Dr Ian Shanahan

57 Yates Avenue
Dundas Valley NSW 2117
AUSTRALIA
e-mail: ian_shanahan@hotmail.com
Sydney, 12 December 2005.
Mr Stephen Emmerson
2 Sevenoaks Road
Reading
Berks. RG6 7NT
ENGLAND

Dear Stephen,

I hope that you and your family are well, and that the major disruptions of moving house
are completely over. Also: Seasons Greetings to you all, and I wish each of you all the very best for
2006! Happy Composing and Editing!

I proffer yet another original composition for you to consider for your Fairies column in The
Problemist this time, one of the very best chess problems I believe I have ever made! Its another
series-mover (a series-selfmate in 19), this time featuring Protean men with some retroanalysis, in order
to articulate the fashionable(?) Valladao task: apparently, Protean men plus retroanalysis is a totally new
idea (this being something I had actually proposed already in some earlier correspondence with you: i.e.
...Proteancy insinuates retroanalytic potentialities...)! So I imagine, should you accept it, that it will be
numbered F2xxxR. Having looked again at all of my available sources on the subject of Protean men
and related stipulations (such as FrankfurterSchach), Ive at last made sense of it all ... I think. So could
you please adopt verbatim the following definition for Protean men, based upon your own wording in
The Problemist, September 2004, p.484:

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.

This characterization is utterly in accord with the spirit of the earliest manifestation of the Protean
idea: Protean Kings, whenever KP. Yet its still unclear to me whether or not the non-passant rule
(see Chessics No.2, p.4) applies to royal riders in Protean men i.e. that, by analogy with the rules of
castling, they are prohibited from incurring a passing check, through crossing any squares guarded by
the enemy; in any event, this doesnt affect my new problem or my F2322. (But, as I wrote in a previous
letter to you: conversely, one might argue with equal consistency [against the non-passant rule] that
castling is peculiar to a royal regent, and so castlings rules become irrelevant when such a piece
becomes a royal bishop, say.) What is certain, however, is that FrankfurterSchach does indeed
embrace the non-passant rule. Its definition is, therefore:

FrankfurterSchach [RI]: upon capturing, a unit [inc. K] takes on the rank of the unit captured,
but without changing colour; in the case of a captured P, a wP always marches up the board,
and a bP always down the board. Kings maintain their royalty, transforming into royal pieces
of other ranks; royal riders are prohibited from incurring any passing checks.

Hence the differences between Protean men and FrankfurterSchach are simply these: (i) the
word powers in the former definition becomes rank in the latter (i.e. one infers that a units power
equals its rank plus its move-potential), implying a divergent treatment in the case of captured pawns
with important retroanalytical consequences; (ii) FrankfurterSchach definitely adopts the non-passant
rule, whereas Protean men may not; (iii) historically, Protean men has always been RI so far as I can
tell, but in my opinion RI should be explicitly stipulated in FrankfurterSchach if applicable. I dont know
if all of this eliminates or merely exacerbates the current state of perplexity; but one can now conceive of
8 variants based on the following parameters: powers (as defined in the paragraph above), or rank;

~1~
non-passant, or not; Rex Inclusive, or not. Phew!!!

Anyway, here (at long last) is my new problem, A composed a couple of months(!) ago, in fact:

A Ian Shanahan, ORIGINAL for The Problemist.

