| 8 |
| 7 |
| 6 |
| 5 |
| 4 |
| 3 |
| 2 |
| 1 |
|
| a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l |
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
This is the result of an attempt to reform the courier game by emulating the development of modern chess: I have enhanced the powers of some of the weaker pieces and reorganised the central section which, in the original, doesn't leave a very aesthetic impression. The layout from white’s side is as follows:
RNCBFQKFBCNR
Firstly the piece that moves like a modern bishop is called a bishop, and the name courier is given to an alternative generalisation of the alfil — a leaper in eight directions — a monochrome knight — Cc3 can leap to ai, a3, a5, c5, e5, e3, e1, c1 [i.e. alfil + dabbaba]. The mann is transformed into a modern queen and stands centrally, next to the king, while the schleich is replaced by a second fers. An unmoved fers has the option of a courier’s leap into a vacant square and pawns have the familiar double move option. Castling is not defined but the unmoved king may take a double step to a vacant square, provided that it can be expressed as two legal single moves and he is not in check: moving a royal piece into check is, of course, not allowed.
It was intended that Modern Courier Chess would play much like modern chess but with added depth of strategy and tactics: perhaps fortunately, it proves to be subtly different. The king will usually be found somewhere near the centre, with a mobile screen of ferses providing the most economical defence, sometimes supported by couriers. In consequence the game takes on the style of Chinese chess, but is more heavily orchestrated, with a strong diagonal element in the play. Another point is that the number of monochrome pieces, vis-a-vis chess, is increased from 25% to 50%: as a result there are often strong middlegame attacks on squares of one colour.
Finally, in chess scholar's mate is essentially a white—square attack on the weak point in the black position, f7: three pieces can reach f7 in five moves. In MCC the weak point is j7, and four pieces can reach it in six moves. At present this attack is a heavy point-scorer: Game 1 is a good example. As for fool's mate there are quite a few versions of the same mate in three moves whereas in chess we have four versions in two moves: this is probably a fair reflection of the difference in complexity and timescale that exists between Chess and MCC.
There now follows a selection of illustrative games.
|
Game 1.
White: P. V. Byway, Black: R. Talbot. 11 June 1992. |
1.e4 a5 2.Nj3 h6 3.g3 e5 (3...B×e4 is answered by 4.B×j7 or Qj5†) 4.B†j7 B×e4 5.Bi6† Bh7 6.B×h7† K×h7 7.Nk5 Nj6 8.Qj5† Kg6 (8...Ki8 must be better) 9.Ch3 (threatening mate in one) f6 (better 9...f5) 10.Qj3† Kh7 (10...Kg5 11.Ce3† Kg4 12.f3‡) 11.Cf5† Kg8 (11...Ki8 12.Qj6† Nh7 13.Q×h7‡) 12.Qj5† Resigns (11...Nh7 12.Q×h7‡). (1—0).
|
Game 2.
White: M. Lester, Black: P. V. Byway. 12 February 1992. |
1.g3 e5 2.e4 Nj6 3.f4 e×f4 4.g&3215;f4 f5 5.d3 g6 6.Ff3 (courier leap) Ch6 7.Fg3 (courier leap) f×e4 8.F×e4 (avoiding slight material loss) 8...d5? 9.F×d5 Qc5† 10.Qf2 Q×d5 11.Bf3 Qb5 (in order to protect the b-pawn) 12.c4 (12.Nc3 was better; 12...Q×b2? 13.Rb1 wins the Queen) 12...Qd7 (threatens both d3 and i2) 13.Qe2 Nc6 14.B×j7 Nd4 15.Qdl B×j7 16.Q×j7
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
16...Nh5 (cutting off the Queen) 17.Q×k7 Nf3† 18.Kf2 Q×d3 19.Nc3 C×f4† 20.F×f4? Bh4† 21.Resigns. (0—1).
|
Game 3.
White: R. Waldteufel, Black: P. V. Byway. 3 June 1992. |
1.e4 e5 2.Ce3 Nc6 3.Nj3 Ce6 4.h4 d6 5.Nc3 Nj6 6.g4 g6 7.f4 e×f4 8.B×f4 Ch6 9.Bg3 Ff6 10.g5 Fe5 (Black overlooked that g5 is protected by Ce3)
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
1l.Nd5 (initiating a tactical sequence) 11...C×e4 12.C×e5 d×e5 13.g×h6 Q×h6 14.Nf6† (the point) B×f6 15.Q×f6 Nh5 (the answer) 16.Qf2 N×g3 17.Q×g3 j6 (with two pawns for a fers, Black has a small material advantage) 18.Ff3 Ce6 19.Fg4 Qf4 20.Qb3 Bk6 21.Ch3 C×g4 22.Q×b7?? Qg3† 23. Resigns (since 23.Khl Qg2† 24.Ki1 Q×i2‡) (0—1).
