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

SCHRECKE: C+, popeye 4.85, bedingung UWnur D T L S B (2020-08-31, hidden) more ...
comment

SCHRECKE: ZU-Dual: 2.c3+ K:a3 3.b8B K:b3# (2020-02-03, hidden) more ...
comment

A.Buchanan: Although this is classified as a joke, promotion to dummy pawn was actually legal in many tournaments from 1862-1904. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_(chess)#1862_British_Chess_Association_rule (2018-05-01, hidden)
SCHRECKE: Duale: 2.Dc3+, 2.Df4, 2.Dd4
z.B.: 2.Dd4 Ka6/b4 3.Dd6 Ka5/Kb5 4.Ka8 b4/Ka5 5.b8B Kb5 6.Db6+ K:b6= (2020-02-03, hidden) more ...
comment

Der Cook war schon nach der Erstpublikation bekannt:
'De Amsterdammer' 16.09.1900: "No. 528 laat nevenopl. toe (h7 enz.)" und schlägt zur Korrektur vor: "Wij meenen dat dit euvel aldus te verhelpen is: Wit Kc4, Tc7, Lc8; p. b6, e7 en f3. Zw. Kd6, p. b7. Mat in vier (4) zetten." (Korrektur s. P1375151 sowie weitere Korrekturvorschläge P1372391 und P1375040)


Am 23.09.1900 wurde dann auf die Kritik des bekannten Problemomponisten den Hertog eingegangen: "De heer Den Hertog maakt ons opmerkzaam dat de vierzet van de Savornin Lohman niet correct is, daar de eerste zet (d8 en blijft pion) tegen de regels der probleemkunst zondigt. Deze regel was ons en eenige probleem-componisten, die wij 't probleem voorlegden, niet bekend. Bij 't oordeel van een autoriteit als de heer Den hertog leggen wij ons echter gaarne neder."
A.Buchanan: J.Savournin (who only has 1 problem in PDB) is not to be confused with the much more prolific Jacques de Savournin (b.1930) (2020-04-26)
Mario Richter: 'Wiener Hausfrauen-Zeitung' gives the author's name above the diagram as "J. de Savornin', please notice, that there is no 'u'! ("Savornin" is repeated at the solution some weeks later.)

The source is given as "Weckblad" (not "Wedblad"!), which I think is a typo and should be "Weekblad" refering to some weekly publication from the Netherlands (perhaps 'Algemeen Handelsblad'...) (2020-04-27)
A.Buchanan: Hi Mario, thanks for your scholarship.
(1) This is the only "Wedblad" composition in PDB, so I will change it to "Weekblad". There are three specific Weekblads in PDB: Algemeen Katholiek Weekblad,
Amsterdamsch Weekblad, Bloemendaalsch Weekblad.
(2) Looking at the change records for these two composers, it seems they were conflated earlier, and have been teased apart. I think the "de" belongs to J.Savornin not Jacques Savournin, about whom we know more, and I find no mention of "de" for him.
(3) Yes "u" only for the younger one. (2020-04-27)
James Malcom: The c & k in the typo source are rather hard to distinguish: http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno-plus?aid=whz&datum=1901&page=129&size=45. Mario, on which page does the solution appear? (2020-04-27)
Mario Richter: Solution see http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno-plus?aid=whz&datum=1901&page=170&size=45

Regarding the "Weekblad" question, there are many more possible candidates in the PDB, e.g. 'De Amsterdammer' (also known as 'De groene Amsterdammer'), which carries the subtitle "Weekblad voor Nederland", there are also other sources perhaps yet not in the PDB, e.g. 'Weekblad voor Indie' (which had around 1914 a big chess column).

I checked my own local archives, but so far I only found chess columns with problems of the "younger Savournin" ... (2020-04-27)
Mario Richter: In the meantime I have found the original source. The author is given as "E. J. de Savornin Lohman", I have no idea, how this is correctly entered into the author table ... (2020-04-27)
James Malcom: Is it possible to link it Mario?

Also, I fixed the author name. There is the field “Addition”, below “Country”, that is for middle names. I played E. J. as the first name, Lohman as last, and the rest in the middle. (2020-04-27)
Mario Richter: http://historisch.groene.nl/nummer/1900-09-02/pagina/7
http://historisch.groene.nl/nummer/1900-09-16/pagina/7
http://historisch.groene.nl/nummer/1900-09-23/pagina/7 (2020-04-27)
James Malcom: Many thanks for the links and great research Mario; it is great to actually know know the and see the original source. I will continue to search for more dummy pawn problems in the meantime. (2020-04-28)
A.Buchanan: Hurray! (2020-04-28)
milan: [-wPe7 wBd8-h4 wRd7-d8] 1.Rd7 Kf5 2.Rg7 Ke6 3.g4 Kd6 4.Rg6#no joke normal correction.!M.Frelih (2020-05-02)
Frank Müller: Bitte Autorenangabe prüfen. Jacques Savournin wurde erst 1930 geboren. (2011-10-30, hidden)
A.Buchanan: Although this is classified as a joke, promotion to dummy pawn was actually legal in many tournaments from 1862-1904. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promotion_(chess)#1862_British_Chess_Association_rule (2018-05-01, hidden)
James Malcom: I meant to complete the authotor's name from J. to Jacques. I didn't mean to remove it. (2020-02-03, hidden)
James Malcom: I meant to complete the authotor's name from J. to Jacques. I didn't mean to remove it. (2020-02-03, hidden)
James Malcom: Nevermind on my previous intention of the author name: please fix it and remove these comments of mine. (2020-02-03, hidden)
James Malcom: Please fix the name. (2020-02-03, hidden) more ...
comment

Anton Baumann: ganz normal: 1.d8=S+ Kf5 2.Kd7 Kg6 3.h8=L Kf5 4.Kc8 Kg6 5.f8=L Kf5 6.g8=L Kg6 7.Sf7 Kf5 8.Dh7+ Ke6 9.S7xe5+ Kd6 10.L8h6 Txe5 11.e8=S+ Txe8# (2019-01-08)
Alfred Pfeiffer: In der Autorlösung wird nur einer der beiden wK matt gesetzt, was den "Rex Multiplex"-Regeln nicht genügt. (2020-05-13)
comment

Originalquelle laut YACPDB (id=267380): "American Chess Magazine, Dec 1898"
James Malcom: I found an odd way to display the dummy pawn promotion. Simply enter the "B" into the initial solution, and then change it into "DU," which is the fairy dummy pawn, and then change it back to "B". (2020-02-02, hidden)
Henrik Juel: Nice discovery, James (2020-02-02, hidden)
James Malcom: Thanks Henrik. I owe it to Alfred Pfeiffer though, as I only found it out after correcting their edit to the Beasley dummy pawn problem. (2020-02-03, hidden)
SCHRECKE: C+, popeye 4.83, bedingung UWnur D T L S DU (2020-02-04, hidden)
Alfred Pfeiffer: James, you have not thank to me. The dummy pawn promotion works so simply now because Gerd Wilts extended the PDB program. But the keyword 'dummy pawn' (Dummybauer) should be set. (02.02.2020) (2020-02-15, hidden) more ...
comment

Alfred Pfeiffer: Das Schachgebot im letzten Zug ist unzulässig. (2016-07-19)
Erich Bartel: hier die kleine Geschichte wie in fs abgedruckt:
"Der Autor , bekannt als Verfasser vieler kurioser Schachgeschichten,präsentiert uns einen Sylvestertrunk, der schluckweise die verschiedensten Gebilde zeigt. Alle Geschmacksrichtungen (lies Umwandlungen) stehen im Angebot, und das Trinken wird zur Freude. Immer schneller vollzieht sich die Berauschung bis hin zum 12.Trunk (Einzelzug). Hier erstarrren jedoch die Glieder. Geleert ist nur das halbe Glas. Wurde Gift beigegeben? Nichts geht mehr - schauen Sie selbst" (--solution) (2016-07-19)
A.Buchanan: I think the last promotion is meant to be to a pawn. That completes the set of 6 pieces, and is the only choice which allows for stalemate. Possibly there has been the usual confusion for German/English meanings of "B". (2016-07-19, hidden)
Erich Bartel: I beg your pardon, my input error. I corrected and thanks for
the tip. (2016-07-19, hidden)
Erich Bartel: hier die kleine Geschichte wie in fs abgedruckt:
"Der Autor , bekannt als Verfasser vieler kurioser Schachgeschichten,präsentiert uns einen Sylvestertrunk, der schluckweise die verschiedensten Gebilde zeigt. Alle Geschmacksrichtungena (lies Umwandlungen) stehen im Angebot, und das Trinken wird zur Freude. Immer schneller vollzieht sich die Berauschung bis hin zum 12.Trunk (Einzelzug). Hier erstarrren jedoch die Glieder. Geleert ist nur das halbe Glas. Wurde Gift beigegeben? Nichts geht mehr - schauen Sie selbst" (--solution) (2016-07-19, hidden) more ...
comment

Originalforderung: White to move and mate himself in five moves by 'The Triple Check!'