Ser.S19 Protean men C

Because two pawns at most can ever occupy any file, Bb2 and Bc2 stem from the capture of
(Ab2) and (Ac2) respectively: hence they have never moved, but can march up the board.
Now if Ad2 were (Ad2) or alternatively, had sprung from (Ad2) through repeated captures
and so had never moved, then either a E or a F would be present on the square c1. But
since c1 is vacant, then Ad2 must ultimately derive from (Bd7), and thus marches down the
board. The forward-play (solution), therefore, is:
1.Gb1 2.Ad1I! (Ad1G?) 3.Gb2A 4.Ia1G 5.000! ... 9.Ka4 10.Af4 ... 14.Af8C 15.Cg6
... 18.Ca3 19.Ab4+, Bb4 e.p.!!! {Valladao task, with an extra White promotion at the
opposite end of the board!}
Try: 1.Ga1? 2.Ad1C 3.Cb2A 4.000!? ... 8.Ka4 9.Af4 ... 13.Af8C 14.Cg6 ... 17.Ca3
18.Ab4+, Bb4 e.p.? But 4.000 is illegal! (And 1.Ga1 2.Ad1C 3.Cb2A 4.Kd1 ... 9.Ka4
10.Gd1 11.Af4 ... 15.Af8C 16.Cg6 ... 19.Ca3 20.Ab4+, Bb4 e.p. simply takes 1 move too
long.)

Quoting from the FIDE Laws of Chess regarding e.p.-capture and castling, respectively:

{3.7d} 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 [emphasis added]; and

{3.8a.ii} castling. This is a move of the king and either rook of the same colour on the same rank,
counting as a single move of the king and executed as follows: the king is transferred from its original
square two squares towards the rook, then that rook is transferred to the square the king has just
crossed. (1) The right to castle has been lost: a. if the king has already moved, or b. with a rook that has
already moved ... [emphasis added].

In As solution, 19.Ab4+, B(c2)b4 e.p.!!! unquestionably conforms with 3.7d; and 4.Ia1G 5.000!
is strictly in accordance with 3.8a.ii, since the Ga1 is of the same colour on the same rank [as the K]
and it certainly has not moved (having just transformed from a I into a brand new G on a1). 3.8a.ii(1)
also accounts for why the [precise move-order!] try, as well as 2.Ad1G? 3.Gb2A 4.Ga1 5.000!?
potentially within the solution, fail: 000 is illegal here because the capturer of Ha1 in both scenarios is a
G that simply remains itself a G, untransformed, and so is a rook that has already moved. I believe
this to be a totally new motivation for preventing promotion to a G!

It could be argued that in A, it is rather better to replace the Af3 with a Ce3 for a Ser.S12 (indeed,

~2~
my sagacious friend Geoff Foster does prefer this version), for then every pawns move-direction can be
established definitely through retroanalysis plus the problem, being shorter, would be more compact,
and might even be somewhat easier to solve. These are all valid points. Nevertheless, the diagrammed
position A wins my vote because of its extra promotion and dual-avoidance; and anyhow, the principle
behind the traditional convention concerning castling whenever a king stands on his game-array square
(i.e. that castling is permitted unless provably illegal) here surely extends to the humble Af3 i.e. that, in
the absence of any proof to the contrary, we shall assume that it marches up the board (as all As do ab
initio). What is your opinion on all of this, Stephen? Which version do you prefer, and why?

Moving on... Incredibly luckily I have also managed to extend As thematic substance into the
Valladao task plus AUW (perhaps we should henceforth call such an organic amalgam the ValladAUW
task?), but at the expense of some lost retro-content; I append these developments merely for
academic interests sake, since I think that problem A has superior artistic balance and elegance:

B Ian Shanahan, ORIGINAL for Knig und Turm article?

Ser.S31 Protean men C

Because two pawns at most can ever occupy any file, Bb2 and Bc2 stem from the capture of
(Ab2) and (Ac2) respectively: hence they have never moved, but can march up the board.
The forward-play (solution), therefore, is:
1.Ah8E (Ah8I?) 2.Ec3 3.Ed2G 4.Gd4 5.Gf4A 6.Ag3 ... 8.Ag1G 9.Gg5 10.Gd5A
11.Ad4 ... 14.Ad1I! (Ad1G?) 15.Eb2A 16.Ib1G 17.00!!! ... 21.Ka4 22.Af4 ... 26.Af8C
27.Cg6 ... 30.Ca3 31.Ab4+, Bb4 e.p.!!! {ValladAUW task}
Try: ... 4.Gd5A?? 5.Ad4 ... 8.Ad1G 9.Gd4 10.Gf4A 11.Ag3 ... 13.Ag1C ... 16.Cb1G
17.Eb2A 18.00!!! ... 22.Ka4 23.Af4 ... 27.Af8C 28.Cg6 ... 31.Ca3 32.Ab4+, Bb4 e.p.?
simply takes 1 move too long.

