E-MAIL LETTER TO CHRISTIAN POISSON

Thank you, Christian, for taking an active interest in my question. You make a very good point
regarding e.p.-captures in Monochrome yet this issue is not so simply resolved, I believe. Is {1} the
nPs attack of h3 in The Problemist R365F in fact logically equivalent to {2} an attack on f1 preventing
immediate White 0-0 (on account of an apparent passing check to the wK) generally in Monochrome?
If so, must conventions for they are by no means iron-clad rules within a Fairy-chess genre like
Monochrome be irrevocably consistent across distinct mechanisms (such as e.p. versus 0-0)? But
before I respond more fully, there is a preliminary housekeeping matter that needs to be dealt with:

Ren Millour rightly claimed that R365F has no solution (see The Problemist, November 2005,
p.269). This problem is easily cured by modifying the stipulation, thus: Series-helpmate in 3,
Monochrome, Black Pocket nPg4; i.e. Black deposited a nP legally upon the board, such a placement
constituting a Black move. The Black Pocket condition seems to eliminate all retro-difficulties in
R365Fv, and I think that the problem is at last sound.

Returning to the main quandary: 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
would suggest that immediate White 0-0 in Monochrome with f1 guarded by Black is illegal. But here
we confront what is really a complex philosophical (or meta-theoretical) conundrum indeed, one that
urgently needs the most widespread interrogation possible:

{Q} How do the FIDE Laws of [Orthodox] Chess interface with Fairy Chess, particularly but not
exclusively regarding P-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 Orthodox Chess), a reborn wRa1 may be
engaged in 0-0-0. 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, even if this does give rise sometimes to strictly logical
inconsistencies. So, in the specific instance of Monochrome, e.p.-capture is allowed even though a
P (without capturing) can never move just a single square forward! [see below]; and yet, as you know,
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 wKe1 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 wK, 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
0-0 regardless of attack on f1. A counterargument would be merely to adhere to the LETTER of
3.8a.ii(2)a, as quoted above. (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 in what is a closely
homologous circumstance although the wK is obviously not a rider for White, 0-0 should be illegal
if f1 were occupied; this harmonizes perfectly well with 3.8a.ii(2)b.)

Within R365Fv especially, I herewith propose a second reason for allowing 3...0-0! even if one
were to disagree with my argument above. Now although the nRh1 does indeed guard f1 initially,
because 0-0 is a single move by the wK (also involving the nR, wherein the wK 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 0-0, since it is removed automatically before the move is completed. (This circumstance is
somewhat analogous to the following sort of thing within Circe: imagine wKa8, bBb8, bRh8; White

~1~
legally plays Kb8(Bf8); the wK captures into a virtual check which however is occluded by the time
this move has been completed when the bB is reborn on f8.) Such reasoning if acceptable to you,
Christian bypasses any objections of logical inconsistency in relation to R365Fvs e.p.-capture.

Now I pose this broader question: Does legal White 0-0 across an attacked f1 in Monochrome
insinuate grounds for banning e.p.-capture therein? I say NO, for three reasons:

{1} Established convention already tolerates e.p.-capture within Monochrome, and a lot of extant
chess problems would be ruined without it;

{2} Surely we are seeking richness of possibilities as a higher priority over strict logical consistency
(NB: 0-0 and e.p.-capture are the ONLY manoeuvres in Monochrome whereby units from opposite-
coloured squares can intermingle during the same move); and

{3} I am yet to be convinced that legal White 0-0 across an attacked f1 in fact logically entails no e.p.
within Monochrome one crucial difference being that 0-0 involves a royalty. But lets now look at
3.7d from the FIDE Laws of Chess: A pawn attacking a square crossed by an opponents pawn
which has advanced two squares in one move from its original square may capture this opponents
pawn as though the latter had been moved only one square. This capture is only legal on the move
following this advance and is called an en passant capture. To my mind, 3.7ds phraseology (in
both letter and spirit) does not preclude Monochrome e.p.-capture even if, by direct analogy with 0-
0, the affected unit can never play to the attacked square: the wording ... as though the latter had
been moved only one square embraces a purely virtual condition anyhow, and whether or not such a
move is actually playable is surely irrelevant here. In OC, thats the decisive difference between 0-0
and e.p.-capture if f1 is attacked by Black, then the wK cannot play there anyway (since hed be
walking into check, of course); whereas a P CAN make one step forward onto the attacked square,
with nothing apart from blocks preventing him from making a single- or a double-jump. In summary:
both the effects and the purpose of e.p-capture are identical between OC and Monochrome (so why
forbid it in the latter?); however, the same cannot be said of immediate White 0-0 across an attacked
f1. OK!?

Thats all for now! Over to you...

~2~