Hundreds
of different "Fairy" chess pieces have been used in chess
problems
over the last one hundred years. And so many variant forms of chess
have been designed in recent years that it is hard to think of an
appropriate name that
has not already
been
taken. We do not introduce any new
fairy pieces or chess
variants here. However we do propose that:
The
Cannon (Pao), Vao and Leo (Chinese line pieces) are fairy chess
pieces
that move
exactly
like the orthodox Rook,
Bishop and Queen respectively, but to capture
they must hop
over
one piece of either color. Instructional examples and composed problems
are presented below to demonstrate their tactical potential. We
have tried to make these problems entertaining in themselves.
Four criticisms of orthodox (European) chess are listed and we argue
that our second proposal above would meet these criticisms and
eventually develop an expanded game that has even more vitality and
sustainable
international interest than orthodox chess.
CONTENTS:
1. The Chinese Line Pieces:
Cannon, Vao, Leo.
2. Chinese Line Pieces in Problems
and
Endgame Studies.
3. Critique of Orthodox
Chess.
4. Free Placement Chess.
5. Contact, Links and
References.
DIAGRAMS:
INSTRUCTIONAL EXAMPLES: 1. The
Cannon, Vao, Leo and Mao 2.
Triple check
PROBLEMS AND ENDGAME STUDIES:
3. Mate
in three 4. Mate in three
5. White draws 6. White
wins 7. None
8. Helpmate in two 9.
Series mate in four (2) 10. Mate in three (3)
11. Mate in two 12. Mate in two (published) 13. Mate
in three
FREE PLACEMENT CHESS: A &
B. Burmese Pawn
Placements.
The Cannon moves like an orthodox rook along a rank or file, but to capture must hop over one piece of either color (the "frame") and continue on the line beyond until encountering an opposing piece. This piece is then removed from the board and the Cannon occupies its square.
The Vao moves and captures like the Cannon, except that it operates on diagonals.
The Leo combines the movement and capturing of the Cannon
and
Vao,
as the orthodox Queen combines the powers of the Rook and Bishop.
The Mao moves to and
captures on squares a Knight's move away, but accomplishes this in two
steps: (i) a one-step orthogonal move to an unoccupied square, and (ii)
a one-step move on an outward diagonal from that square. Its move is
not
sufficiently
distinct from that of the Knight to justify their both being present in
a game. Further, we feel the unblockable move of the orthodox Knight is
to be preferred over the Mao, since it distinguishes the Knight in a
useful and pleasing way from line pieces.
The
following
lists all possible moves and captures by the Chinese Pieces in Diagram
1.
White Cannon a1. Moves to a2 through a8. Captures on c1.
White Vao b1. Moves to a2, d3. Captures on h7. It can not move
to
c2 because this would put the white King in check.
Black Cannon c1. Moves to c2, c3, c4, d1. Captures on a1.
Black Mao e1. Moves to
c2+, d3+. Captures on f3.
Black Leo f1. Moves to e2, d3, c4+, b5, a6, f2, g1, g2, h3.
Captures on f7.
We have designed this example so that it is a simple problem as
well.
In a "helpmate" Black cooperates with White to produce a checkmate of
the
black King as soon as possible. So, from a game perspective, Black
makes
the worst possible moves. The convention is for Black to play first in
a helpmate. So for this
position,
can you "helpmate in one move"? This means Black makes a certain move
that
allows White to checkmate on the very next move.
The "Cannon" was introduced into Chinese Chess (Xiangqi) in the ninth century after artillery had been used in wars (Li, p. 222). The "Chariot" in Xiangqi moves and captures like an orthodox Rook, and the Cannon also moves like a Rook when "deployed," as by a chariot. But to capture (fire), the Cannon must employ a "frame" (a piece of either color), and the action then extends on the line beyond the frame. The Mao (Horse) was also present in early versions of Xiangqi.
