MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

12:05 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General What is a "line pin" and are there undefined pins?
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(141) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 09:39]

The chess rules say which move is legal and which is not. A play of a beginner can look strange and absurd but as long as it's legal, it's not a fairy play.
If a legal game between two patzers looks like Maximummer or Reflex, do they play by fairy rules?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12882
(142) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 11:18]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-20]

Assuming the general problem community managed to define the elementary term, "orthodox chess" (which it apparently can not -- perhaps because of a "<!DOCTYPE ...>" issue)...
Then, any alteration of the game-state, for any possible position-state, would immediately constitute a game-form which can not be considered "orthodox chess."
The game-state would include the set of legal moves, thus any constraint upon the set of legal moves would constitute an alteration of the set (and the game-state).
Thus, a constraint upon any moves (which might occur, in the FULL-SOLUTION) of a chess problem, would exclude membership in the set of "orthodox chess" problems.
This should be plainly obvious (if not, try a FORTRAN tutorial).

Reflex-aim-n contains a constraint upon the set of legal moves -- thus, the alteration is plainly obvious (at least to anybody who has ever managed an "hello World!").

SemiReflex-aim-n would be a more complex question -- here, the answer depends upon the stipulated intent.
If the problem is stipulated to terminate PRIOR to the play of any constraining move, (effectively stipulating: Self-[Help-aim-1]-n), then it might be "orthodox chess."
However, if the problem is stipulated to terminate AFTER an actual constraint is encountered (the default form of SemiReflex-aim-n), then it can not be "orthodox chess."

Similarly, Maximummer constitutes a movement constraint, and thus it can not be considered "orthodox chess."

It does not matter what moves the patzers make in the game -- what matters is whether the game-state (including the SET of movement options) were altered (or constrained).
If Carlsen plays Caruana in some game with constrained movements (like Maxi), then the game might look like an "orthodox chess" between patzers.
However, you certainly would not classify such a game as an "orthodox chess" encounter.
No reasonable game-db would do this -- why should a problem-db make this blunder?

This trivial question really should not require so much discussion.
Think about the conditions/stipulations which you would exclude from the set of "orthodox chess" ...
It is generally possible to play a few moves which have the appearance of "orthodox chess" -- but, that does not make them equivalent.
You should consider such questions to be entirely elementary.

There are far more interesting questions... alas, a definition of "orthodox chess" still remains a prerequisite to that discussion.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12883
(143) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 12:11]

Yes, I concede, not that my propositions were wrong, but that they were insufficient.
I was concentrating on the movement of the pieces but failed to take into account the end of the game - when there are no more moves to be made!
So I add a third condition to my earlier two:

It's fairy chess if:
1) we can make moves that we can't make in orthodox chess.
2) we can't make moves that we could make in orthodox chess.
3) the end-of-game conditions differ from orthodox chess.

Kevin takes us to a higher level of abstraction, but I still think that the above are sufficient for those who like to keep their feet on the ground!
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12885
(144) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 12:13]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-20]

@Georgy,

>"[The] Programmer's approach to chess definitions is wrong."

Why scale to the peak of insanity? Oh, that's right -- because it was there.
OK, you have won my full attention... just be careful up there (the folks holding your safety net have just fallen on the floor).

>"In programming defining something means making it to show needed behavior."

Sorry, but readers will just climb around that statement -- it does not offer so much as a clumsy foothold, to perch for meaning.

>"In real life defining means emphasizing existing specific properties. These two meanings of "defining" are in fact quite different."

Congrats on creating a new fiction genre -- the meta-non-definition! -- it reads like an avalanche of nothingness, cascading left to right.
I observed a person reading your last statement, and (excluding the wrinkled brow) it was identical to watching a tennis fan experience an epic rally (in slow motion).
May I refer you to M. Night Shyamalan? I hear he is interested in remaking Cliffhanger, from the mountain's perspective.

OK, seriously Georgy... your post goes on an on, like this... please, tell me that you at least caught a glimpse of the lost Xanadu. Otherwise, I have no idea how to respond.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12886
(145) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 12:27]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-20]

@Neal,

I agree that your statements were merely insufficient; however, I do not agree that your added statement will prove sufficient to repair the deficiency.
I am confident that I could conjure a sunless sea of counter-examples, until I move you to my level of abstraction. However, I do understand (completely) that you might not prefer to stray too far into abstraction; and, since we are generally in alignment here, I will refrain from disturbing a fairly stable pillar.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12887
(146) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 14:32]

So having got Kevin's grudging approval for my fairy chess definitions I'm going to push my luck and take him up on this:

"a definition of "orthodox chess" still remains a prerequisite to that discussion"

Well for a start we say that by "orthodox chess" we're talking about The Game of Chess as played by millions of people worldwide.
Now I would say that the rules of this game are pretty well defined.
We have the board, the squares, the pieces, the movements of the pieces, the aim of the game, check, checkmate, stalemate and the rules concerning the special moves - castling, en-passant, promotion.
All these are explained in elementary terms which are easy to understand, and if there are any ambiguities or inconsistences, they're pretty well hidden.