Eingebettet in eine Erzählung "My Uncle's discovery"

vgl. P1340371 und P1340408
A.Buchanan: I think the definition of Rex Multiplex in the glossary could be better. Looking for suggestions. Is parrying one of the multiple checks sufficient, e.g. if 3. ... gxf8=S? then 5. ... Sd7,Sxe6 would block one check. So it must be 3. gxf8=B,L - still a cook though. If a player leaves one king in check in Rex Multiplex, can it be captured? (2020-05-30)
James Malcom: Andrew, it is an intentional dual, and not a cook, acknowledged by the author. On page 14 the text states: “and at last my uncle acknowledged that claiming a knight or bishop effected the same object, “but it is my pleasure that I claim a pawn,” he said almost sternly, and I could not beat that logic, I allowed his solution to proceed.” Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=BWRfAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA3&dq=dummy+pawn&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAt4OHxYjpAhXXAZ0JHYfRATg4ggEQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=dummy&f=false (2020-05-30)
A.Buchanan: Yes but what does Rex Multiplex mean? Then let's look at the problem. Retro Corner defines it as:
"In Rex Multiplex, a pawn can also promote to king, so more than one king of the same color may be present on the board. A move, giving check to different kings, is allowed only if all checks can be parried on the next move. Mate can only be given if all kings are mated in the same move. In parrying a check or a mate for a part of the attacked kings, it is not allowed to expose any other king of own color to any (additional) check or mate. In case there is no other move of defense available, either the position is mate or the checking move was illegal."
I don't understand this at all.
Then it seems as if Rex Multiplex is a proper fairy format, not a joke. How many of the "joke" promotion problems fit fair-and-square into this? (2020-05-30)
Henrik Juel: Rex Multiplex is a fairy condition, invented long after 1873, I believe, so it is not in effect in this joke problem (2020-05-30)
A.Buchanan: ok thanks Henrik, that answers the second question. How about defining Rex Multiplex? (2020-05-30)
Henrik Juel: The Retro Corner definition seems reasonable, but the Schwalbe definition is more succinct:
Beide Parteien können mehrere Könige und/oder königliche Steine besitzen und auch in einen König umwandeln. Ein Schachgebot ist nur zulässig, wenn es entweder für alle Könige zugleich parierbar ist oder alle Könige gleichzeitig mattsetzt. (2020-05-30)
A.Buchanan: I think the definition of Rex Multiplex in the glossary could be better. Looking for suggestions. Here presumably parrying one of the multiple checks is sufficient, so 3. gxf8=L,S are not cooks: instead it must be 3. gxf8=B. If a player leaves one king in check in Rex Multiplex, can it be captured? (2020-05-30, hidden) more ...
comment

aus einem Artikel von G.A. Gelbak (Moskau) zum Thema "Bauernumwandlung"
comment

James Malcom: The "Dummy Pawn" piece thing is for fairy problems, not orthodox ones (even if they are a joke) in my view. (2020-02-02, hidden) more ...
comment

James Malcom: Caissa's Fairy Tales, 1947 is the original publication. Why is it listed as a reprint? (2020-02-01, hidden)
Henrik Juel: I think the source should be The Chess Amateur, 12/1913 (2020-02-02, hidden)
Alfred Pfeiffer: Yes, T.R. Dawson was a major contributor to "The Chess Amateur" (http://www.chess-library.com/282970372) (2020-02-03, hidden) more ...
comment

This is the second oldest known example of the dummy pawn, and the first study For the oldest, see P1375382.

Original-Diagrammüberschrift: "Revolutionary Question XIX. How can White draw?" und als Forderung: "White having the move can draw"
Die 'Westminster Papers', 01.12.1873, S. 175 schreiben: "After mature consideration, we can see no utility in a controversy about the dummy pawn. So far as we know, it was first suggested in this country in 1851, in a two-penny publication called the Chess Player, and was illustrated by an absurd problem, aptly enough baptized by the composer “Revolutionary”. The problem, which in 1851 passed current for a tolerable joke, was in 1862 “adduced” as a serious argument, and appears to have convinced some worthy people that it embodied an excellent principle. To J.M.R., who enquires, “Could not a game be invented to show the usefulness of the regulation?” we answer, yes; and more, the players might be invented also. The wonder is, that the double event has not been “managed” long ago."
Mario Richter: Perhaps the oldest problem with a dummy pawn, but the chess literature knows of earlier examples at least in chess games (e.g. because of the rule that a pawn can promote only to pieces which have already been captured [what I would call a "dormant pawn"]). (2020-02-11)
James Malcom: Agreed. Although the difference is whether or not the dummy pawn is allowed to promote later of not. Refer to the “Single Box” ruleset. (2020-02-12)
comment

In 'Regles du jeu...' heißt es zu dieser Stellung:
"Avant quitter ce sujet, nous devons dire que Mr. Pétroff nous a communiqué le problème suivant, dans lequel, en supposant les meilleurs coups possibles de la part des noirs, les blancs ne pourraient remettre la partie, que s'il leur était permis de refuser toute promotion à leur pion entré à dame, c'est à dire de le laisser pion.
...
A cette occasion, Mr. Pétroff nous prie de soumettre au jugement des autorités européennes en matière de jeu, s'il ne conviendrait pas d'introduire dans le règlement une clause qui permît au possesseur d'un pion entré à dame, de renoncer à tout accroissement de ses forces, en laissant ce pion inactif et immobile, comme pion, jusqu'à sa prise ou jusqu'à la fin de la partie? Cette clause pourrait être appuyée par les considérations ci-après:

a) Que les situations dans lesquelles un pion est changé en fou ou en tour, ne sont guère plus fréquentes, ni moins extraordinaires que celles où il peut être utile de le laisser pion;

b) Que s'il est loisible au possesseur du pion entré à dame, de l'élever à un rang inférieur, comme celui de la tour, du fou ou du cavalier, il doit être libre également de refuser au pion toute promotion, si les circonstances l'exigent.

De son côté, la Société des amateurs d'échecs de St. Pétersbourg n'a pas cru pouvoir se ranger à cette opinion (exprimée sous forme de doute par Mr. Pétroff lui-même), contraire au principe fondamental du jeu, qui n'admet point l'existence de pions aux bandes de l'échiquier occupées primitivement pas les pièces."


In 'Chess Praxis', the texts reads before the diagram "The following problem is offered by M. Petroff as an instance where White can draw the game by allowing a Pawn to a Pawn after it is played to the eighth square, but otherwise cannot prevent a loss."
Mario Richter: Stupid question: What happens if Black plays 2. ... Sf4?, i.e.
1. a6 Sd5 2. axb7 Sf4 3. bxa8=B Sh3! or 3. bxa8=D Sd3! (2020-02-12)
James Malcom: You’re right Mario. The problem is cooked. With Sh3, White is no longer be stalemated and black easily wins. (2020-02-12)
comment

Correction of P1216212.
E.J. Lohman‘s #4 is as ingenious as Loyd's #3, but it is unfortunately cooked, so I have fixed that.
A.Buchanan: Great: this is sound and preserves all the play. I have had a different (sillier) idea how to fix Savournin. I will post it soon if I can stop giggling. (2020-04-26)
SCHRECKE: C+, popeye 4.83, bedingung Uwnur D T L S DU (2020-02-03, hidden) more ...
comment

comment

The first known problem in which both to promote to a pawn!

Version of P1372418
James Malcom: Could someone fix the solution to render properly? Thanks in advance. (2020-02-05, hidden) more ...
comment

comment

comment

comment

A.Buchanan: Version of (a) works with Ba2 instead of L. (2020-05-13)
comment

Henrik Juel: Is this the first published example of a 'promotion' to pawn? Probably not
The swedish text translates to
A little joke dedicated to pastor J. Jespersen on his 61st birthday
(Jesper Jespersen was a vicar in the danish state church; vicars were addressed as pastor in those days) (2020-02-07)
Henrik Juel: Not the first, by a long shot, e.g. P1372468 from 1883 (2020-02-07)
James Malcom: I presume you mean the first in a selfmate? P1340366 does show it much earlier, although it is not obligated. (2020-02-07)
comment

In der 'New Zealand Mail' (21.04.1883) heißt es zu diesem Problem: "This position has been composed by Mr. Collins in accordance with the British Chess Association’s 13th Law : —“When a pawn has reached the eighth square, the player has the option of selecting a piece, whether such piece has been previously lost or not, whose name and powers it shall then assume, or of deciding that it shall remain a Pawn.” This rule of the “dummy pawn” has never met with much favour amongst chess-players, and there are very few clubs or societies which observe it.
We have received no correct solution to the problem (which is a most ingenious one), the result doubtless of the non-acquaintance by our friends of such a rule as the foregoing in any of the codes of chess laws."
SCHRECKE: C+, popeye 4.83, bedingung UWnur D T L S DU
genauer: 1.Tf:b8? e1B! (2020-02-07, hidden) more ...
comment

Alfred Pfeiffer: Bis 1904 war nach den Regeln eine "Umwandlung" in Dummy-Bauer erlaubt.

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

SCHRECKE: Kurzlösung in 4 Zügen: 1.Sg6 g1B 2.Td5 c:d5 3.Se5,Se7 (2020-02-26, hidden) more ...
comment

von Pavitt als Beispiel dafür konstruiert, daß die auf dem Londoner Schachkongress beschlossene Änderung der Umwandlungsregel für den Britischen Schachverband (d.h. die Möglichkeit der UW in einen "dummy pawn") auch Auswirkungen auf die Schachkomposition hat:
1. Probleme, die nach den alten Regeln korrekt waren, können inkorrekt werden (wie dieses)
2. Da andere Schachverbände diese Regel nicht adaptiert haben, muß bei Problemen mit UW stets angegeben werden, nach welchen Regeln zu lösen ist.