Apparently neither the Vao (called an "Arrow" by Fergus Duniho) nor the Leo were ever used in a chess variant, Asian or otherwise, until recently. The Chinese pieces were introduced into Western "Fairy Chess" problems by T. R. Dawson around 1914 (Dickins). In problem literature a Cannon is usually referred to as a "Pao," which is Dawson's rendering of the Chinese word for Cannon, and he made up the words "Vao" and "Leo." We prefer "Cannon" since the terms "Pao, Vao, Leo, Mao" are singsong and easy to confuse, and "Pao" starts with a "P" as does "Pawn."
If new pieces are to be added to orthodox chess, the Chinese line
pieces
(Cannon, Vao, Leo) are a logical choice. In earlier experiments I
thought the
"Lion" was
preferable. This piece
both moves and captures as the Leo captures. The
Lion proved to be a terror in the opening but a tethered lamb in an
endgame.
By contrast the Leo is always a mobile piece, though much weaker that
an orthodox Queen. The "Grasshopper" moves and captures like the Lion
except
only to the one square immediately beyond the frame piece. Thus it is a
much weaker piece than even the Lion. It has been very popular in
problems,
usually appearing in considerable numbers. This may be due more to
fashion
than function, but in any case it is too immobile to add much interest
as a game piece. The "Nightrider" may make repeated Knight moves along
a single direction. It too has been very popular in problems, but
children
have enough trouble learning how a Knight moves to ask them to master
the Nightrider. Few other powerful fairy pieces seem suitable for use
in a
"near-orthodox"
game, perhaps with the exception of the "Aldarider" (moves like a Queen
except that it hops over every other square, occupied or not). Surely
the
Chinese line pieces are leading candidates to be added to orthodox
chess,
and to learn one is to learn all three. They do not capture as
they
move, but this is not a total breach of orthodoxy since the trait is
shared
by the Pawn. The
apocryphal text, Dodgson's
"Frogs
Manuscript"
Decoded, suggests Lewis Carroll planned to introduce Chinese line
pieces into
chess.
The Chinese line pieces (CVL = Cannon, Vao, Leo) have the following characteristics:
With both
a
Cannon and orthodox Pawns on the board the oddity of a triple check (on
three different lines) becomes possible. With an en passant capture the
Cannon can check on the rank of the capturing pawn. In Diagram 2
Black's
last move can be deduced ("retrograde analysis"). It could not have
been
with the King. The only possibility would be Kc6 - b6, but on c6 there
is a double check by the Pawn on b5 and Vao on h1 that White could not
have produced with one move. Likewise Black could not have played Pawn
c6 - c5 since there would have been an impossible double check by the
Bishop
on d4 and Cannon on d6. Thus the position must have arisen by White
checking
with the Bishop on d4 and Black replying c7 - c5. White can now play b5
x c6, en passant, which produces a triple check and mate. With free
placement
we will argue that double pawn moves (and hence en passant capture)
should
be abandoned.
A. LEGAL POSITIONS
(1) Initially, it is preferred that
each side have no more
than: 2
Rooks, 2 Knights, 2 Bishops, 1 Queen, 2 Cannons, 2 Vaos, 1
Leo and 8 Pawns. Each side must also have 1 King. The
Bishops and Vaos may be of any color. No fairy
pieces
other than Cannons, Vaos or Leos are present. An initial position in
which a piece had to result
from the promotion of a pawn may be legal, but should generally be
avoided.
(2) An initial position should be constructible by
alternate legal moves from a free placement of all units (13 pieces
plus Pawns) anywhere
on each player's half of
the board with no checks given during placement.
(3) Pawns may have
been placed on the first rank, and hence may initially appear on a
player's first rank in a composition. Pawns may have been placed
doubled,
tripled or quadrupled on the same file, and hence such a structure does
not imply that captures were made.
B. LEGAL MOVES
(1) Upon reaching
the last rank, a Pawn may promote to a Rook, Bishop, Knight, Queen,
Cannon, Vao or Leo. It may also "promote" to a Dummy Pawn, hence it is
legal
for Pawns to initially appear on the last rank in a composition. A
Dummy Pawn can
never move, capture or promote.