So I'd like Kevin to explain what the problem is here, as others don't seem to have any problem, even children can easily learn - it's literally child's play!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12888
(147) Posted by Dupont Nicolas [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 15:37]

Kevin is probably speaking about orthodox chess problems, which is in general far from the OTB practice. Kevin will provide you his own examples, here is one from me: everything is orthodox, the only difference is that the goal of the problem is not checkmate but another one, e.g. stalemate. What do you think about that? Answer: this is a fairy problem! (I was quite surprised when I saw an h=3 in a fairy section, I searched for a while which is the fairy component of this problem!). Btw this is an example where all moves are purely orthodox, without any limitation or extention of the legal possibilities, while it is considered as fairy...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12889
(148) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 16:25]; edited by Neal Turner [14-10-20]

Putting stalemates among the fairies is just a bit of historical baggage from the days when only direct mates were considered 'orthodox'.
The recent rise of help-selfmates has caused similar anomalies.
Even feenschach seems to be confused by these, considering them to be direct-play problems even if 80% of the moves display help-play!

EDIT: Now I realise that in this discussion we have to distinguish between 'orthodox chess' and 'orthodox problems'.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12890
(149) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 17:23]

It seems that we have a precise and exact fundamental way to recognize what is not chess.
If Carlsen and Caruana play the longest moves, we certainly would not classify such a game as an "orthodox chess" encounter.

A stipulation tells which particular possibilities, among all possible chess games and positions, will be accepted as a solution.
(This is not as exact and fundamental as Carlsen-Caruana definition, but at least looks simple.)
According to that, sometimes even a fairy condition could be treated as a heterodox stipulation.

Chess rules do mention the intention of a play but the intention can not be considered as a rule, as long as there's no exact way to claim an illegal intention during a game. I've never heard about a player who have called a judge to claim that his opponent had played a move with an illegal intention to allow a mate.

My approach to the basic concepts is obviously too simple. So, I expect the discussion to be continued on the grounds of "illegal intentions/aims", according to the practice of some magazines. Good luck!
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12891
(150) Posted by Dupont Nicolas [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 17:30]; edited by Dupont Nicolas [14-10-20]

I have any doubt that there are good reasons to explain the singularities mentioned in this thread... It remains that its main purpose (to precisely define what a pin means, and more generally any basic chess concept) tends to be out of scope, precisely because of this amount of border-line situations.

If you claim “an orthodox chess problem must end with a checkmate”, you lose e.g. orthodox proof games. If you claim the opposite “to checkmate is not mandatory in an orthodox chess problem”, you let e.g. stalemate problems enter the orthodox field… Another example: a direct #2 with everything orthodox except a non-standard board-size. Is it orthodox or fairy?

Such situations show that Kevin is perfectly right on this point: it is everything but trivial to precisely define what an orthodox chess problem means. Maybe it is even impossible.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12892
(151) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 19:09]

@Nicolas
Maybe you haven't noticed the site rule stating that we're not allowed to say that Kevin is perfectly right!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12893
(152) Posted by Dupont Nicolas [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 20:12]

That's why I was cautious by adding “on this point”!
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12894
(153) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Oct 20, 2014 22:54]

A definition of orthodox problem requires a definition of orthodox stipulation and that might be anything that we agree about.
For instance, we might say that it should rely on the aims of a chess game - winning or at least not losing, according to the relative abilities of the players.
The players' true aims cannot be undoubtedly verified, but in the studies and direct mates it is possible. Requirement for the best play with losing/drawing aim might be considered as an orthodox stipulation.
=n or s=n would be orthodox stipulations if White can't win but can avoid losing thanks to the stalemate.
With such approach, PG would not be an orthodox stipulation, in principle.
s#n would actually be an orthodox stipulation with the inverted definition of win (the mated side wins).

However, some more flexible convention about the stipulations perhaps could be formulated.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12895
(154) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Oct 21, 2014 00:48]

Is it possible to define "orthodox chess"?
1) You could define it as the current FIDE rule book,
2) You could define it as one rule book, containing rules which change over time, thus covering the set of all FIDE rule books (past, present, and future),
3) You could define it as the set of all FIDE rule books (simultaneously), or
4) You could define it as some cherry-picked subset of rules, extracted from all FIDE rule books, which can be revealed only after no living person was alive on Nov 22, 1963.