Correct according to the "old rules", but incorrect if "dummy pawns" are allowed:
1. Sg6 g1=B! "and White cannot possibly mate in two more moves."
Constructed by Pavitt as an example of how the change in the conversion rule for the British Chess Federation decided at the London Chess Congress (i.e. the possibility of UW into a "dummy pawn") also has implications for chess composition:
1. problems that were correct under the old rules may become incorrect (like this one).
2. since other chess federations have not adapted this rule, problems with UW must always indicate according to which rules to solve.

s.a. Version P1372932
Henrik Juel: C+ by Popeye 4.61, except for double threat 2.Se5,Se7 (2020-02-26)
A.Buchanan: The defect for me is that the threat 2. Se7 is not separately shown in actual play. Compare: 1. Sg6 g1=D 2. Se5 thr 3. Sc4#,Sxc6# but both threats are forced separately by specific sD moves. (2022-01-26)
comment

SCHRECKE: C+, popeye 4.83, bedingung UWnur D T L S DU (2020-02-28)
James Malcom: I may have messed up the source. Please double check the linked Google Book if you can. (2020-02-28)
A.Buchanan: When I click on the link, I can see the cover page about "Chess Fruits" but I am told that there is no eBook available. Maybe this is policy by google because the long arm of American IP lawyers does not reach Singapore? Would be interesting to know. (2020-04-26)
A.Buchanan: Problem seems pretty good though (2020-04-26)
James Malcom: I do not know, but that might be the case. It’s available here in the US. And yes, the problem is good. If you notice, it even has the Indian motif! (2020-04-26)
Mario Richter: The reason for the non-availibilty are copyright restrictions. Strangely enough, the book is "Public Domain in the USA", but has only "Limited view" outside the USA. This nice feature is also known as "geo-blocking", a proxy might be helpful ... (2020-04-27)
A.Buchanan: Thanks Mario - very naughty behaviour by google. I also saw that google translate will shortly move to a mode where you need to log in to use it. (2020-04-27)
Mario Richter: I strongly hope that this will not be the case. With my imperfect english knowledge I interpreted their announcement a little bit different: If you'd like to use their feature "Translation history", then you have to be logged in. (2020-04-27)
A.Buchanan: I think you are right Mario (2020-04-27)
comment

Henrik Juel: C+ by Popeye 4.79 (version 4.61 does not permit promotion to DU in its uwnur condition) (2020-03-08)
James Malcom: Thanks Henrik. A problem like this isn’t all that hard to properly make when there been over a century of work before you. Do you think that this a first, Excelsior+Dummy Pawn? (2020-03-08)
Henrik Juel: Yes, James; at least I have never seen it before (2020-03-08)
comment

https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/13323/15543
Henrik Juel: The joke promotions 1.e8=sTS also achieve stalemate (2020-03-12)
comment

A.Buchanan: Lf1-B, + Bh1 and then can -Tc1. Rather sucks any life out of it, but it's a bit stodgy anyway, and is now sound (2020-04-26)
comment

Henrik Juel: White must not commit himself too early
1.f8=D,Kh7? g2!
1.f8=S? L~!
Solution error: 1... g2 2.f8=S!&Se6? g3!
The dual 2.f8=S&Sd7,Sh7 can be avoided by adding wPd7, I think (2020-03-18)
James Malcom: I'm trying to trick PDB into showing an animation, but to no sucess so far. Can anyone possibably do it please? (2020-08-06)
Henrik Juel: Nice try, James, but now the solution is rather unclear
1.f8=B! Lf1,Lg2 2.Bf8=D&Kh7 Th1 3.Dxh6#
1... g2 2.Bf8=S&Sd7 (or 2.Bf8=S&Sh7) g3 3.Sf6# (2020-08-06)
A.Buchanan: At the very least, replace sLh3 with sB, so 1. f8=D? g2! & 1. f8=S? h2! become tries. Is there a name for the theme where the tries in a three-mover become the second moves after a non-committal key? Then in such a tiny problem, the dual 2. Sd7/Sh7 does offend. Shift wBf7 to b7, wKh8 to g7. (2020-08-07, hidden) more ...
comment

A.Buchanan: Does Arisktotle wish to remain anonymous? :) (2020-04-26)
James Malcom: I know not who he is, although he knows who am I. (2020-04-26)
A.Buchanan: I know him: he's a celebrated composer. Ask him if he's ok to have his real name here. Tell him it is to reduce your Loyd number (a concept I've just invented but obviously analogous to Morphy Number. Interestingly just checking in PDB the fan-out from Loyd is *very* narrow at first.

Normally I put all composers with a hand in it in the composer list, and then in the after field I put the dependencies. E.g. A version B. If someone does a later version of some great composer's opus, that won't count, obviously. It's got to be contemporaneous. (2020-04-26)
A.Buchanan: I chatted with Arisktotle, who is ok that the veil of anonymity drops :-) (2020-06-14)
James Malcom: Ah, so he is the 31 consecutive checks Guus Rol? (2020-06-14)
Henrik Juel: Guus has made many fine problems; I particularly like his resolution retros
He improved my P0009134, and the resulting joint P1298977 was awarded (2020-06-14)
comment

comment

Superseded by P1379580
SCHRECKE: Nebenlösung: 1.e:f8T+ Kg6 2.Tg8 Kf5 3.e4+ Kg6 4.T:h3 T:h3# (2020-04-12, hidden)
James Malcom: Thanks. I have put in a corrected version. (2020-04-12, hidden)
Henrik Juel: Now C+ by Popeye 4.79 (2020-04-12, hidden)
James Malcom: Thanks Henrik. Doing two promotions wasn’t actually too hard, but I do wonder if three is possible. (2020-04-12, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: C+ by Popeye 4.79, except for the mate dual
Without 'bed uwn d t l s du' the mate is faster: 1.Sxg4 g1=DTLS 2.Se5 thr. 3.Sc4,Sxc6#
Nice correction of the flawed 1865 problem, James (2020-04-25)
A.Buchanan: Works a lot better than the original: well done. What's the purpose of bPg4 as your problem seems to be sound without it? It would be cool if the lifeline given to Black at W3 to allow for Black to prevent either 5.Sc4# or 5.Sc6# but not both, but I couldn't find a way to do it. (2020-04-25)
James Malcom: Buchana, you’re right. Removing it shouldn’t affect the C+. And many thanks to you both. This isn’t the only problem I’ve corrected-P1372391. Also, the only other directmates I know of with a Black pawn promotion are P1373012 and P1373526. (2020-04-25)
Henrik Juel: sPg4 prevented the cook 1.Sf3 in the orthodox #3 (2020-04-25)
comment

The idea of a dummy pawn promotion in a r# has certainly been done already, but I do not know of any predecessors, and it most certainly never been done at this scale before.
A.Buchanan: I think this is very original and good: do you think of publishing in magazines at all? One nit: it seems that their are multiple mates after the D promotions. D can go to the squares for R or B mates. So can't really say that the refutations are distinct, in my humble opinion, so for me this isn't quite a double allumwandlung. What am I missing? (2020-04-26)
James Malcom: Many thanks. I have thought publishing in a magazine, yes; I have made problems that have never been shown. But I have always been unsure of how and where. The refutations are not meant to be unique-they are merely meant to be there. (2020-04-26)
SCHRECKE: C+, popeye 4.83, bedingung UWnur D T L S DU (2020-04-26, hidden) more ...
comment

SCHRECKE: C+, popeye 4.83, bedingung UWnur D T L S DU (2020-04-26, hidden)
James Malcom: Very funny correction! (2020-04-26, hidden)
A.Buchanan: Thanks, James! As the leading exponent of dummy pawn alive on the planet, what do you think of the Golden Age Principle (GAP)? (2020-04-27, hidden)
James Malcom: GAP sounds a wonderful compromise between the past, present, and future. I am not just all for the dummy pawn though! I am split for all jokes, including wrong promotions and Pam-Krabbe castling. One of highlights for wrong promotions is an AUW: P1373342 (2020-04-27, hidden)
A.Buchanan: I watched a wonderful paradigm-shifting YouTube talk last night: "Cursed Problems in Game Design". Basically it defines a cursed problem as a conflict between promises/expectations for the players. Strictly they are insolvable, so we need to find a way round. For example: skill-based combat game versus diplomacy-style multi-player: they don't go well together. I suspect that many of the challenges that we face in chess problem rules etc are just cursed.

Let's put dummy pawn aside for a moment. So what's going on with jokes? We don't want to explain them, because that "spoils the joke", but if we don't explain them, then they become frustrating to solve, or are unfair because the solver may invest a lot of effort in a complex problem, only to discover that there is no solution. Is a tag "joke" part of the stipulation? Is the editor meant to give a hint? If the problem is trivial, then the investment of effort is small, and it's obvious that something fishy is going on. But you, reasonably, want to embed serious chess in your jokes, and this is going to make them inaccessible. This is the first cursed problem identified for chess, and I think there are several others. The YouTube speaker identified 8 in his domain of online gaming.

So we should not expect that there is a trivial answer to a cursed problem. I think serious jokes offer a very fruitful area for exploration, as James is finding, and so it's worth laying the curse. I think there are a bunch of joke sub-genres which are so well-thumbed that they are no longer any trivial things to say, but they are familiar enough that everyone can understand the condition. So the composer (if he's around) must decide whether his/her problem is chessically trivial (in which case no hint as to the kind of joke) or chessically rich (in which case he/she should spoiled in the stipulation what's going on).

Is a chessically-rich spoiled joke a fairy problem? E.g. suppose the stipulation says promotion to opposing units is ok? My feeling is that this where GAP analysis comes in. If we can find a period in which this was legal, then it's orthodox golden age, otherwise it's fairy. And we keep jokes for problems where the game is not given away.

But you're the Joker, James: what do you think? (2020-04-27, hidden)
James Malcom: Joke problems, aside from finish a move and board rotations and others, that are ones that bend the laws of chess are the ones in question. They are insoluble and fairy by today's standards, technically speaking. But most olden ones were legal, to some degree and even if ambiguously, at the time. Laws were specified and they became outdated-an immortal curse like you said.

Although most were not meant to be taken seriously-especially the dummy pawn-at least a few were and all were in the spirit of fun. Now with modern classification,that spirit has been dulled and dimmed. While the tag "joke" ruins not the solutions and wrapping your head around them, it still dims the seeing of the problem, and yet it is the best we have.

