CAMELOT ENDINGS Paul Yearout, its author, is one of the few expert Camelot players in the world. FIRST THOUGHTS ON CAMELOT END-PLAY by Paul Yearout When a piece has an unobstructed path toward the opposing castle, counting squares shows the number of moves needed to reach the goal. If each side has two such pieces, the game becomes a race, with counting, rather than moving, determining the winner. Modifying the count is the two-can-travel-faster-than-one principle. Consider the position in Figure 1. 
Figure 1 Seven moves are needed to castle both pieces. But shifting i4 to the symmetrical d4 reduces the number of moves to four. For two pieces traveling together, the most efficient lines are the two central files and the diagonals a7-g1 and l7-f1. Compared to the c5, d4 pair, pieces at d5, e4 or b5, c4 require five moves, and an a5, b4 pair uses up seven. So one should aim towards one of those four lines as early as possible. Pieces at e7 and c5, moving singly, require ten moves to castle. Moving c5 to d4 and e7 to e3 cuts that total to eight. But moving e7 to d4, by one of several paths, makes a further one move reduction. Further modifying the count is the presence of opposing forces, even when they appear to be far outpaced by the attackers. Consider the position in Figure 2.  Figure 2 1....c5e3 is followed by 2.g6f5. Blithely continuing 2....d4f2 allows 3.f5e4 e3:e5, 4.c7d6 e5:c7, adding four moves to the attacker’s total. That might well be enough to convert the apparent win into a loss. Turning to defense of the castle, consider Figure 3. 
Figure 3 With the attacker to move, 1....i2j3, followed by 2.g2i2 allows a trade for a certain draw or further retreat. If the defender must move, 1.h2f2 j2h2 produces the same configuration, one space closer to the castle. Choosing 1.h2g3 j2h2, 2.g3f2, the pieces occupy the same squares, but the attacker must move. 2....h2j2, 3.f2h2 places the attacker at the disadvantage previously mentioned, while 2....h2i3, 3.f2h2 i3j2 produces a cycle of moves. The position is a draw. If the four men are replaced by four knights, the side to move first loses. Any move by the attacker loses at least one piece, after which the erstwhile defender cannot be prevented from a triumphal march to the opposite end of the board. The defender’s only choice is 1.h2f2 j2h2, 2.g2e2 i2g2, 3.f2d2, g2f1, with victory on the next move. Intermediate mixtures of men and knights have various outcomes, depending both on the material and position. Consider the position in Figure 4. 
Figure 4 The only defensive move is now 1.h2f2. After 1...j2h2, 2.g2f3 i2g2, 3.f3e2 g2f1 the attack has succeeded. There is the desperation move 4.f2g3 h2:f4, 5.e2f2. If there had been no provision for castle moves, the defense could maintain opposition for a draw. But 5....f1g1 forces the defense to clear a path for f4 to reach the castle. Other possibilities, such as interchanging knight and man, are left to the reader. Already a few middle-game questions can be asked: How early should one begin watching for certain material combinations? Before getting to end-play will there be stalling moves to provide the initiative later? Can unfavorable circumstances be reversed? Observations about the castle-move rule Consider the position in Figure 5, in which each player has used both castle moves. 
Figure 5 The position is reminiscent of opposition at Chess, but these are not Chess kings. In Camelot the attacker has the advantage, whoever has the move. The pairs of moves 1.g5f5 g7h6, or 1.g5h5 g7f6 allow the attacker to advance, with other moves by the defense being even worse. The attacker on the move marches to the edge of the board, say to k7, with the defender following along to k5. But then 5....k7l6 has gained one rank on the board. There follows 6.k5k4 l6l5, 7.k4l4 (or 6.k5l4 l6k6, 7.l4k4 k6l5, 8.k4l4, resulting in the same position either way). Now, 7....l5l6 has reversed the opposition. The attacker guides the position back to the center of the board, choosing the right time to advance toward the castle as indicated above. This position is extremely artificial, but it illustrates clearly the perceptiveness of the game’s creator in limiting the number of castle moves. Without such a limit, whether 2 (as stated), 30, or 100, either side could use a castle move as a stalling technique, and positions which can now be won would become draws. Paul Yearout claims to have been around for 76 years, married for 51 of them, and playing board games for most of them. He taught university mathematics, mostly undergraduates, for about 35 years. He was in the army air corps for three years during WWII. His other interests include science fiction and fantasy, religion, ballroom and folk dance, choral singing, and cooking.
|
