Dr Ian Shanahan

57 Yates Avenue
Dundas Valley NSW 2117
AUSTRALIA
e-mail: ian_shanahan@hotmail.com
Sydney, 26 December 2005.
Mr Ren Millour
millour@free.fr

Dear Ren {Aha! Within Microsoft Word, now I can get the acutes and graves etc. right!},
Thanks very much for your recent e-mail. I do hope that you and your family had an excellent
Christmas, and that 2006 will be favourable and productive for you. Happy New Year!
Firstly, to your marvellous latest prizewinner the Ser.H3 AntiCirce, showing the Babson Task. It is indeed
very beautiful; a truly masterful composition. I havent yet looked at the full award from Lorincs website, and Im
very curious to see what beat it into 2nd Prize! Did the judge find fault with the J/I phase, because its motivation
is different (guarding of e8 instead blocking a flight-square)? Please understand that I dont imply any criticism
here myself, Ren: clearly, total homogeneity in this respect across all 4 phases is impossible with this matrix; but
otherwise the logic and construction is impeccable and, as you say, pure. It ought to make it into the appropriate
FIDE Album! Have you sent this problem to our mutual friend Mark Ridley (who, as you well know, collects
Babson Task examples)? If not, then Ill post a printout of your attached file to him the next time I snail-mail him.
Furthermore, do you object if I also show your prizewinner to some other Australian problemists?
Anyway, moving on now to Monochrome matters... With the various points concerning R365F weve been
debating: I unconditionally capitulate! (Attached is a file of the corrected version of R365F.)
Firstly, on the origins of that Neutral Pawn g4. You are quite right that, as I stated things, its genesis is indeed
ambiguous. What I actually meant to say (but which alas I remained tacit on) was that, assuming all Black and
White units present as well as those necessary for the proof-game derived from the game-array, then and only
then! can it be asserted that the nPg4 must have been placed on the board sometime prior to the diagram position.
(But do feel free to shoot me down in flames if you find this reasoning faulty, Ren!)
And yes, in my argument I did fail to distinguish between the quite distinct solving protocols applicable to: (i) a
retro problem where a piece is randomly added ex nihilo, as opposed to (ii) twins where the solver may not add
anything that wasnt already stipulated by the composers construction. Again, youre absolutely correct. Lets
hope that, finally, R365Fv is now flawless with the Black Pocket nPg4. I do think it is. Meanwhile, my co-author
Mark Ridley informs me that according to Cedric Lytton, many solvers have really appreciated this problem (if it
were unsound, then the strongest solvers would most likely have cooked it!), but that it has also caused something
of a furore in German circles concerning the legality of 3...00!, on account of the nRh1s guard of f1 which
leads me to a question that you, Ren, of all people (being King Monochrome I), are by far the best qualified to
answer:
Imagine this position: Ke1, Gh1 and Fh3; the K and G have never moved. In Monochrome Chess, White
immediately plays 00. Is this move legal or not?
Of course, I have my own viewpoint on this question namely, that 00 is legal. However, a prima facie reading
of 3.8a.ii(2)a of the FIDE Laws of Chess i.e. Castling is prevented temporarily if the square on which the king
stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the
opponents pieces [emphasis added] would suggest otherwise. But here we encounter what is really a complex
philosophical conundrum:
{Q} How do the FIDE Laws of [Orthodox] Chess interface with Fairy Chess, particularly but not
exclusively regarding Pawn-moves (the initial double-jump, e.p.-capture, promotion) and Castling, when
phenomena absolutely alien to Orthodox Chess [OC] manifest themselves?
For certain Fairy genres in such situations, conventions have already evolved, naturally e.g. in Circe, where
rebirth occurs (this being totally unheard-of in OC), a reborn Ga1 may be engaged in 000. Within such contexts,
it seems to me that the spirit of the FIDE Laws of Chess have been appraised, and then common sense applied so
that as much richness of play is to be permitted within the Fairy genre as possible. So, in the specific instance of
Monochrome, e.p.-capture is allowed (even though a Pawn can never move just a single square forward [without