The GAP idea might aviate that dullness, in giving joke problems fresh air and a "time bubble" to protect themselves in. It should be enough to properly distinguish "jokes" that break the rules in a reasonable manner, and were technically allowed at some point in some manner, from actual jokes like board turning and finish a move that are more logical extensions of things in play and such.

While the tag "Jokes" should be kept for classification purposes, GAP should be added to the appropriate ones. If the stipulation says a rule is broken/changed, it is then fairly except for a few exceptions at the whim of the composer if possible as you said, as true jokes/GAP problems are unspoken, but sometimes hinted like if it is a holiday, in order to give the solve a good chuckle.

And there are indeed many "practical" ideas to explore and have fun with as I and you and many other have done and continue to do. How does checkmate work when king promotion is allowed? is one of the many fun questions that many problems offer views on. (2020-04-27, hidden)
A.Buchanan: Hi James, thanks for your detailed response. I need to clarify some terminology. When I said "cursed", I didn't mean that if a rule was outdated, we would say it was cursed. I meant that there are irreconcilable objectives: *we* are then cursed. The GDC game designer used the word "problem" to mean "difficulty". He is not a chess problem composer.

What is a chess joke? The Wikipedia definition is useless: "Joke chess problems are puzzles in chess that use humor as a primary or secondary element." I much prefer the PDB definition, which in part says: "A key part of the fun is that the solver must have to identify that the joke is there. If the specific joke is announced in the stipulation (e.g. 4 twins formed by progressively rotating the board), then it's not a joke."

This is a curse because we are apparently limited in how complex we can make a joke problem. If a problem is trivial, then it is obvious that there is no conventional solution, and we can quickly get into joke-solving mode. But if you make a difficult r#4 then when the solver fails to find a solution after a lot of effort, he may conclude that he has simply failed, or that the problem is cooked, or misprinted. He has no reason to be confident that a joke is present (except because of the name of the composer :D or the time of year). This leads to frustration for your loyal servers. And a related challenge is that you have no control of whether a hint is dropped by tags in the database, or by the editor writing in his intro column. This is the joke curse.

But we really do want to get into difficult problems involving weird promotions, because they are so unexplored. For new problems, I think it must be fixed by something in the stipulation, determined by the composer. But then they become just fairies: they lose the allusiveness they had before. But that allusiveness only worked for trivial or tiny problems. Let's say that we want to talk about promotion into foreign pieces, which surely has never been a rule, so the GAP idea is irrelevant. You can't restrict yourself to jokes just at Christmas or April Fool's Day, and you don't want to become notorious for only composing promotion jokes I guess. Tags only exist in databases and your problem will not always sit in the context of the original's editor's intro column.

What do you do? (2020-04-27, hidden)
James Malcom: Yes, it is quite a conundrum between the solves and composers, now and the future. It will be tricky to find a solution at all, if possible. (2020-04-28, hidden)
A.Buchanan: What you just said reminded me of something I wrote many years ago before Dead Position became a retro thing in the Codex: http://anselan.com/HP1DR/HP1DR.html. It's kind of beautiful and cathartic just to articulate the underlying curses. There are two curses we have are discussing in this thread:

(1) "Protect our heritage" vs "Be open to the future"
At the moment the haunted castle in the magic forest is frozen in time: the dancers in the ballroom are like statues; the great grandfather clock in the hall is paused mid-tock; the cook has raised his hand for centuries to cuff the serving boy. At some level the conventions *cannot* change, even though the FIDE Laws evolve steadily, because we can't over-write the past. GAP is intended as a possible solution to this: recognizing that "Eppur Si Muove". It can address Dummy Pawn, castling in 50-move & dead position issues, and surely others.
- 50M: it seems impossible to write the 50-move convention properly, because to do that would apparently require being definite about the tiny question of whether castling does zero the move count.
- I willingly sacrificed the 4 DP problems on the page linked above to the DP convention. I am inspired by the saying "Restrictions breed creativity" - Mark Rosewater. Later I found much more interesting retro versions of all of the sacrificed matrices were possible, and I'm not sure I want the original ones back. But other problems by Ronald Turnbull were definitively destroyed by the convention, and we cannot find retro ways to repair them. He deserves to have them back.

(2) "Have undeclared jokes" vs "Create challenging chess problems"
This is an easier challenge. GAP is not a general answer. Adrian Storisteanu, who sometimes comes here to PDB, suggested that the composer may put an emoji "(:" in a joke's stipulation - to indicate that something tricky is going on. I think this is a sublime idea: what do you think, James? (2020-04-28, hidden)
James Malcom: I do remember seeing a bit on the :) in the comments of our Pam-Krabbe PG 2.5 It sounds like a good way to keep the joking intact and such for modern problems, and GAP should be applied to the old problems. (2020-04-28, hidden)
A.Buchanan: Adrian was very particular that the emoji should be (: and not :) so it wouldn’t be confused with orthodox smilie :)
I have at least one more curse that I can discuss sometime. The great thing about identifying a curse as such is that it depolarises the debate and allows both sides to see they are caught in a trap
Does anyone have an issue if I tag all the Dummy Pawn problems as “golden age” rather than joke? (2020-04-29, hidden)
James Malcom: I don't mind of course. :)

However, I think the "Joke" tag should be kept for classification purposes. But in the addition field something should be added that refers to the GAP tag. You can tag them with GAP and then I can do the addition fields as to fairly split the workload. (2020-04-29, hidden)
A.Buchanan: Hi James. I don't think Dummy Pawn problems are jokes. With "Dead Position" keyword I have a parameter sometimes. So k='dead:not!' shows 4 problems which are not dead position problems, usually because they have no retro element. Similarly I think dummy pawn problems can be tagged with joke(not!).

Dummy pawn in particular is a superb compositional element, and almost virgin territory. Under-promotions are already cool - well: dummy pawn is the ultimate under-under-promotion. So paradoxical: it's kind of the 'most unlikely move'. Question is: how to let someone know this is happening? Keywords don't count as part of the stipulation. (: lays the curse for jokes, but a thematically rich dummy pawn problem is not a joke and needs no distraction (I think). Even (: is not enough of a direction. (By the way have you tested their soundness vs other jokes, e.g. promotion to K, opposing officer, etc?

Problem is, if you put "Dummy Pawn" in your stipulation, then this becomes a condition and someone classes it as a fairy problem. "Dead Position" is in a similar situation. "Hint: Dummy Pawn" is legitimate, though actually the appearance of your name as composer may become as big a hint as anyone needs. I think that happens with me and "Dead Position" :) Maybe you can come up with a better word than hint: remark? I'll sleep on that.

And what is the addition field? What needs to be said there? (2020-04-30, hidden)
James Malcom: Well of course they are not jokes even if they are composed in a joking mood. What I meant is that they should be labeled as such for newcomers/others who feel otherwise. The "addition field" is the second box that appears when you enter in a keyword where extra details are put. Putting "Not!" there as you suggest is a great way to do it.

The best way to hint at is perhaps to just put the :-) in the stipulation.

A better word than "Hint" is perhaps "Clue." (2020-04-30, hidden)
A.Buchanan: Hurray we agree on the tags. It just happens that dummy pawn (which will perhaps prove the most fruitful of the joke promotions chessically) turns out to be historical rather than joke. But it's confusing if this subset is segregated out. I totally see that the joke tag is necessary for dummy pawn as an index, and the "not!" allows for historical accuracy. History buffs may also enjoy a PDB "golden age" tag. But PDB tags are generally not available to a solver.

So imagine that *all* your solver has to work with is diagram + stipulation. Which is their task?
(a) Guess a joke mechanism, with relatively simple chess or
(b) Solve a challenging chess problem, with a mechanism that has previously appeared in more simplistic jokes?

I personally don't think it's effective or fair to mix these two tasks. There's additional noise: your solver may think: "Maybe there's a misprint in the diagram?" "Maybe it's some silly idea I've never heard of?" "Maybe the composer made a mistake?" Or the solver may come up with an idea you never thought of (as happened with your Matplus bP on first rank e.p.) because the space of jokes is wild and unbounded.

Existing jokes mainly fall in category (a). Original publication was in April or December might have suggested a lighter mood. But the solver is usually alerted that something is not right because the position is illegal. Illegal positions comprise about 15% of Dawson & Hunsdorfer's book "Retrograde Analysis" (1915), and the authors point out that you can't prove the *cause* of an illegality. In other category (a) problems, the position is legal, but there's no apparent solution. Such simple jokes were created and have survived without any hints or smilies, and I wouldn't want to change the stipulations.

It's category (b) problems which vex me. The solver's challenge is not just to discover that there is a joke. The difficulty is that there are so many different kind of jokes. Do I really want my solvers to have to check all the tired routines: rotate or translate the board? retract illegal last move? complete unfinished move? remove extraneous piece? or novel weirder stuffs still. And the smilie suggests wackiness, vagueness. But if a more direct indication is needed, how to do that lightly, and without becoming a fairy problem?

One class of jokes has already successfully ascended from that humble origin, and become "official". Such problems can contain serious complex content with no real chance of misunderstanding. This is the set of problems where there is no legal last move for the usual player. Article 15 of the Codex (together with Footnotes 9 & 19) tell us how to allow the other player to move first. Maybe there is only room for one official joke?

How were your problems received in superproblem, James? Did solvers have some indication that dodgy promotions were involved? Or did the solvers encounter each of these problems with no context? (2020-05-01, hidden)
James Malcom: My various SuperProblem joke compositions were not presented as to solve. Andrew. They were published in either the “Unusual Transformations” section of the site or the article on joke promotions, so they were obvious in the publications.