Modern Courier Chess first appeared in Variant Chess in 1992 (no. 8, pp.102–105). The initial layout is shown in the diagram below: the orthodox men are augmented by pieces of two types.
|
The courier, shown as an inverted bishop, moves two squares in a straight line, along rank, file or diagonal, jumping over any intervening piece of either colour. A courier only has access to half the squares of one colour, so the four couriers cover between them all 96 squares of the board, and no courier can be exchanged for another unless one of them was created by promotion. The fers is shown as an inverted queen, and moves one square diagonally. To speed up the opening phase of the game an unmoved fers is allowed an initial move (but not capture) as a courier. This privilege does not extend to a fers newly created by promotion. |
Three over-the-board games are given. For the first two I am largely indebted to Toby Howes, who has provided the bulk of the notes. The third is possibly the best o-t-b game recorded so far, both players being graded about 200 in orthochess and the errors few: it gives plenty of food for thought.
|
Modern Courier Chess.
White: Toby Howes, Black: Ian George. Friendly Game, Camborne, 13 January 1995. Notes: Toby Howes (roman), Paul Byway (italic). |
1. e4 e5 2. Ce3 Ch6 — The Courier Gambit perhaps? (2.Ce3 is a 'chess-like' interpretation: 2.Fe3 is also good.) 3. C×e5 Nc6 4. Ce3 Ce6 — At the sacrifice of the pawn Black has three pieces developed and is attacking e4. This is better than my handling in Wood–Howes as I played 2...a5!? 3. C×e5 Ff6!? 4. Ce3 Nc6. In this case I wanted to enable the rook to enter the game, better I think is 2...l5 3.C×e5 Nc6 4.Ce3 and then proceed with development. 5.Ff3 Bh4 6.Fg3 Bi5 7.Nj3 Fj6 (Black doesn't realise that knight for bishop is not an equal trade.) 8.N×i5 F×i5 9.Ch3 Fg6
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Black has managed to clear the back rank for the rook (a8) to come into the game. 10.c3 i6 11.Rj1 (Now we see a struggle for j4.) 11...j5 12.i3 j4 13.Cg5 — To drive back the fers on i5. 13...Bk6 14.C×i5 B×h3 (Two bad mistakes in a row.) 15.g×h3 f5 16.Bb3 Re8 17.i×j4 Ff7 — Breaking the pin on the courier. 18.e×f5 Cc8 19.d4 — I want to make room to develop my knight. 19...Qe7 20.Nd2 C×j4 21.l3!? — As Ian pointed out 21.k3 is the move I should have played. 21...Nj6 22.Ne4 h6!?
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
I played Ne4 as I thought that he would play 22.h6, missing the following sequence: 23.C×g7 K×g7? 24.f6† Q×f6 25.N×f6 K×f6 26.k3 (Black will only last as long as it takes White to get his pieces out.) Cl6 27.j4 Rlg8 28.Bj2† Kg7 29.Ri1 Kh7? 30.B×f7 Resigns (1-0) (This game contains too many Black errors, but we see the versatile fers in another light. A pair of ferses make a tough and flexible shelter for the king. In mediaeval times such a formation was called a ‘hut’.)
|
Modern Courier Chess.
White: M. Cheeseman, Black: Toby Howes. 3 September 1994. All moves in 35 minutes. Notes: Toby Howes (roman), Paul Byway (italic). |
1.i4 — Strange opening move from White as it doesn't allow any piece development, as the courier and fers can leap over the pawns. 1...e5 2.Fh3 Fh6 3.e3 Ch8 4.d4 e×d4 5.e×d4 Fe6 6.Fc3 (I prefer Fe3, allowing a later c3.) 6...Nc6 7.Nd2 Cf6 — Threatening the pawn and exchanging a courier for fers, an alternative for White might be 8.Qd3. 8.g3 C×d4 9.F×d4 N×d4 (My working assumption is that this is an even exchange.) 10.Nf3 N×f3† 11.B×f3 (A good post: the bishop can attack both wings without being molested by a courier.)
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
11...d5 — This move is an attempt to limit the mobility of White's bishop and protect the vulnerable b7 pawn. 12.c3 — protecting the b4 square from incursion by the Black queen. 12...Nl6 13.l3 j5 (A manoeuvre worth remembering. First there was a sideways shuffle of the courier (3...Ch8) followed by its rapid transit to the other wing (7...Cf6, 8...C×d4). With the courier gone 13...j5 frees both king's rook and king's bishop. I just have some concern for the king, and would rather try this on the other side.) 14.Ni2 j×i4 15.F×i4 Bk6 — A rudimentary pin. White stated that he protected the fers and did not break the pin in later stages as intended pawn development and control of i4. 16.Nk3 — Perhaps 16.k4 threatening 17.Fj5 might have been better. 16...Rj8 17.j3 a6 18.Ce3 Fi5 — Black protects b5 from the White queen and begins to march his black fers deep into White's territory. 19.a3 Fj4 20.Ni2 g6 21.b4 h5 (Risky, in view of the king's position.) 22.k3
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
22... Fi3 — 22...h×i4 better? (The lively king's side play shows that ferses don't necessarily make for a slow game.) 23.h4 h×i4 24.j×i4 Fj2 25.Bh2 F×k3 26.Bk5 Rj2 27.Qh3 Bl5 28.N×k3 Rk2? 29.N×l5 R×k5 30.Qj3 Qh6 31.i5 Qk6 32.l4 R×l5 — Many possibilities.
