Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
0:41 UTC
| |
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 | | (61) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 20:43]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-04] |
Juraj,
Think of the browser wars -- when the lack of standards stifled internet software development.
What you are saying is, hey, if you don't like the lack of standards, go make standards on your own... then come on back, and see if EVERYBODY (not the responsible organizing federation -- because there is no federation with any authority! -- but EVERYBODY) will adopt everything you worked so hard to develop.
That is precisely how browsers came to lack standards: every individual company went off to make their own standards, and the disagreements only increased!
Universal standards require ORGANIZED, COLLECTIVE TEAMWORK, with diverse participation from the COMMUNITY.
It will involve patience, compromise, and determination.
And, if you are claiming that WFCC does not have sole authority to facilitate these standards, why then do you contradict yourself?
You say that an individual should take their recommendations back to WFCC? That makes no sense! If WFCC has no authority, why would individual take their standards as a petition to an organization with no central authority?
You are effectively saying, "YOU DO ALL THE WORK, INDIVIDUALLY, and WFCC WILL DO NOTHING (not even consider it)."
In effect, you intend to obstruct every effort to create intelligent standards -- WHY?
Please, think more carefully about what you are claiming -- if WFCC does not have sole authority, then the solution is simple: we create a Federation which is recognized to have sole authority (sanctioning authority!) and which takes the standards of problem chess ("in all domains of chess composition") very seriously.
Maybe we can even convince this new Federation that fairness (read: historical bias) is an issue.
But, before we create such a Federation, you will have to convince me that WFCC has not already claimed to be that sole authority (the arbiter of standards, in all domains).
I do not think WFCC would appreciate your failure to acknowledge them as the proper authority, but as I said, the question is not whether universal standards will be developed, the question is whether WFCC (and FIDE) have any care to be involved (to even the degree prescribed by their own charter).
This is no rant -- how dare you attempt to write this off as such!
That is shameful commentary, and should be universally resented.
this is a petition for the larger problem chess community to take the first step toward universal standards (which will benefit everybody -- especially the problem chess software developers, whom already benefit everybody).
Why are you so feverishly opposed to taking one step forward?
WHY?
| | | (62) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 21:14] |
"...We merely ask that WFCC FORM A COMMITTEE...etc."
I admit I don't know whether anyone has asked clearly for something like that (except indirectly through the forums like this one).
Please inform me about some direct asking.
However, various discussions offer much too little of common agreement. So it seems that any hypothetical "standardization" by a hypothetical committee would be mostly an act of violence upon most of the problemists.
The crucial quality of the Codex is the liberty SUPPORTED by guidelines (not RESTRICTED by guidelines).
Of course, some clever fairy guidelines are indeed dearly wanted.
"...Where is there any evidence that such individual work has ever been adopted..."
Various individual criteria do exist, their mutual divergence actually discourages more than promises.
| | | (63) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 21:28]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-04] |
People want a universal, standardized meaning for elementary terms, such as PIN, LINE-PIN (LINE!), Fairy, Orthodox, ... etc.
They want universal rules for a variety of fairy elements (and a means to create new names for related alternatives).
People want to know what check is, and how to count checks...
Mind you, some folks (here, and elsewhere) would like to narrowly define the term "CHESS" itself (primarily to exclude a particular set of diverse elements, which they refuse to understand)!
Why would anybody obstruct an effort for community standards, or refuse to acknowledge that WFCC is the organizing body responsible to oversee this endeavor (for "all domains of problem chess")?
I take WFCC's charter at its word, and despite my historical discomfort with them (and their election process), I still do (presently) recognize them as the governing body.
[rant]
I do not believe in the supernatural, but if I had to live by one commandment, I would strive to live (foremost) by this: thou shalt not inhibit The Future.
If I had a second commandment, it would say the same about The Truth.
I will never see the benefit for those content to break these rules, so frequently (if not at every opportunity) -- the rewards seem so well hidden.
[/rant]
Neal and Georgy are free to individually define the meaning of PIN.
And from this elementary meaning, they can derive an entire set of standards (e.g., the rules governing various fairy elements).
But, unless you are willing to accept the need to translate their every publication (not only for them), the community will require a universal agreement.
When they bring their individual standards before WFCC (as Juraj suggests they might, despite simultaneously claiming that WFCC has no authority to mitigate such disputes), ask yourself: how will WFCC rule on a matter, which is rooted in the concept of check (which WFCC can not, or will not, define)?
Who will appear before the WFCC court (which is as powerless as Oz), to defend the interests of the broader problem community (and its Future!), if you can not even petition them to administer a set of logical standards for their own, fundamental terminology (today)?