And I will create the GAP tag and get to work retagging the dummy pawn problems. (2020-05-02, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: After the addition of sPd1, C+ Popeye 4.61 (2022-01-26)
Henrik Juel: Other variations
1... Kc4/Ke3 2.Dc2+/Lb4 (2022-01-26)
comment

Reprint Publication: https://books.google.com/books?id=nyoCAAAAYAAJ&dq=dummy+pawn+mate+in+3&q=1261#v=snippet&q=1261&f=false

From “The Leeds Mercury Weekly Supplement."

“Good cooks add zest e'en to our Christmas cheer;
Cooked well and dished both “meats” and “mates” appear!
Yet, let no dummies in your kitchen stand,
For then the cook’ng may be spoiled off-hand." -Page 157

June Reprint Publication Of The Solution: https://books.google.com/books?id=RisCAAAAYAAJ&dq=dummy+pawn+mate+in+3&q=1261#v=snippet&q=1261&f=false
comment

comment

Korrektur zu P1216212, erschienen am 16.09.1900.
s. weitere Korrekturvorschläge P1372391 und P1375040
A.Buchanan: Wow that's so much better. I still think that bPb7 is better as wPb8. I'll withdraw my correction and replace it with a version of this (2020-04-29)
SCHRECKE: C+, popeye 4.83, bedingung UWnur D T L S DU (2020-04-28, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: C+ by Popeye 4.61 (the mate dual in the threat 2.De7+ never materializes) (2020-04-29)
comment

Henrik Juel: Slightly damaged by mate duals in the threat variations
tiny typo: threatens in german is spelled droht,
but your german notation is perfect, James (2020-04-29)
James Malcom: Thanks, I have improved over time. And I will keep the spelling of “droht” in mind. Fun fact: My learning of German notation was unwittingly documented on the net: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/24080/help-i-cannot-understand-this-game-s-notations (2020-04-30)
comment

Henrik Juel: The minimal number of black pawn moves is 17, e.g.
a7-a5xb4xc3xd2, b7xc6xd5, c7xd6, e7-e5xd4, f7-f5xe4xd3, g7-g5-g4xf3xe2xd1,
so maybe a proof game in 17.0 is possible (2020-07-05)
A.Buchanan: It should be possible to get non-unique proof game in 17.0. One trick is that e.g. c7-c5xd4 and b7xc6xd5 saves a move. Also should be possible to castle wK out of danger so don't need an extra Wh move for that. Bl obviously needs a minimum of 1+2+3+4+5+6 - 4 = 17 moves, but curiously Wh seems to need exactly the same minimum. Therefore Bl will be the one building the pawn stack not Wh. However, making it unique can be quite tough. There is a unique PG by Nicolas Dupont in PDB which stacks 6 Wh pawns on the e-file. It might be possible to constrain the search space by having it as "orthodox joke" in e.g. 16.75, so the last move is e.g. 17. ... fxe1, but not completed this move by trading in the pawn for whatever piece it might be. (2020-07-06)
A.Buchanan: On keyword usage: I think under-promotions only happen in direct mates & studies. If we want to track the promotions, Dummy Pawn is a fundamental promotion type like (C-F), non-standard material, prenix & phoenix. In the long run, we should fully populate the keyword Promotion which lists all the promotions in order, but that should be populated automatically (2020-07-06)
A.Buchanan: The Dupont 6-pawn stack is in P1004108. Note that it takes 20.5 moves, substantially more than the 13 Wh pawn moves required to reach the final position. (2020-07-06)
James Malcom: A game of 16.5 moves is claimed in the Synthetic Proof Games booklet, but no game is given, on page 10.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.mayhematics.com/p/syntheticgames.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiQksHz2LnqAhUTG80KHfedB1kQFjABegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0uQQXduxnU1i61K_e0ryCW (2020-07-07)
Henrik Juel: 17.0 is actually quite easy, with three white moves to spare, e.g.
1.Sf3 g5 2.Sd4 g4 3.f3 gxf3 4.Sc3 fxe2 5.Sd5 exd1 6.b4 a5 7.La3 axb4 8.c3 bxc3 9.Ld6 cxd6 10.0-0 cxd2 11.Tf6 b5 12.Te6 fxe6 13.Tc1 exd5 14.Tc4 bxc4 15.Kf2 cxd3 16.Kg3 e5 17.Kh3 exd4
So 16.5 should also be easy by reversing the colors and building seven white pawns on the d-file, with a couple of black moves to spare (2020-07-07)
James Malcom: How ca White castle of Lf1 has not moved? (2020-07-07)
Henrik Juel: or, How can Black capture 15... cxd3 if d3 is empty?
Answer: I forgot to play Lf1-d3, so you must add this and permute some of the other moves, e.g.
1.Sf3 g5 2.Sd4 g4 3.f3 gxf3 4.Sc3 fxe2 5.Sd5 exd1 6.Ld3 a5 7.b4 axb5 8.c3 bxc3 9.0-0 cxd2 10.La3 b5 11.Ld6 cxd6 12.Tc1 e5 13.Tc4 bxc4 14.Tf6 cxd3 15.Te6+ fxe6 16.Kf2 exd5 17.Kg3 exd5
So there are only two white moves to spare
Still, you can probably write down a 16.5 move game with a white pawn stack, James (2020-07-07)
Henrik Juel: tiny typo: one of the last two black moves should be exd4, of course (2020-07-07)
James Malcom: Thanks Henrik. I added in the reverse as P1377635, if you don't mind. (2020-07-07)
comment

SCHRECKE: C+, popeye 4.83, bedingung UWnur D T L S DU (2020-05-01, hidden) more ...
comment

James Malcom: I have made an amazing find through my extensive online searches for dummy pawn problems. This is a dummy pawn problem, with a Black defensive promotion in direcmate, that came four years before across the Atlantic the famous 1851 Kling drawing problem (P1372387)! We all thought that it took time after the Kling one for more sophisticated things in all genres, but no, thing were already in directmate territory in 1847!

Also, although the #6 line in b) is not not mentioned at all in the book, the fact that there is a unique mate in 4 after the Black dummy promotion is surely no accident! (2020-05-02)
A.Buchanan: Congratulations, James! If it's not a joke, it's not a joke promotion, however. (2020-05-02)
James Malcom: Thanks! And yes, I overlooked that. (2020-05-02)
comment

Henrik Juel: This is not really an underpromotion, but a non-promotion (2020-05-15)
A.Buchanan: Yes Henrik. PDB animation requires promotion notation =B, but the keyword is allusive here. I am not a fan of under-promotion keyword apart from studies & direct mates. And it's arguable whether an S promotion is ever an under-promotion. But life is too short to figure out a better way to represent it here. (2020-05-16)
comment

Henrik Juel: The solution is almost given away by the keywords
1.f4 a5 2.f5 a4 3.f6 a3 4.fxe7 axb2 5.exf8! bxa1=L 6.Lb2 Ke7 7.Lf6+ Ke6 8.Sc3 Dxf8
Even though Black captures the white man on f8, promotion to DTLS will not work
First Schnoebelen with dummy pawn as the captured man, I would think
Very good, Andrew (2020-05-08)
Henrik Juel: Another first:
Never before was a problem commented in the PDB before it was published... (2020-05-08)
James Malcom: When Andrew messaged me this asking about a PG with two dummies, I came back almost right away with the same idea, albeit in a flawed form-1. a4 f5 2. a5 f4 3. a6 f3 4. axb7 fxe2 5. bxa8=Q exd1 6. Ke2 e6 7. Ke3 Qg5+ 8. Kd4 Qxg2 9. Qf3 Qxh1 10. Qxd1. Great minds think alike after all! The best way. I think, to have two dummies is to have one per side and have both kings make the same journey. An idea to make it all unique is the problem though. (2020-05-08)
A.Buchanan: Haha Henrik thank you. Well I'm in lockdown in Singapore, and it was 9-May already when I posted in Matplus. (2020-05-09)
A.Buchanan: Can claim that this is not Schnoebelen because the pawn wasn't promoted! Just remained as a pawn! But I'm sure the Schnoebelen theme was interpreted in a looser sense in 1860s. Although exponents in that era would have been baffled as to *why* the theme was termed "Schnoebelen", as Philippe was not yet born. (2020-05-09)
Henrik Juel: I am sorry to learn about the Singapore lockdown, but here the merriment has no bounds (apart from the notational dilemma: exf8 is not a promotion and still the PDB animation requires exf8=B) (2020-05-09)
Olaf Jenkner: If you consider each pawn move onto the 8th rank as a promotion then we have the Schnoebelen. (2020-05-09)
A.Buchanan: This is not "non-standard material", removing that keyword. (2022-01-26)
James Malcom: When Andrew messaged me this asking about a PG with two. dummies, I came back almost right away with the same idea, albeit i. a flawed form-1. a4 f5 2. a5 f4 3. a6 f3 4. axb7 fxe2 5. bxa8=Q exd1=P 6. Ke2 e6 7. Ke3 Qg5+ 8. Kd4 Qxg2 9. Qf3 Qxh1 10. Qxd1. Great minds think alike after all! (2020-05-08, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: Finally a problem I can solve
1.a5 .. 5.a1 (2020-05-13)
comment

Henrik Juel: 1.h8 L~,S~,Kf2=
1... Ke1,Ke2 2.Kxg2 any 3.Kxg3=
1.h8=D? Lf3 2.Dh3 Kf2 and Black wins (I think)
My first study solved (although the try is somewhat iffy) (2020-05-13)
A.Buchanan: Hi Henrik: yes I too know very little about studies. You are right to be suspicious of the try: 2. Lf3? fails (2020-05-13)
Mario Richter: 1. h8=D? Lf3? 2. Da8! =
1. h8=D? Sf4! -* (2020-05-13)
Alfred Pfeiffer: 1. h8=D Sf4 2. Dh3+! Kf2 3. Dg2+!= (2020-05-13, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: 1.a8 and Black cannot prevent stalemating White
(unless he uses a barely known convention, 1... Txh7#) (2020-05-13)
comment