(2) If not on the
last
rank, a Pawn moves and captures like an orthodox Pawn. Thus a double
move by a Pawn on its second rank and en passant capture are
provisionally permitted.
But since in a free placement game there is no rationale for double
Pawn moves, double Pawn moves (and capture en passant) should
generally be avoided as essential features of a CVL problem. See
Option (2) below.
(3) Castling is never an option.
C. OPTIONS
(1) A 10x10 board may be used. Then it is presumed 10 Pawns were
placed by each side.
(2) Double Pawn moves, and hence en passant capture, are
disallowed.
We have used Alybadix,
a chess problem solving program designed by Ilkka Blom, to check all
the
direct mate, helpmate and series problems below. "Fairybadix" is
the component of Alybadix that accommodates fairy pieces (over 220) and
fairy conditions. The Windows interface for Alybadix (APwin, developed
by P. H. Wiereyn) was used to
produce
the diagrams. The endgame studies were not checked by computer - please
report any errors. Links to the
solution of each problem
appear next to the
diagrams. The diagram is repeated on its solution page. You may use any
of the text and
diagrams,
but please retain all credits.
Diagram 3 presents a "direct mate" problem: The moves alternate with
White playing first. White must find the move on his first turn
(the "key") that results in a checkmate in the stipulated number of
moves, regardless of the
defenses chosen by black. So for this problem White must checkmate on
his third move. An additional, unintended first move by White which
also solves the problem is called a "cook." With the availability of
problem solving computer programs, direct mate problems are rarely
unsound now.
SOLUTION
Another direct mate in three moves. This employs a distinctively
"Chinese" theme.
The usual specifications for an endgame study are for white to win
or
draw, but not in a fixed number of moves. Thus to win means
White
obtains a clear material advantage, perhaps checkmates in some lines,
or arrives at a position known in
the
literature to be a win. The specification to draw means that
there are
sufficient
exchanges that neither side can force a win, perhaps White or Black is
stalemated in some lines, or a position can be forced to recur. The use
of fairy pieces in
endgame studies is much less frequent than their use in direct mate
and helpmate problems.
SOLUTION
Diagram 6 illustrates the use of a Chinese piece, here the white Vao
on
c2, to modify an existing composition. The original study by
Holzhausen
and Sohege appears on the solution link.
SOLUTION
Many published problems with fairy pieces are "helpmates," in which
Black and White cooperate to achieve a mating move by White. It is
conventional for Black to move first, and for Black moves to be listed
first in transcribing a solution. Thus in Diagram 8, Black moves first,
the players alternate moving, and White's second move is a checkmate.
Since there is no variational play in a helpmate, it has become
conventional in two move helpmates for there to be two or more
thematically related solutions.
SOLUTION
In a "series mate" only white makes moves, without any checking, until
the
final move which must be a checkmate. Here Problem 1 is the diagram and
is straightforward. For Problem 2 replace the Cannon with a Rook.
The mating position in Problem 2 has probably been anticipated, and if
Chinese line pieces ever really do become incorporated into chess, this
"problem" will become as inappropriate as posing a standard smothered
mate in orthodox chess as a direct mate in four.
SOLUTION
Orthodox chess is vulnerable to criticism on the following points.
The rise of chess playing computer programs makes "memorization" a serious threat to orthodox chess as a game of wits. In the humiliating 1997 match victory of "Deep Blue" over then world champion Gary Kasparov, the huge opening repertoire of the computer was decisive (Chess Life, p. 45). Granted the best tactical chess players often excel at opening theory, and innovation in the opening demands a high order of creativity. But such praise can not apply to Deep Blue, which won the sixth and final game of the match by the automated retrieval of an opening variation. Does it speak well of chess that this capability is such an important factor in determining who wins?
Computers will Dominate.
A recent tabulation
lists 15 chess programs having a rating of over 2600. Shredder 7.04 was
highest at 2726. There are only about 100 players in the world with a
rating
of over 2600. So already the typical club player has virtually no
chance against many chess playing programs. One source
claims that the top 200 players in the world are holding their own
against
the robots in the last three years. Perhaps, but just another doubling
of chip speed could reverse that. Computer domination of competitive
chess
is already a fact. And think of the temptation to cheat in human
tournaments
by using a concealed computer.
