Augsburg Chess

Tip of the Iceberg?

Pieces of the same side may combine (Problem A) and separate (Problem B). This simple definition conceals a multitude of disputable points: and while many will enjoy such dispute for its own sake, it`s a shame to spend a lot of time making up some chess problem only to find you`ve composed it within a non-existent stipulation.

(A) Arno Tüngler Problemkiste 1996	(B) Erich Bartel Diagramme und Figuren 1969
Augsburg Chess Seriesmate in 3, 3 ways	Augsburg Chess Helpmate in 2, 2 ways + set play

1. A unit (excluding K) may move onto a square occupied by a same-colour piece, forming a combined unit. (Thus the P enters combination by orthogonal move, not by diagonal capture: also combinations such as S + S are quite OK).
2. A combined unit may move as any of its components.
3. Any part of a combined unit may move, leaving the remainder behind on the departure-square.
4. CASTLING: any combination containing an unmoved game-array rook may castle.
5. The game-array queen is considered as a combined piece and may separate into R + B. (The King, however, is not separable into Wazir + Fers). All subsequent combined pieces are separable, so that we may talk without ambiguity of Amazon (R?+ B + S) etc.
6. PROMOTION: if a combination including pawn moves to the promotion-rank, each pawn-part pro- motes to S, B, R or Q (Problem C). (C) R. Turnbull & P. Fayers
   after H. Schiegl, Feenschach 1969
   Augsburg Chess
   Helpmate in 4
7. *PAWN ON HOME RANK: A pawn on home rank may capture diagonally in the normal way, and move forward 1-sq. (So, of course, may any combination containing P.)
8. *EN PASSANT: A combin- ation containing a pawn that moves forward two squares from the pawn rank can be captured en passant by any combination containing a pawn that can move (by a pawn move) to the intermediate square.

It now becomes clear that various problems, not all of them by Peter Fayers, seen in this magazine and elsewhere, are deviant Augsburg or worse. Rules used by Peter differ from Augsburg in three respects:

     E1:   Pieces may combine, but not kings, and NOT PAWNS either (not even when moving to promote).
     E2:   The game-array queen is not separable, and Qs are distinct from (R?+ B)s.
     E3:   A pawn may promote to any combination seen in the diagram, or generated during play.

I feel that, while minor variations of existing stipulations are to be discouraged, this particular non- Augsburg is sufficiently different from the real thing to deserve to exist; and Peter has named it 'Iceberg' on the spurious ground that 'Eye' is the English for 'Aug' (which it is) and that 'Berg' is homophonic with 'Burg' (which it isn`t).  Problems D and E.

(D) A. Bulavka & A. Mikholap Problemist 1995	(E) R. Turnbull, Original
Helpmate in 2, zeroposition (a) -Bh6 (b) -Rh1	Serieshelpstalemate in 4 (a) Augsburg, (b) Iceberg

Note that in Augsburg, combination is seen as a new way of moving orthodox pieces. In Iceberg, combination is a way of producing new fairy pieces. This difference may produce further distinctions between the two forms when they are combined with Madrasi, say, or Circe. It is, however, already established that in Augsburg Maxi, the move-length is not multiplied when a combined unit makes the move. King-Augsburg, and a hopelessly complex Augsburg-both-sides-at-once, have been seen in Germany and elsewhere. However, due to the corrupt nature of Peter Fayers` wordplay, there`s little space for hybrids between Augsburg and Iceberg. (Highbury?) Therefore, having contemplated problem F, you are requested to forget that you ever saw it as it spirals away to the limbo reserved for those composed in non-existent stipulations.

Solutions