James Malcom: I've been searching for a search Super-AUW with only orthodox material, but to no sucess so far. This 5/6 is my best result so far. (2020-05-27)
Henrik Juel: Very good, James (2020-05-27)
A.Buchanan: This is already terrific James - I think this stands alone and you don’t need to diminish it by saying it’s 5/6. It’s 5/5 orthodox in 1862 - Sam Loyd would have bought you a cigar (2020-05-27, hidden)
A.Buchanan: This is already terrific James. I don’t think you need to diminish it. Is there a D/T/L/S/B one you have done to be orthodox 1862 and the toast of Simpson’s of the Strand? (2020-05-27, hidden)
SCHRECKE: Nebenlösung
1.a8D+ Kb5 2.b8T+ Ka4 3.g:h8K g4 4.Tg2 Kb3 5.g7 Ka4 6.g8L g3 7.L:a2 b1~# (2020-05-27, hidden)
James Malcom: That’s an easy fix. (2020-05-27, hidden) more ...
comment

James Malcom: Now you je a toast of Simpson’s of the Strand, Andrew. :-) (2020-05-27)
A.Buchanan: Hurray! Can't see any holes in it. Can this be tested with Gustav? I've had Popeye cooking on this overnight, but no response so far (2020-05-28)
Henrik Juel: I doubt that Gustav would allow non-promoting pawns (2020-05-28)
Henrik Juel: Popeye 4.79 with 'opt nichtt 0 1' (and 'bed uwn d t l s b') found no flaws (2020-05-28)
A.Buchanan: What is 'opt nichtt 0 1', please Henrik? (2020-05-29)
Henrik Juel: It is short for 'option nichttrivial 0 1', the most limiting option for (long) selfmates in Popeye, affording the fastest attempt to find a solution or a cook
It does not provide a real test, so if Popeye reports nothing, there may still be a solution
Here Popeye reports the intended solution only, but there may still be (complicated) cooks
The PDB has lots of selfmates, where this option 'finds no flaws', and later Gustav declares C+ (2020-05-30)
A.Buchanan: Thank you Henrik, very clear (2020-05-30)
comment

Henrik Juel: 1.f8 d1=any,Ke1,Ke2 and White is stalemated
1.f8=D? d1=D thr. 2... Dd5,Ke2# (2020-05-29)
comment

Henrik Juel: 1.g8 Sxg8 2.hxg8, and Black cannot prevent stalemating White (2020-05-29)
comment

AB comment in Matplus:

"A new example of this steampunk theme, orthodox in 1862. I love the mottos from 19th century problems. They seem so cheesy and unnecessary, and underscore the difference in sensibility between their time and ours. And yet the language of chess problems themselves remains at base relatively unchanged since then. Dummy pawns are absurd and paradoxical, yet as the ultimate under-promotion they are very cool for composition. They are as fiddly and footling as en passant captures, but those came to occupy a special place at the heart of the retro genre. There's an extra thrill that comes for me as I imagine Howard Staunton incandescent with rage at the whole thing. And of course the dummy pawn theme offer so much virgin design space across all problem genres.

"The motto here does not refer to Homer's breakfast. Simpson's-in-the-Strand was "the most important venue in Britain for chess in the 19th century" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's-in-the-Strand). The "carvery" eat-as-much-as-you-want style is still a staple of British cuisine. The chess went away, but came back in 1980. I lived in London for several years, and it's ridiculous that I never visited. Mentioned twice in Sherlock Holmes (perhaps deliberate product placement) it's now on my bucket list that one saner day I can lunch there - I hope with other problemists?"
Henrik Juel: Very good, James and Andrew
The testing program looks dubious: the version number suggests Jacobi, but something like Popeye 4.83 seems more likely (2020-05-30)
A.Buchanan: Thanks Henrik: yes it's hard to concentrate sometimes. Jacobi only does help stuff, so couldn't manage a selfmate. It was Popeye. (2020-05-30)
A.Buchanan: fixed test program (2020-05-30, hidden) more ...
comment

Henrik Juel: C+ by Popeye 4.79
'Non-promotion' doubled, very nice
Thank you for the dedication, James (2020-05-30)
comment

James Malcom: I'll input the solution and the relevant keywords here in awhile. Try to solve it beforehand! (2020-06-17)
Henrik Juel: Nice joke proof game with Schnoebelen and fake white castling
It would have been acceptable in 1862, except that proof games were only invented some 50 years later
I solved it by noting that there are two orthodox solutions in 10.0 moves, both with a 'wasted' move by the black king: Ke8-d7-c6/e6-d6
Interesting that it is testable by Jacobi (2020-06-17)
James Malcom: Good job solving Henrik. I couldn't figure out a real castling, so I did fake castling, which is just as good.

Jacobi can test such problems with the condition "promonly q r b s p," and it is treated like a normal PG with a little extra. (2020-06-18)
Henrik Juel: I think that a fake castling is better than a real one (2020-06-18)
A.Buchanan: I agree with Henrik. I like this proof game, as the two elements complement one another harmoniously, with no wasted moves (2020-06-18)
comment

Henrik Juel: The position in the source has Pd7 on e7, and the game given there is not unique (2020-07-04)
James Malcom: Fixed, and the solution guess there is incorrect-I've added it in now. (2020-07-05)
A.Buchanan: Does it work with bKe8 instead? Now showcases the swap of bR & bB. Genuine castling is not a feature - it’s sort of neutral in my humble opinion and here it’s non-thematic.
As a separate q, I don’t suppose one can shift bPf7 to d7? Worth checking because would be cool to undouble the bPs (2020-07-05)
A.Buchanan: Yes with bKe8, no with bPd7 (2020-07-05)
A.Buchanan: On keywords: I think excelsior doesn't apply to proof game, because every promotion would be excelsior. promotions can be identified as: non-standard material, Ceriani-Frolkin, prenix or phoenix. Then other features like Pronkin, Donati, Schnoebelen etc. "Interchange" is the term currently in the directory for "Platzwechsel" - please suggest a better term for when pieces swap place. "Umnov" is slightly different, and although strictly "Platzwechsel" implies "Umnov", I don't think it's very interesting when just 2 pieces are involved: it's intended mostly for longer chains. Just my thoughts (2020-07-06)
Henrik Juel: Nice to see that you had your breakfast before commenting today, Andrew...
I agree completely
There is no better word for place-swapping than Interchange, I think (2020-07-06)
A.Buchanan: In German there is e.g. Fonktionwechsel and Platzwechsel, connoting two kinds of Interchange. The English is missing this aspect. Role/Place maybe. And perhaps Exchange or Swap? (2020-07-06)
Henrik Juel: The english theme definitions in FIDE Album 2010-12 include:
Exchange of function: two pieces exchange their functions (i.e. the roles they play) between two variations or phases
Interchange of squares: two pieces reciprocally change their squares
In german, things are combined by creating combined words; also in danish: Funktionsveksel, Pladsveksel
In english, you add more words, apparently (2020-07-06)
comment

Henrik Juel: Thanks for including me as co-author, James (2020-07-07)
Henrik Juel: The shortest game leading to a column of seven black pawns lasts 17.0 moves
See the discussion at P1375225 (2020-07-07)
James Malcom: You're welcome, and it was your work that realized the idea. (2020-07-07)
comment

Henrik Juel: What is the joke, James?
Natch 3.1 found no solution (2020-08-26)
James Malcom: The solution has now been added in, Henrik.

This PG has two purposes.
1) It is another exploration of what themes be realized with the dummy pawn involves.
2) It is also to push the boundaries of how long a dummy pawn PG can be made. (2020-08-27)
Henrik Juel: Thanks, James
Apparently you also extended the proof game; the one I tested was in 10.5
The solution shows the Schnoebelen theme, by the way (2020-08-27)
Henrik Juel: You forgot to remove wPf2 from the diagram position (2020-08-27)
James Malcom: Removed, and yes I did manage to find a way to extend it by a ply, in theme for its purpose. The version is also C+. (2020-08-27)
A.Buchanan: I think sLb1 is kind of anti-Belfort Any way to replace it with a Phoenix/Prenix knight? (2020-08-27)
Henrik Juel: Strictly speaking, this is not Belfort, which requires two units to stand away
As Andrew suggests, if sLb1 were a black knight, we would have Belfort (2020-08-27)
A.Buchanan: It's limiting to just talk about Belfort Theme - one historical tourney which had a fiddly constraint about the number of pieces exhibiting the property. Want really to talk more generally about Belfort *Effect*, which is a property of a single unit (2022-01-26)
comment