There are too many draws at high levels of play.
Whatever game is being played, it is difficult to prevent the
combatants
from prematurely agreeing to a draw. But even without connivance, chess
at the highest levels is subject to excessive draws. In the 23 world
championship
matches from 1951 to 2000 the draws numbered 321 out of 492 games (link),
or 62 percent. In the 1986 match between Karpov and Kasparov 40 of the
48 games were drawn.
Certain rules are arbitrary.
It is reasonable to judge that one set of rules is more "simple" than
another if the first set can be described in fewer words. Another
criterion,
more important but more difficult to measure, would be how easy it is
to
learn a set of rules.
The most arbitrary and difficult to learn rules of orthodox chess describe (1) the initial placement of the pieces, (2) castling, (3) en passant capture. Of course an adult masters these rules after a few hours of study and playing. But they are not so easy for children, who if unsupervised may play for years and still place a Queen on the wrong color, or not know about en passant capture.
Orthodox chess, with its fixed initial position and castling rule,
is
unlikely to be independently invented, as by an extraterrestrial
civilization.
By contrast, the Asian game Weiqi (Go) has such simple rules that if
there
are five extraterrestrial civilizations as advanced as ours, I would
guess
at least one of them plays Weiqi. Further support for this conjecture
derives
from the Weiqi symbolism of flood control (Li, p.
140).
Perhaps the board could be other than 19 x 19, though even that feature
has its reasons.
Over the years there have been many suggestions to allow shuffling the positions of the major pieces in orthodox chess behind the line of Pawns on the second rank. One such proposal, involving randomization, was made by former world chess champion Bobby Fischer (Chess Life, p. 531). In this proposal castling is awkwardly maintained, as if it were an essential feature of chess. But if we allow all the pieces, including Pawns, to be placed freely within some "home territory" (such as the first three ranks), we at once make castling unnecessary since the King can be placed in a secured location on the side of the board. Free placement also removes the motivation for permitting a double first move by Pawns since they can start out on the third (or fourth) rank. Pawns might also be placed on the first rank for defensive purposes.
In recent years variants have been proposed that permit some freedom of placement. In "Free Programme Chess" the units are placed in turn anywhere in one's half of the board. The Kings are placed first. Pawns may be placed freely but can not be doubled or placed on the first rank. They retain the double move from the second rank. Bishops must be placed on opposite colors (Pritchard, p. 20). A master level tournament was held using these rules in Tbilisi, Georgia in 1995. Some free placement chess variants can be found on The Chess Variant Pages (for example, the variant called "Free Placement"). We suspect that the best game will result from free placement with restrictions. Just deciding what home territory should be is not easy. Murray (p. 454) claimed that early experiments "in which the pieces were rearranged so as to be more nearly in contact at the commencement of play," did not survive because with the advent of a much more powerful Queen and Bishop the forces were too close together. But if so, the forces can simply be moved apart one or more spaces, alternately employing straight pawn lines or an asymmetric Burmese arrangement (Diagrams A and B above).
If one still takes seriously the war analogy of chess, free
placement
is more realistic and better training than starting play in one fixed
arrangement
as in orthodox chess. Recent wars involve considerable positioning of
forces
and supplies long before hostilities commence. And once they do, battle
lines no longer conform to traditional arrangements of foot soldiers,
cavalry, elephants, artillery, commanders, etc. as in centuries past.
Free placement provides the opportunity to introduce new pieces in the palette of Western chess. We have proposed that the Chinese line pieces are the best choice. With an increased force it is reasonable to expand the playing field, thus the use of a 10 x10 board would probably make the best game if, say, two Cannons, two Vaos and a Leo were added to each player's orthodox pieces. Murray stated that "enlarged games of chess have rarely shown any vitality," because they were too taxing to be recreational (p. 454). But a larger board may decrease complications that arise in a cluttered position. And the 12 x 8 "Courier Game" was popular from 1200 to after 1650, about the duration of orthodox chess so far.