The Future of problem chess requires a consistent set of axioms -- I ask only that the problem community take small steps in this direction.
And, yes, I submit that nothing (not even the preservation of an unfair, and biased system of awarding titles) can be deemed more important (to The Future, and to The Truth).
The Truth is that we are inhibited by a lack of standards -- I thought the whole point of this discussion was to marshal some collective will to find agreement (not to relegate Neal and Georgy to futile individual pursuits of Truth -- which can never obtain the broader consent they require, because WFCC can not, or will not, facilitate their stated function).
If my petition (for community involvement in shaping elementary standards) consistutes a rant, in the eyes of the problem chess community, then the problem community is not worthy of my membership (nor yours).
“[OUR] future depends on what [WE] do today.” ― Mahatma Gandhi.
| | | (64) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 22:28]; edited by Nikola Predrag [14-10-04] |
"...And, if you are claiming that WFCC does not have sole authority to facilitate these standards, why then do you contradict yourself? ..."
Kevin, I certainly can't presume that you don't understand English. Therefore I have to presume that you simply don't understand communication.
You regularly find some contradictions where there are no contradictions. And you insist on repeatedly citing something that the others have never said.
If you're not interested and don't listen WHAT was actually said, then why are you so eager to discuss it?
You actually discuss only with yourself, no matter what the others say.
| | | (65) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Oct 5, 2014 15:31] |
I fear Fairy Chess is too large for Kevins noble intentions,
and the following is bound to happen: http://xkcd.com/927/
I, on the other hand, was always the shoot-em-all-and-let-God-sort-em-out
anarchist type, i.e. any fairy variant that is interesting will eventually be
codified de-facto, and anything ill-conceived or too complicated just
gets forgotten. There are two mutally incongruent competitors?
Fine, then there will be TWO new fairy types (Hoeg and Proca retractor,
as the obvious example).
And finding holes in the laws is one of the biggest lulz source for
problemists.
Hauke
| | | (66) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Oct 5, 2014 20:37]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-05] |
@Nikola,
Why could you not elaborate upon the specific statement which, according to you, I have falsely attributed (to create a contradiction)?
Why do you, oh Great Communicator, fail to communicate a precise meaning?
Discuss.
Allow me to refresh your memory:
1) Juraj claimed that "there is obviously false claim right at the beginning of Kevin's post: 'WFCC claims sole authority to codify 'the formulation of rules and guidelines in all domains of chess composition' '."
Juraj does not recognize WFCC as the sole authority (perhaps he does not recognize their authority at all).
If he were correct, the answer would be trivial: we could simply create a STANDARDIZATION AUTHORITY (to which Neal and Georgy might eventually make their cases, as to which meaning should be accepted as the universal definition of PIN, PIN-LINE, etc).
I have never been satisfied with WFCC's exercise of their responsibility in these matters, but I certainly recognize them (for now) as the sole authority.
That is why you do not hear me (presently) calling for a new arbitrating authority -- I merely call upon WFCC to fulfill the obligations of their charter!
There is nothing false about my claim -- if there were, Juraj (perhaps you, and others, as well) would have either cited the proper authority (plural?), or you would have insisted that there is no such authority.
The latter option is obviously false, since WFCC has, on several occasions, rewritten the Codex, and those alterations have demonstrably affected problem chess.
Therefore, if there is a another authority, the burden is on Juraj (and perhaps you) to produce the name of this ghostly organization.
This will happen soon, I hope, as Halloween is closing fast, and I might entertain this organization as an idea for a scary costume!
2) Juraj claimed that "anybody can do any chess composition work completely out of WFCC reach, and if valuable, it would be welcome by chess problems community, including WFCC delegates and leaders."
Until proved otherwise, problem chess has no central arbitrating authority, other than WFCC.
WFCC specifically reserves authority to codify "the formulation of rules and guidelines in all domains of chess composition." [source: please, read the WFCC charter]
Therefore, no individual problemist can produce content beyond the authority (or "reach") of WFCC -- their charter clearly states that they may "REACH" into all domains of problem chess.
Yes, WFCC may welcome an individual's work (and until they do, the work is, by definition, not a codified standard).
A few years ago, WFCC accepted an individual's rewrite of defacto Retro convention; prior to that acceptance, these conventions were anything but universal.
No individual (nor even groups of individuals) have any authority to modify the Codex.
In order to modify the Codex, one must petition WFCC.
As I have already stated, Georgy and Neal could each petition WFCC; but, WFCC does not yet have any foundation upon which to consider such claims (specifically, they have no definition for 'CHECK' -- and we all know, the definition of PIN may depend upon the definition of CHECK).