Given a definition for "orthodox chess," is it possible to define an "orthodox chess problem"?
1) You could add a constraint upon the type of play (help- or self-).
2) You could add a constraint upon the goal (long discussion).
3) You could add a constraint upon the aims (e.g., # , = , + , x, -ep-, -00-, etc).
4) You could just pick and chose, according to the interests of a highly finicky favoritism.

Neglecting, of course, that the FIDE rule book has built-in AIM (loss < draw < win), which inherently defines the type of play (all is direct-, and players expect no deliberate help-).

Any dart-throw at these definitions would be a major improvement.
Currently, these two terms represent an umbilical cord, connecting infant to offspring.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12896
(155) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Oct 21, 2014 09:32]

Neal, don't you know that nothing can exist and be understood without a definition.
Steinitz and Lasker were not World Chess Champions, Capablanca became Champion only in 1924 when FIDE was founded.
Chess problems do not exist until the almighty FIDE provides a definition.
The millions which believe they are playing chess without ever hearing about FIDE are just heretics.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12897
(156) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Tuesday, Oct 21, 2014 09:38]; edited by Dmitri Turevski [14-10-21]

 QUOTE 
loss < draw


Interestingly, unless i'm mistaken, it seems that FIDE LAWS of CHESS (http://www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf) have no mention that draw is preferrable to loss.

Paragraph 11.1 about points states that unless announces otherwise w=1, d=0.5, l=0 (this can be read that as far as FIDE rules are concerned, 0/0/0 or 0/0.5/1 or whatever scheme is ok if properly announced)
Paragraph 1.2 states that objective of the player is to checkmate the opponent (note: not to score the most points)
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12898
(157) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Tuesday, Oct 21, 2014 09:48]

Sorry, I consider this thread has gone into trolling.

It should be easy to define "orthodox chess" and "orthodox chess problem" for anyone, who has thought about it for 10 seconds.

In short words:

1. If a chess player understands what is and may be going on, and why this is going on, then this is an orthodox composition.
2. If a chess player understands what is and may be going on, but not why this is going on, then this is an heterodox composition.
3. If a chess player may not understand what is and may be going on, then this is a fairy composition.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12899
(158) Posted by Neal Turner [Tuesday, Oct 21, 2014 10:00]

According to Wikipedia:

"...modern rules first took form during the Middle Ages. The rules continued to be slightly modified until the early 19th century, when they reached essentially their current form"

Almost all these FIDE rule changes Kevin refers to are concerning tournament play rather than the Game itself.
And yes, I regard things like 3-fold repetition and the 50-move rule as tournament rules - much like the tie-break in tennis - put there as practical measures to stop games going on indefinitely.

In fact the only rule change affecting the Game in recent times that I'm aware of was the modification of the castling rule ('The king and the rook must be on the same rank') in response to the Pam-Krabbe anomaly.
(Of course I'm prepared to be crushed under the weight of other examples!)

So in the modern era the Rules of the Game have in fact remained quite stable, enabling us to enjoy the problems of Loveday, Loyd, Loschinsky, Linss all under the same rules!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12900
(159) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Oct 21, 2014 15:28]

I expect that the essence of Georgy's formulation should be perfectly clear and sufficient to everyone.
Whoever enjoys to exercise the definitions, should define orthodox problems matching that essence.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12902
(160) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Oct 21, 2014 16:10]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-21]

Georgy's definitions are a dismal failure -- he throws up his arms about trolling, then chums all this troll-bait into the water...
The definitions offered possess zero credibility, and should in no way be considered legitimate.
They can not be defended... they do not merit debate... they are not definitions (not by any definition of the word definition)... and they should be rejected.

...3. If a chess player may not understand what is and may be going on, then this is a fairy composition.

This is just pure babblement, which leaves no retort, other than to make jokes about how crazy it is... or all the crazy ways it fails...
...or to offer ridiculous definitions, based upon the same failed logic:

4. If a chess problemist does not understand the concept, nor the purpose, then this is a definition of some chess problem terminology.
5. If a problemist can not provide an honest definition for a term, the meaning could be anything (even for the most fundamental, and most elementary of terms).
6. If a problemist tells you that such definitions are "perfectly clear" and should be considered "sufficient," they are not telling the truth (an honest person calls B.S. on B.S.).

Respected problemists who maliciously promote false definitions (as if serious) should keep in mind:
1) you not only undermine your own credibility, you damage the credibility of this art form, and
2) if you care about its future, this is no way to demonstrate it (with familiar policies, promoting continued corruption, and deceit).


ps: I expect that I may be unable to respond, for about a week... I hope to find a more honest discussion, when I return.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12903

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MatPlus.Net Forum General What is a "line pin" and are there undefined pins?