Free Placement ameliorates each of the four problems with orthodox chess listed above. With thousands of viable starting positions the possibility of defeating an opponent by using a previously analyzed opening is greatly lessened. The placement phase should also make matters much more difficult for computer programs. It is noteworthy that they have not been very successful in Go (Weiqi). This is probably because Go requires long range strategic planning with an immense number of variations. This is the situation in freely placing chess pieces prior to game moves. Ultimately the computers would excel in this strategic effort also, but to do so will require a different and more interesting programming method than the current "brute force" evaluation of all possible moves. And during play, the use of a 10x10 board and additional pieces will increase the number of possible moves. If the number on each turn were increased by just 50%, after 12 "plies" (six moves) the number of variations to test increases by over 100 times. That should slow the robots down. There should be fewer draws also. An agreement to draw can be prohibited during placement, and the greater freedom of arrangement and loss of familiar guideposts should engender aggressive schemes and blunders. Also the penetrating power of the Chinese line pieces should make blocked positions more difficult to maintain. For example, the sacrifice of a Vao for two Pawns should be a frequent consideration since the Vao is a less valuable piece than either a Knight or Bishop. Finally, free placement can eliminate the most arbitrary rules of orthodox chess: the initial position, castling, double pawn moves and en passant capture. Only then will the following simple descriptions apply to chess.
(1) The empty board is homogenous. Only the edge of the board, and for Pawns their direction of movement, effect the powers of a placed piece.The concept of "free placement" can be carried a step beyond alternate placement to form the starting position to a liberation of the players to start the game however they may agree to. This could include an agreement on whether to use an 8x8 or 10x10 board, and which, if any, Chinese line pieces to employ. Agreement on how to place the pieces could produce the following options.
(2) Only one piece moves at a time.
(3) A capturing piece always occupies the square of the piece captured.
(4) A game is non-historical. The possible moves and captures in a position are determined solely by the location of the pieces on the board and who has the move, regardless of the particular sequence of moves that produced the position.
Comments, corrections or suggestions are welcomed. Please contact me if you have any original compositions that may be suitable to include here, especially two move direct mates with inherently "Chinese" themes. Composed or actual games could also be of interest, as well as game-like compositions. Appropriate links would also be appreciated.
Email: Daniel W. VanArsdale
Index page of Daniel
VanArsdale.
If you are interested in the doings of real fairy queens I suggest
the
following links.
Tam Lin Balladry
"Tam Lin" -
modernized lyrics
Thomas Rymer and the Queen
of Elfland.
'O see not ye yon narrow
road,
So
thick beset wi thorns and briers?
That is the path of
righteousness,
Tho
after it but few enquires.
'And see not ye that braid
braid road,
That
lies across yon lillie leven?
That is the path of wickedness,
Tho
some call it the road to heaven.
'And see not ye that bonny
road,
Which
winds about the fernie brae?
That is the road to fair
Elfland,
Where
you and I this night maun gae.
-The Queen of Elfland, addressing Thomas Rymer
Child 37B
Alybadix. http://www.saunalahti.fi/~iblom/alybadix/index.htm
Chess Life, Special Summer Issue 1997,
Vol. 52, No. 7.
The Chess Variants Pages. http://www.chessvariants.com/
Dickins, Anthony. A Guide to Fairy Chess.
Dover Publications, New York. 1971.
Dodgson's
"Frogs Manuscript" Decoded
Duniho, Fergus. Eurasian Chess. http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/eurasian.html
Li, David H. The Genealogy of Chess. Premier
Publishing. 1998.
Murray, H. J. R. A History of Chess.
Oxford
University Press, Oxbow Books reprint. 1913.
Minimal Underpromotions.
Pritchard, D. B. Popular Chess Variants.
B. T. Batsford Ltd, London. 2000.
Employ the Dead! - Sam
Loyd's Dummy Promotion
White, Alain C. Sam
Loyd and His Chess Problems. Dover Publications. 1962.
