.87 (2023-03-10)
comment