By the preceding arguments in relation to A, problem Bs weird castling move 17.00!!! strictly obeys
the FIDE Laws of Chess, 3.8a.ii. Notice that the Hb1 here could just as easily stand on a1; however, I
quite deliberately chose to site it on b1 precisely to demonstrate the legality of this bizarre 00.

Constructionally, there has to be a B on the d-file somewhere, in order to stop the dual
1.Ah8I 2.Id8 3.Id2G etc., and to enable 14.Ad1I! but the Bd5 cannot be redeployed to d7, lest
... 3.Ed2G 4.Gd4 5.Gf4A 6.Ag3 ... 8.Ag1C ... 11.Cb1G 12.Eb2A 13.00!!! ... 17.Ka4 18.Af4 ...
22.Af8C 23.Cg6 ... 26.Ca3 27.Ab4+, Bb4 e.p. cook B: i.e., Bd5 must disappear so that d6 will be
guarded in the mate, too. Moreover, the 3 Hs do not necessarily entail obtrusiveness, but could have
arisen solely through Protean captures. Now if one objects outright to 00, then see my alternative
setting below, problem C which is much better than simply moving the Hb1 to a1 in B without further
adjustments, due to some additional dual-avoidance in moves 16 (even though, with Ha1 in either
position, the try-play involving promotion to C on the 1st rank thence its capture of the H vanishes):

~3~
 C Ian Shanahan, ORIGINAL not for publication!!!

Ser.S33 Protean men C

Because two pawns at most can ever occupy any file, Bb2 and Bc2 stem from the capture of
(Ab2) and (Ac2) respectively: hence they have never moved, but can march up the board.
The forward-play (solution), therefore, is:
1.Ah8E (Ah8I?) 2.Ec3 ... 4.Ec1C 5.Ce2 6.Cf4A 7.Ag3 ... 9.Ag1G 10.Gg7 1.Gd7A
12.Ad5 ... 16.Ad1I! (Ad1G?) 17.Gb2A 18.Ia1G 19.000! ... 23.Ka4 24.Af4 ... 28.Af8C
29.Cg6 ... 32.Ca3 33.Ab4+, Bb4 e.p.!!! {ValladAUW task}

It is even possible to show this ValladAUW task wherein all of the promotions are carried out by just
a single A although constructionally and artistically, this problem is vastly inferior (e.g. Fb6, the plug
Ab5, and the fact that the AUW is welded to the 000 & e.p.-capture: can it possibly be improved?):

D Ian Shanahan, ORIGINAL not for publication!!!

Ser.S27 Protean men C

Since two pawns at most can ever occupy any file, Bc2 stems from the capture of (Ac2): so it
has never moved, but can march up the board. The forward-play (solution), therefore, is:
1.Ah8E (Ah8I?) 2.Ec3 3.Eb4G 4.Ge4A 5.Af3 ... 7.Af1C 8.Cg3A 9.Ag2 10.Ag1G
11.Gg7 12.Gd7A 13.Ad5 ... 17.Ad1I! (Ad1G?) 18.Cc3 19.Ia1G 20.000! ... 24.Ka4
25.Cb1 26.Ca3 27.Ab4+, Bb4 e.p.!!! {ValladAUW task}

Anyway Stephen, best wishes again to you and your family. Please send me an e-mail to let me know
about the fate of problem A, etc. As always, I look forward to hearing from you. Cheers!

Yours faithfully,
Ian Shanahan.

~4~