~1~
capturing]!), and yet I am unaware of whether or not there is a convention in relation to Castling across an attacked
square; notwithstanding, my argument in favour of it is this: The spirit of 3.8a.ii(2)a is simply that Castling
through a passing check is forbidden. In OC, this does seem reasonable, since a Ke1 is perfectly able to access
the squares d1 or f1 (other conditions permitting, of course), and thus can be normally checked while sitting on
those squares. However, within Monochrome, these two squares are never accessible to the K, so that he cannot
ever be checked there, and the concept of passing check is thereby rendered utterly meaningless. Hence I would
say that the best convention would be to allow 00 in the position given above. A counterargument would be merely
to adhere to the letter of 3.8a.ii(2)a. (A brief footnote: Since in Monochrome, any riders can be blocked by units
playing upon the opposite-coloured squares, I would say that to be consistent although the K is obviously not a
rider for White, 00 should be illegal if f1 or g1 were occupied; this harmonizes perfectly well with 3.8a.ii(2)b.)
In R365Fv, I herewith propose a second reason for allowing 3...00! even if one were to disagree with my
argument above. Now although the nRh1 does indeed guard f1 initially, because 00 is a single move by the K (also
involving the nR, wherein the K moves first followed forthwith by the nR during the same move; see 3.8a.ii), the
nRh1s attack on f1 is really only virtual in 00, since it is removed automatically before the move is completed.
This circumstance is somewhat analogous to the following sort of thing within Circe: imagine Ka8, Fb8, Hh8;
White legally plays Kb8(Ff8); the K captures into a virtual check which however is occluded by the time this
move has been completed when the F is reborn on f8.
That basic philosophical conundrum {Q}, above, also impinges upon my Protean men problems; read the
recent e-mail from Stephen Emmerson (who was responding to my letter of 12.12.05), attached, but which I have
not yet answered. Incidentally Ren, I do hope you dont suspect that I invented Protean men! For according to
A. S. M. Dickins A Guide to Fairy Chess (do you have this book, by the way?), the Protean idea though
nowadays neglected was originated by Albert Kniest way back in 1948. Anyhow, below is its definition, again:
Protean Men: upon capturing, a unit (inc. K) takes on the powers of the unit captured, but without
changing colour; in the case of a captured P, its direction of movement is retained. Kings maintain their
royalty, transforming into royal pieces of other powers.
Here is the first question: (a) Is White 000 allowed with any White unit except a G! that, having captured a
H on a1, takes on its powers and so becomes a G? I claim that the best and most natural answer which would
merely be a convention, we mustnt forget has to be Yes. Not by analogy with cognate genres like, say,
Andernach Chess, but, rather, because such a convention is well supported by historical precedents dating back
over at least 30 years. And Yes also for the sake of artistry, because it leads to rich and exotic play!
Another question: (b) Why, in (a), should White 000 be forbidden whenever a G takes a H on a1? Well,
reading the above definition very carefully, we infer that one type of unit transforming into another (or not) is
entirely a consequence of it taking on the powers of a captured unit: i.e. power-adoption due to capture is the
primary Protean raison dtre, which may or may not lead to transformation into a new type of man. This isnt
mere word-play, for consider this scenario: Ae3,e7,f5,f7,g7 and Bd2,d7; Protean men. Now it can be demonstrated
via retroanalysis that Ae7,f7 and Bd7 move down the board, the rest up the board (nb. f8 is vacant, hence Ag7
marches upwards!). So, if this were part of a series-helpmate, Black could play
1.Bd5 2.Bd4 3.Be3 4.Be4 5.Bf5 6.Bf6 7.Bg7 8.Bg8C etc. In the sense that the Protean definition speaks of
transforming (nb. a King on capturing will always transform), none occurs in this sequence the B stays a B
throughout. However, after 3.Be3 it does take on new powers because it changes move-direction! (Note: shift
everything one square to the right, then the Pawn-configuration becomes illegal!) Returning to the circumstances
of question (b), GHa1 a null power-adoption no transformation of the G whatsoever this G has already
moved White 000 is illegal, in accordance with the FIDE Laws of Chess. There is a sole exception: if it could
be proven retroanalytically that Ha1 derived from the capture of (Ga1) and also that the latter never moved, then
White 000 ought to be legal! To the other situations: A/C/E/IHa1 a non-null power-adoption genuine
transformation of the A/C/E/I into a G this new G has not moved White 000 is legal, in conformity with
the FIDE Laws of Chess. OK! That will do for now!!!
As if all of this is not enough, I now attempt to melt down your amazing brain, Ren, by attaching a file about
one of my abstruse Fairy inventions Voodoo Chess! Lets hope you survive... Of course, I eagerly await your
reply.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Shanahan.

~2~