It is a contradiction to claim that WFCC has no authority, and then imply that an individual may petition WFCC, to obtain some "weclcome" (read: acceptance, and eventual codification of a universal standard).
In fact, I was being polite to declare this a mere contradiction -- Juraj's argument is based upon a false premise (WFCC is STILL the sole, central arbitrating authority, in matters concerning the standardization of ALL forms of chess problems, and there is no other).
Moreover, oh Great Communicator, you have not touched the core of my argument: I claim that working together (not as individuals) is the proper way for the COMMUNITY (the chess community, the problem chess community, the variant game community, software developers, and others) to adopt standards.
There are numerous examples of why Juraj's model is destined to fail.
I cited the failure of Microsoft, Netscape, and others -- absent a central arbitrating authority, it proved increasingly difficult (never easier!) to realize a universal standard.
The solution involved both compromise, and the careful creation of a foundation rooted in well defined terms (starting from the most elemental, and building up to an increasingly complex set of standards).
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." -- George Bernard Shaw
So, if you have something to say regarding these matters, Nikola, I suggest you simply say exactly what it is you mean to convey.
Alternatively, if you have no point, by all means, you may continue discussing how I might better make mine.
My petition is so obviously valid, one would imagine that no amount of persuasion would be necessary.
I can think of no reason for the resistance, other that the possibility that I may not be petitioning a fair-minded group (slash organization, slash community).
Whatever the reason, I find myself increasingly unwelcome, and increasingly seeking exclusion; indeed, I find myself at the very borderline of an unforgiving territory.
| | | (67) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Oct 5, 2014 21:27]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-05] |
@Hauke,
Kindly tell me the de-facto meaning of the following terms: PIN, PIN-LINE, CHECK, FAIRY, CHESS, ...
Kindly inform Georgy as to the de-facto standard which currently defines the boundary of the CHESS PROBLEM.
* how big can the board be?
* can an alternative set of rules redefine checkmate (without crossing into another type of problem)?
For that matter, tell me the de-facto castling standard for VERTICAL CYLINDER, the de-facto rules of Equipollent Circe (specifically governing pawns on the 1st rank), etc.
Oh, that's right, you prefer chaos -- well, I like CHAOS THEORY, but I remind you that even that is based upon axioms.
As for the cartoon... actually, that illustrates my point, beautifully!
This is precisely why Neal and Georgy should be discouraged from creating their own set of standards -- in order to establish ONE (singular) standard, it is necessary to first secure agreement from the larger community (and recognize the broad diversity of same)!
I hope both parties would recognize WFCC as the sole authority for arbitrating such disputes -- in fact, I hope Juraj and others would acknowledge this, as well.
Mat Plus Forum has generally been an excellent place for consideration of such disputes, but we need a means to intelligently resolve them.
WFCC is that framework (ignoring that it could certainly benefit from basic democratic reforms).
But, some of these issues actually extend beyond the jurisdiction of the chess problem community's central authority...
For this very reason, I have petitioned to reach out beyond the problem chess community (read: composers and solvers), and ask for cooperation from members of the chess game community (specifically including those who write the FIDE rule book), members of the variant game community, software developers, fairy inventors, theoreticians, etc.
I would also seek to include variant chess federations -- Shogi Federation, chess960 Federation, etc.
Obviously, WFCC must implement standards which serve the interests of the problem community; but, they should seek agreement with external agencies, wherever possible.
Whether you realize it or not, software developers are currently developeing standards to encode a vast number of such "games" -- both in terms of a encoding positional information (e.g., extension of the FEN), and to encode games (e.g., extension of the PGN).
Ask yourself: why is there no inclusion of any problem encoding? Why are problemists not involved in this endeavor?
It could be due to WFCC's failure to adopt (a better word would be: develop!) any encoding standard for problem forms -- as I have "ranted" for years now, WFCC has adopted no standards for much of anything (not even the meaning of their own terms, which they use to categorize problems -- which I might add, is systematically unfair).
We would benefit from standards, but the LAZY WFCC approach (let the software people create them for us) has taken us as far as it can.
Some central authority must, at the VERY LEAST, take responsibility for arbitrating the discrepancies which arise (between software developers, editors, inventors, and individuals).
I am not asking WFCC Delegates to shoulder this entire burden.
I am merely petitioning WFCC to take the first steps toward developing a foundation of elementary standards, by creating a diverse volunteer network, which can advise them on how to begin the process.
Problem organizations (like WFCC) must assert themselves, before we find ourselves (yet again) absent from all standards of the future.