Henrik Juel: groan (2020-08-30)
A.Buchanan: Hark, what’s that I hear? :-) (2020-08-31)
James Malcom: Hark, I hear the angels groan! Oh snark, I head their echos spawn!:-) (2020-08-31)
A.Buchanan: Jacobi does not yet support dummy pawns, alas (2021-05-11)
Henrik Juel: Andrew, in an earlier version of your Author's solution you said:
'I can almost hear the groans :-)'
My previous comment was meant as a humorous one, indicating that at least one user has read your text; but now that you have changed the solution text, the comment appears to be unkind or even insulting
You are welcome to hide my two comments (2020-08-30, hidden) more ...
comment

comment

Das tapfere Bäuerlein
In Reih und Glied stand das Bäuerlein und wartete ungeduldig auf den Beginn der Schlacht. Endlich gings los. Kampfesmutig schoß es vor, e2-e4; es war ja ein stolzer Königsbauer. Bald war es im Zentrum des Gefechts und hielt den schwersten Angriffen stand. Rechts und links fielen seine Brüder, sogar Offiziere fanden den Heldentod, aber unerschütterlich drang das Bäuerlein vorwärts, e4-e5 hurrah!
Diesem kühnen Vorstoß war es hauptsächlich zu verdanken, daß die feindliche Armee geschlagen wurde. Der schwarze König hatte sich mit dem Rest seiner Getreuen in die äußerste Ecke des Schlachtfeldes zurückgezogen, seine Lage war trostlos [Diagramm].
In ihrer Verzweiflung warf sich die edle schwarze Dame den heranstürmenden weißen Truppen entgegen, um vielleicht noch durch ein Pattmanöver die ihrigen zu retten.
Das tapfere Bäuerlein war inzwischen bis auf die 7. Reihe vorgedrungen. Nun stand es vor der größten Aufgabe seines Lebens. Es sollte die feindliche Dame, die mächtige schwarze Königin gefangen nehmen. Dies wäre aber auch sein letzter Triumph gewesen, denn auf der 8. Reihe würde ihm sein Feldherr sicher den Abschied geben und für einen Offizier eintauschen. Die weißen Offiziere atmeten auf, der gemeine Bauer, der sich durch seine mutigen Taten der besonderen Gunst des Feldherrn erfreute, war ihnen schon lange ein Dorn im Auge.
Der Feldherr, der große Schachmeister, überlegte diesmal sehr lange.
Spielte er 1. exf=D so patt
oder 1. exf=T so patt
oder 1. exf=L so Sxf6+ 2. Sxf6 patt
oder 1. exf=S so Sxf6+ 2. Sxf6 Kxg7 3. L-e5 patt
Also kein Offizier konnte ihm jetzt zweckmäßig dienen, so entschloß er sich denn, den braven Bauer noch auf der 8. Reihe beizubehalten und, siehe da, er erreichte dadurch auf schnellste Weise den Sieg:
1. exf=B!! Sxf6
2. Sxf6 Kxg7
3. L-e5 K-g6
4. D-g3 matt
So war das tapfere Bäuerlein das einzige in der Geschichte des Schachspiels, das noch auf der letzten Reihe mit vollem Recht seine Wesensart beibehielt. Ehre seinem Angedenken!
James Malcom: Thank you for this marvelous find, Mario! This is another ingenious directmate in this field!. The stalemating ideas are very unique and pleasing. (2020-09-26)
SCHRECKE: C+, popeye 4.85, bedingung UWnur D T L S B (2020-09-26, hidden) more ...
comment

James Malcom: The point of this PG was to make a true Belfort, after the lone bishop in P1379376 was pointed out to not be a true Belfort. (2020-10-28)
A.Buchanan: Belfort is not in the Encyclopedia! (2020-10-30)
Henrik Juel: For some reason, the diagram is completely wrong
The animation works fine, though (2020-10-28, hidden)
James Malcom: Thanks for fixing the diagram, Mario. (2020-10-28, hidden)
A.Buchanan: A lone bishop can be a Belfort piece. A random tourney at Belfort a long time ago sloppily said that one needed two Belfort units with no other constraints (e.g. avoiding pieces on the wrong piece squares, which is utterly essential for the theme). We can tidy up the definition properly and I think that one Belfort piece could be enough. Why stick with the chaos of the past? (2020-10-29, hidden)
A.Buchanan: I think the notion of a Belfort piece is the foundation idea. Then the question of whether a composition is a Belfort is derived from that, and should include other criteria as well. The original tourney succeeded in launching this idea, but we are surely allowed to clean up the position definition. I will check in the Encyclopedia (2020-10-30, hidden) more ...
comment

James Malcom: I've added in the solution now. (2020-11-11)
comment

A.Buchanan: If one allows promotion to sB (and there seems no reason to disallow it since promotion to pawn, king and foreign units are allowed) then the problem is cooked. There is no universally agreed notion of how a pawn can move if it starts on the first rank. Does it get a double hop, and if so on which rank? But the problem is unsound in any case. (2022-02-10)
James Malcom: That is if, yes. But I don't think this problem ought to be left as is: a demonstration of the levels of absurdity and tomfoolery old rules used to allow. Promotion to a piece of another color and dummies were loopholes, yes, but promotion to a black pawn was never included, not even implicitly. All pawns are pieces, but not all pieces are pawns. (2022-02-10)
A.Buchanan: Can't White play 3. a8=DTLSB - basically any White unit? (2022-02-09, hidden)
James Malcom: No, as bNa8 is needed to guard c7. (2022-02-09, hidden) more ...
comment

comment

Henrik Juel: C+ Popeye 4.79 (2021-01-04, hidden) more ...
comment

comment

Henrik Juel: What is the (-: trick, James? (2021-08-30)
James Malcom: Nothing special; merely the usual. (2021-08-30)
Henrik Juel: Ah, the old dummy pawn...
Why not spell it out in the stipulation? Not everybody knows 'the usual', and I had forgotten all about it (2021-08-30)
James Malcom: Done! (2021-08-31)
comment

Henrik Juel: Definition of the Royal Dynasty condition from Schwalbe
Königsdynastie: Im Diagramm kann jede Partei keinen, einen oder mehrere Könige haben. Ein König ist genau dann königlich, wenn er der einzige König seiner Partei ist. Eine Bauernumwandlung in einen König (derselben Partei) ist erlaubt. Ein König darf nur dann rochieren, wenn er königlich ist und nicht gezogen hat, seit er zuletzt königlich wurde. Die anderen für die Rochade vorgeschriebenen Bedingungen bestehen weiter.
In this problem 10.h8=K makes both white kings non-royal, so 11.f4 is not an illegal self-check
The black king is royal throughout, so 5.exf8=KDTLS? would have given a disturbing check to him, leaving just 5.e8=B
It is nice that both conditions are invisible in the diagram, but they should be mentioned in the stipulation, I think (2021-08-30)
Henrik Juel: Euclide 1.01 reports no solutions in orthodox chess (2021-08-30)
Henrik Juel: in my first comment you should read 5.exf8=B, of course, not 5.e8=B (2021-08-30)
James Malcom: I forget to add the C+, and thank you for your comments. (2021-08-31)
Henrik Juel: Jacobi 0.7.5 in Heuristic Mode found the solution in 35 seconds
A full test required 917 seconds (2021-08-31)
Henrik Juel: Here is a way to use Jacobi:
1. Open the homepage https://wismuth.com/jacobi/latest/solver.html
2. Copy the following two lines to the rectangle for Text representation:
stipulation dia11.0 forsyth 1sb2r1q/1pppspp1/4k3/8/5Pr1/p7/PPP1P2P/RSBQKBSR
condition RoyalDynasty PromOnly P S B R Q K
3. Click on 'Set problem from text'
4. Click on Start (with Heuristic Mode marked, if you just want to find the solution)
5. When Jacobi ends, click on the solution to view it in the Game editor
. (2021-08-31)
James Malcom: For those who advocate N for knight, use "EnglishN" to avoid changing the FEN each time. (2021-08-31)
Henrik Juel: That sounds good, James
Exactly how do you do that? Where do you write EnglishN?
There is an output option called English-N, is that it?
Is there a similar trick to use in Popeye? (2021-08-31)
Henrik Juel: This works in Jacobi, but note the s in promonly
englishn
stipulation dia11.0 forsyth 1nb2r1q/1pppnpp1/4k3/8/5Pr1/p7/PPP1P2P/RNBQKBNR
cond RoyalDynasty PromOnly P s B R Q K
And what about Popeye? (2021-08-31)
James Malcom: Popeye is S only as far as I know. (2021-08-31)
comment

Henrik Juel: double threat 2.Dd5,Df7 and several duals (2021-11-07)
A.Buchanan: Interesting to note this early recognition of the siren lure of dropping a dummy pawn as a static blocker! (2021-11-08)
A.Buchanan: Can anyone using a keyword which is undefined please supply a candidate definition, which we can review and enter into the glossary. (2021-11-08, hidden) more ...
comment

SCHRECKE: Die Idee ist als Miniatur darstellbar!
W: Kh4,Ta1,Ld1,Sg1 (4) - S: Kh2,Be2,Bf2 (3)
Lösung: 1.e1B Lf3 2.f:g1B Ta2# (2022-01-25)
SCHRECKE: C+, popeye 4.87, bedingung UWnur D T L S B (2022-01-25, hidden)
A.Buchanan: 8/8/8/8/7K/2R4P/4p1pk/3B4 (4+3)
C+ Popeye v4.87 1. e1=B Lf3 2. g1=B Tc2# (2022-01-26, hidden)
A.Buchanan: b7/8/4p3/6p1/1R4Kp/2P4P/3ppp1k/r1BB4 h#3 (5+9)
C+ Popeye v4.87 1. e1=B Lf3 2. d1=B Le3 3. f1=B Tb2#
No doubt can be done a bit more economically: have at it! (2022-01-26, hidden)
A.Buchanan: b7/8/1R2p2b/8/6Kp/7P/3ppp1k/r1BB4 h#3 (5+9)
C+ Popeye v4.87 1. e1=B Lf3 2. d1=B Le3 3. f1=B Tb2#
No doubt can be done a bit more economically: have at it! (2022-01-26, hidden)
A.Buchanan: b7/8/1R2q1n1/5n2/6K1/8/3ppp1k/r1BB4 (4+9)
C+ Popeye v4.87 1. e1=B Lf3 2. d1=B Le3 3. f1=B Tb2#
No doubt can be done a bit more economically: have at it! (2022-01-26, hidden)
A.Buchanan: b7/8/1R2q1n1/5n2/6K1/8/3ppp1k/r1BB4 (4+8)
C+ Popeye v4.87 1. e1=B Lf3 2. d1=B Le3 3. f1=B Tb2#
No doubt can be done a bit more economically: have at it! (2022-01-26, hidden)
A.Buchanan: b7/8/1R1brp2/8/7K/8/3ppp1k/r1BB4 (4+9)
C+ Popeye v4.87 1. e1=B Lf3 2. d1=B Le3 3. f1=B Tb2#
Can it be done more economically? Have at it! (2022-01-26, hidden)
A.Buchanan: 8/8/1Rbbq3/8/7K/8/3ppp1k/r1BB4 (4+8) h#3
C+ Popeye v4.87 1. e1=B Lf3 2. d1=B Le3 3. f1=B Tb2#
Meredith (2022-01-26, hidden)
A.Buchanan: Black moves open 6 lines, while if I replace sLd6 with sTf6, White moves close 3 lines. That lavish substitution seems worthwhile, yes? (2022-01-26, hidden)
A.Buchanan: 8/8/8/8/4R2K/6P1/4p1pk/7B h#2 (4+3)
C+ Popeye v4.87 1. g1=B Lf3 2. e1=B Tc2#
with tempo as the sole motivation for the 2nd promotion! (2022-01-26, hidden) more ...
comment