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
33.Bg2 Qk4 34.Qj8 Kh7 35.Cj3 R×l4 36.R×l4 Q×l4 37.Bj5†? (Black seems to escape with a draw after 37.Cj5† N×j5 38.B×j5† i6! (only move) 39.Qh6† Ki8 40.Q×i6† Qi7 41.Qk8† Qj8 42.Qi6† Qi7.) 37...N×j5 38.Q×j5† Kg7 39.Qf1 Qi1† 40.Kg2 Qi2† 41.Kg1 Q×j3 (0-1)
|
Modern Courier Chess.
White: Gary Kenworthy, Black Paul Byway. Powdermill Club, Waltham Abbey, 10 March 1993. Notes by Paul Byway. |
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Fe6 3.g3 Nc6 4.f4 e×f4 5.g×f4 f5 6.Fg3 g6 7.Nj3 Nj6 (7...Nl6, 8...j6, 9...Bj7 may be a better plan.) 8.h4 f×e4 9.N×e4 Ff5 (making room for the courier on e6.) 10.Ng5 Fh6 11.Nf3 Ch8 12.i4 i5 13.Fh3 Ce6 14.d3 Fg4 15.F×g4 C×g4 16.Nfh2 Ce6 17.Ch3 Cf6 18.h×i5 F×i5 19.f5 g×f5 20.C×f5 h6
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
21.Ch5 (not falling for 21.C×d7 Qg7. White's fluent aggression is a shock to the system!) 21...Qg7 22.Qg2 N×h5 23.i×h5 j6 24.Ce3 Bk6 25.Qd5 K-h7-i7 (K double-move) 26.Bf3 Cf4 27.Kh1 C×h2 28.B×h2 B×j2 (The pawn-snatch has a positional basis: the rooks are connected, the White rook is kept off the i-file for the moment, and the Fi5 can no longer be dislodged.) 29.Rg1 Qd4 30.Ff4 Rlg8 31.Ki2 Q×d5 32.B×d5 Be7 33.c3 Kh8 34.b4 R×g1 35.R×g1 Rg8 36.R×g8 K×g8 (The rooks come off in an attempt to tame White's aggression, but it would have been better to attend to the queen's side.)
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
37.Cc5 Bd8 38.b5 Ne7 39.C×e7 B×e7 40.B×b7 c6 41.b×c6 d×c6 42.d4 Bg2 43.Fe5 Bf3 44.a4 B×h5 45.d5 c×d5 46.B×d5 Bf7 47.Kh3 a5 48.Fd6 (‘Rook behind the pawn’ — whether attacking the Sicilian Dragon or in the ending. MCC shows a similar dynamic feature with ‘bishop behind the fers’ — and here it is. Also of great importance is the fact that I have the ‘right’ courier for White's two queen's side pawns.) 48...Bf6 49.Fe5 Bg5 50.Fd4 Bd8 51.Bf4 Cc4 52.B×f7 K×f7 53.Nh2 C×a4 54.Ng4 Ke6 55.Ne5 Bc7 56.Kg4 Ca6 57.Nd3 B×f4 58.K×f4 Kd5 59.Ke3
|
| |||||||||||||||||
|
59...h5? (Carelessness: 59...a4 is answered by 60.Nb4† winning the courier, but 59...j5 was correct, when White is overstretched. The position has simplified to the point at which the knight becomes a much better piece than the courier.) 60.Nf4† Kc4 61.N×h5 Kb3 62.Kd2 Kb2 63.Fc5! (This is what I overlooked: it makes a nonsense of my last few moves.) 63...Kb3 64.Nf4 Kc4 65.Nd3 j5 66.Fb4! (The a-pawn is now worthless.) 66...a4 67. Ne5† Kd5 68.Ng4 Fh4 69.Ke3 Cc4 70.Kf4 Ce2 71.Nh6? k6 72.Nf5 Fi3 73.Ne3† Ke6 74.c4? C×c4 75.N×c4 Kf6 76.Kg4 Kg6 77.Nb2 k5 (Knight and fers cannot mate, unless Black is trapped in the corner controlled by the fers. All I must do is to get rid of the pawns.) 78.Kh3 Fj4 79.N×a4 l5 80.Nc5 l4 81.Nd3 k4 82.Nf4† Kg5 83.Ng2 l3 84.k×l3 k×l3 85.Ni1 Fk3 86.Nj3 F×l2 87.N×l2 Kf4 88.Ki3 Ke4 Draw agreed (½-½). (In any event the fers cannot be saved. This ending emphasises once again the importance of position to the value of minor pieces. A tremendous tussle!)