“A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window.” ― Gilles Deleuze, Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
Which would you really prefer, Hauke: an honest set of axiomatic standards (built brick by brick, from a foundation of defined terminology), or continued anarchy?
If you want to tear down an unjust courthouse, I'm with you brother (providing we agree to a policy of minimal destruction, and we have plans to systematically correct the injustice).
All I can ask is that you chose your path, and take the first step forward (express it).
I am consigned to hope that you, and others in this community, will care about the future, and the truth -- even more than you might care about the individual rewards promised by a continued anarchy.
| | | (68) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Oct 5, 2014 21:56] |
"... oh Great Communicator..."
Pathetic and offending, again proving your reconstruction of what the others say.
Let me remind you, I said that YOU don't understand communication but I didn't say nothing about MY understanding.
I am a rather poor communicator.
I can't explain Juraj's words any better than he wrote them. So, please read his post again.
| | | (69) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Oct 5, 2014 22:11]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-05] |
@Nikola,
>Let me remind you, I said that YOU don't understand communication but I didn't say nothing about MY understanding.
>I am a rather poor communicator.
It is evident that you do not communicate well (at least in the English language), even from your statement -- "didn't say nothing" is, in fact, a double-negative.
Take comfort -- I do not hold this against you: you need not say it well; I only require that you actually convey your meaning.
In fact, some (perhaps Chris Feather?) might say that Americans, like myself, have undermined the English language.
I would presume that we (Americans) have earned the right to take some liberties with the language (I daresay for improvement), following the revolution of 1776. :-)
This is a delicate point, which yet requires a mediation unto itself (actually, steps have been made to remedy several discrepancies, and establish a more universal language).
My hat is off to all involved in such compromises -- especially citizens from the country which bears the name of this language (who might easily have dogmatically asserted an implied ownership of all such standards; they have, instead, decided that the future -- the greater good -- must be their highest priority. By comparison, it seems easy to lay down a life for a sacred principle; but, to lay down petty claims of ownership, for a better future -- that is truly the challenging sacrifice we all face, on a daily basis. It can not be enough admired).
I only hope that Problem Chess will not wait another 238 years, before taking the first steps toward a resolution of its many elementary discrepancies!
>I can't explain Juraj's words any better than he wrote them. So, please read his post again.
Neither, it would seem, can you explain your own words -- specifically, what did I falsely attribute to Juraj?
>As to the offense...
I am sincerely sorry if "Great Communicator" offends you, but given the nature of your treacherous claim (specifically, that I do not understand communication -- ha!), the label can hardly be considered anything more than a proportional response of satire.
Until you can clarify your own intended meaning, I bid you good day, sir.
"...and, until that day comes, keep your ear to the grindstone." -- Ben Afflec, Good Will Hunting.
| | | (70) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Oct 5, 2014 22:53] |
I'm sorry for the double-negative, first I wrote "didn't mention MY understanding". I should have spotted the excessive negation.
Fortunately, you've spotted it readily. We can expect a new level of communication with your full attention to any irrelevant detail.
Ask Juraj for more, I'll say only this:
The point was whether WFCC "CLAIMS" something or "DOES NOT CLAIM". And if it does, Juraj asked you to point that precisely.
Juraj did not say that there IS or that there IS NOT the sole authority.
And you wrote a whole book about his "contradiction". Bravo! (satirically)
| | | (71) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Oct 5, 2014 23:28]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-05] |
@Nikola,
>"We can expect a new level of communication with your full attention to any irrelevant detail."
It seems I may have underestimated your communication skills.
That comment was funny, well said, and probably deserved.
Bravo! (this time, without the satire).
>The point was whether WFCC "CLAIMS" something or "DOES NOT CLAIM". And if it does, Juraj asked you to point that precisely.
>Juraj did not say that there IS or that there IS NOT the sole authority.
Fair enough.
Juraj very likely acknowledges that WFCC does have sole authority, in all domains of problem chess; yet, he may merely assert that I falsely asserted that WFCC claims sole authority for itself.
When WFCC states that one of their "principal activities" includes "the formulation of rules and guidelines in all domains of chess composition," readers are entitled to interpret this as a declaration of sole responsibility, given the fact that they assume full ownership of the Codex document.
I consider there to be in no doubt that WFCC is the sole authority, with both responsibilities and obligations, in all matters of problem chess standards.
If that is the best argument that can be mustered against my petition -- throwing a silly monkey wrench at the tangential aspect of a stipulated premise -- then I can simply depart the field, and happily declare victory.
I would be happy to debate these irrelevant details further, if you (and Juraj?) would prefer to give matter this your full attention.