AB: economy record for 3 Dummy Pawns in h#. Meredith. Black moves open 6 lines, White moves close 3 lines.
Henrik Juel: 1.e1=B Lf3 2.d1=B Le3 3.f1=B Tb2#
C+ Popeye 4.79 (2022-01-26, hidden) more ...
comment

AB: economy record for 2 Dummy Pawns in h#. Miniature. Aimless promotion.
Henrik Juel: wPg3 prevents cooks like 1.Kg1 Kg3 2.e1=DTLSB Txe1# (2022-01-27)
Henrik Juel: C+ Popeye 4.79 (2022-01-27, hidden)
Henrik Juel: 1.g1=B Lf3 2.e1=B Te2# (2022-01-27, hidden) more ...
comment

Supersedes the dualized and inexact P1373527
White waits for Black to move before selecting the promoted unit.
Under this joke, a dummy pawn exists ephemerally, but not via the Dummy Pawn rule.
Position comfortably legal.
Henrik Juel: Andrew, how does one decode the rot13 hint? (2022-02-10)
Henrik Juel: Never mind, Andrew; write the english alphabet in two rows and code/decode between rows
abcdefghijklm
nopqrstuvwxyz
so the gobbledygook translates to
delay choice of promoted unit (2022-02-10)
Henrik Juel: ... the rows should be written with a fixed font, of course, but I do not know how to accomplish this in a PDB comment (2022-02-10)
A.Buchanan: Hi Henrik: got to rot13.com and put the text in the input box, read it from the output box. Because 13=26/2, this works for both encryption and decryption.
Trying to do this for new jokes to create a level playing field. If you want a hint as to the silly trick, but would still enjoy solving the chess afterwards, then check out the rot13. (2022-02-10)
A.Buchanan: The real challenge is getting animation to work properly in this site. (2022-02-10)
Henrik Juel: The intended solution is probably
1.b8! g2 2.b8=S-d7 g3 3.Sf6#
1... h2 2.b8=D-f8 Th3 3.Dxh6# (2022-02-10, hidden)
A.Buchanan: Hi Henrik: got to ro13.com and put the text in the input box, read it from the output box. Because 13=26/2, this works for both encryption and decryption.
Trying to do this for new jokes to create a level playing field. If you want a hint as to the silly trick, but would still enjoy solving the chess afterwards, then check out the rot13. (2022-02-10, hidden) more ...
comment

James Malcom: I had a thought looking at this again. Does n7/1P2P3/Q3P3/1r6/N1k1KP2/Pr6/B2p1p2/n7 work to save another piece? (2022-04-02)
A.Buchanan: James, yes your version does save another unit for your lovely idea. Beyond this, a version n7/1P2P3/Q7/Br6/2kPKP2/1r6/B2p1p2/n7 saves another unit, and forces a unique order on the Black promotions too. To avoid distracting unachievable threats, set NoThreat as well as the usual NoShortVariations. Your composition has driven me finally to report a long-standing Olive bug that cruelly punishes we Dummy Pawn enthusiasts: https://github.com/dturevski/olive-gui/issues/54. (2022-04-03)
James Malcom: Thanks for the verification and shaving off a unit, Andrew. (2022-04-03)
Henrik Juel: C+ Popeye 4.87 (2022-04-02, hidden) more ...
comment

Note OP011 which follows this problem in The Hopper Magazine is a Chinese Chess problem on the regular 10x9 Chinese Chess Board, so cannot appear in PDB.
comment

comment

Henrik Juel: cooked 1.Sc2+,Dxg3,Dh7 (2023-01-14, hidden) more ...
comment

Objective: record achievement of task. Promotion can be to either minor officer, but prefer to keep the "stem cell" to avoid arbitrary choice of non-standard material.
Henrik Juel: with wSd8 C+ Stelvio 1.0 (2023-03-19, hidden)
Henrik Juel: with wSd8
1.Pe2-e4 Sg8-f6 2.Ke1-e2 Sf6-d5 3.Pe4xd5 Pg7-g5 4.Pd5-d6 Bf8-h6 5.Pd6xc7 O-O 6.Pc7xb8=S Qd8-a5 7.Ke2-e3 Pg5-g4+ 8.Pf2-f4 Pg4xf3ep+ (2023-03-19, hidden) more ...
comment

Objective: record achievement of task. Promotion can be to any officer, but prefer to keep the "stem cell" to avoid arbitrary choice of non-standard material.
Henrik Juel: with wSb8 C+ Stelvio 1.0 (2023-03-19, hidden)
Henrik Juel: with wSb8
1.Pe2-e4 Sg8-f6 2.Ke1-e2 Sf6-d5 3.Pe4xd5 Pg7-g5 4.Pd5-d6 Bf8-h6
5.Pd6xc7 O-O 6.Pc7xb8=S Qd8-a5 7.Ke2-e3 Pg5-g4+ 8.Pf2-f4 Pg4xf3ep+ (2023-03-19, hidden) more ...
comment

Objective: record achievement of task. Promotion can be to any officer, but prefer to keep the "stem cell" to avoid arbitrary choice of non-standard material.
Henrik Juel: with wSc8 C+ Stelvio 1.0 (2023-03-19, hidden)
Henrik Juel: with wSc8
1.Pd2-d4 Sg8-f6 2.Ke1-d2 Sf6-e4+ 3.Kd2-e3 Se4-c5 4.Pd4xc5 Pg7-g5 5.Pc5-c6 Bf8-h6 6.Pc6xb7 O-O 7.Pb7xc8=S Pg5-g4+ 8.Pf2-f4 Pg4xf3ep+ (2023-03-19, hidden) more ...
comment

Objective: record achievement of task. Promotion can be to either minor officer, but prefer to keep the "stem cell" to avoid arbitrary choice of non-standard material.
Henrik Juel: with wSd8 C+ Stelvio 1.0 (2023-03-19, hidden)
Henrik Juel: with wSd8
1.Pd2-d4 Sb8-c6 2.Ke1-d2 Sc6-e5 3.Pd4xe5 Sg8-f6 4.Pe5xf6 Pg7-g5 5.Pf6xe7 Bf8-h6 6.Pe7xd8=S O-O 7.Kd2-e3 Pg5-g4+ 8.Pf2-f4 Pg4xf3ep+ (2023-03-19, hidden) more ...
comment

Objective: record achievement of task. Promotion can be to either minor officer, but prefer to keep the "stem cell" to avoid arbitrary choice of non-standard material.
Henrik Juel: with wSd8 C+ Stelvio 1.0 (2023-03-19, hidden)
Henrik Juel: with wSd8
1.Pf2-f4 Pe7-e6 2.Pf4-f5 Bf8-c5 3.Pf5-f6 Sg8-e7 4.Pf6xe7 Bc5-b6 5.Pe7xd8=S Pc7-c5 6.Ke1-f2 O-O 7.Kf2-e3 Pc5-c4+ 8.Pd2-d4 Pc4xd3ep+ (2023-03-19, hidden) more ...
comment

Objective: record achievement of task. Promotion can be to either minor officer, but prefer to keep the "stem cell" to avoid arbitrary choice of non-standard material.
Henrik Juel: With wSf8, C+ Stelvio 1.0 (2023-03-19, hidden)
Henrik Juel: With wSf8
1.Pf2-f4 Pd7-d5 2.Pf4-f5 Bc8-d7 3.Pf5-f6 Bd7-c6 4.Pf6xe7 Sb8-d7 5.Pe7xf8=S Qd8-g5 6.Ke1-f2 O-O-O 7.Kf2-f3 Pd5-d4+ 8.Pe2-e4 Pd4xe3ep+ (2023-03-19, hidden) more ...
comment

comment

comment

comment

SCHRECKE: Here is a s#7 with 4 dummy pawns: QnRn1B1K/P1P1P1P1/k1N5/3p2p1/2PPB1P1/8/4p1pR/4Nbrr
1. axb8=B+! Kb6 2. Da7+ Kxc6 3. cxd8=B+ Kd6 4. e8=B+ Ke6 5. Lxd5+ Kf6 6. Le7+ Kg6 7. g8=B Txh2#
Who makes it better? (2023-06-07)
James Malcom: Wonderfully done. I had an illegal scheme for four I never realized, but now it is done: 1RrRq1BK/pP1P1PP1/Pk2N1N1/p3p1p1/p2PP1P1/3Q3p/6pr/6Bb

I see no improvements to yours, yet. (2023-06-07)
comment