Two (or three) can play pot and kettle...
Honestly, I am more interested in finding agreement (even if it involves compromise) on how we might remedy the issues we face (mutually), caused by the failures of WFCC to exercise their "SOLE" authority over all domains of problem chess (read: we need to create a foundation of universal standards, based upon well-defined terminology).
If nobody (neither you, nor Juraj) can dispute the content of my statement (other than to argue about whether WFCC actually declares the very authority which you SEEM to have acknowledged they do possess), then you are wasting our precious time (which is MUCH worse than merely being wordy).
>And you wrote a whole book about his "contradiction". Bravo! (satirically)
My economy of words may yet be improved -- but, hardly by those who repeatedly fail to convey any explicit meaning.
It was my persistent wordiness which ultimately succeeded (finally!) in prying any meaning from your previous posts.
I remind you: I am not publishing a book here, I am merely engaging in casual conversation; still, I do strive for brevity, and grammatical correctness.
But, my primary motivation is to convey meaning.
| | | (72) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Oct 5, 2014 23:41]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-06] |
Furthermore, Nikola, I would remind you of the entirety of Juarj's post (perhaps you should go back and read it again).
He asserts: "Quite the opposite - anybody can do any chess composition work completely out of WFCC reach..."
This is patently, and demonstrably, FALSE.
The "REACH" of WFCC explicitly extends into ALL DOMAINS of chess composition.
WFCC owns the CODEX, which governs every rule, every convention, and every term.
He is not merely throwing a cog into the gears -- concerning the irrelevant matter of whether WFCC declares its own authority.
He is actually refusing to acknowledge the true extent of their authority (if not explicitly refusing to acknowledge WFCC as the sole authority and/or the proper authority).
I challenge him to make this claim explicit -- just provide one example (or aspect), in any domain of problem chess, which is beyond the authority of WFCC.
I would remind you: even the very soundness of any composition will depend upon the definition of soundness, which is provided by WFCC, in the Codex.
Indeed, according to reservations of its charter, WFCC (and not the Shogi Federation) has sole authority to determine the soundess of even a problem in Shogi Chess.
To some, that might seem inappropriate, given that WFCC exists under the FIDE umbrella -- and, I might agree, if WFCC were merely an "Orthodox Chess Problem Federation (plus some variants)."
I consider WFCC to be a "CHESS PROBLEM FEDERATION" (which should NOT be under the FIDE umbrella, since this position constitutes the source of a systematic unfairness).
And, unlike Georgy, I do not (any longer!) suffer from the narrow (orthocentric -- I'd even go as far as to call it "arrogant") interpetation of what constitutes a CHESS PROBLEM.
I would include Shogi Chess. I would include 17x17 boards. I would include anything which is amenable to being represented, analyzed, and possibly solved, using some understanding of the rules of chess.
First and foremost, WFCC must provide us a fundamental definition for itself.
From this definition, the relation of all agencies (including FIDE) will be determined.
WFCC is well aware of this need; and, we all know why they refuse to provide a serious definition for themselves: WFCC depends upon FIDE revenue!
Maybe FIDE revenue is appropriate for a particular subset of problem chess -- I will gladly leave that matter to the self-determination of the orthodox subset of problemists -- not my business!
But, there is certainly no grounds for FIDE to exert an improper influence upon any branch of fairy chess problems!
If WFCC can not fairly accomodate problems in all domains of chess, then the larger set of problemists really do require a new federation (which will, at the very least, take steps to meet this obligation).
I sincerely hope that there is no need to split WFCC.
However, that does not permit us to ignore the fact that WFCC (and FIDE) have failed to provide a proper definition of their boundaries/jurisdiction.
Damn the consequences -- just give us the Truth.
Nobody will panic (let that not be the sad excuse for this conspired deception).
Hauke says he loves chaos -- so, why not explain to him the extent of the chaos to which he is subject?
Might it be that WFCC does not want to admit a more narrow jurisdiction?
Given the demographics of chess composition (even by WFCC's false genre categories), I would strongly encourage WFCC to make a decision, before others make it for them.
| | | (73) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Oct 6, 2014 00:29]; edited by Nikola Predrag [14-10-06] |
I can't read so much of it, it is simply not interesting. Say the point which you want to point out.
I don't expect from WFCC to do what you ask. Juraj probably sees it similarly. There was much talk why we don't expect, but you don't listen and I will not repeat or search for possible quotations.
I wouldn't care but you suffocate the discussion about concrete questions.
Well, I don't care after all.
Read the Codex and try to understand the essence of concept. You are so helpless without definitions. But the essence can't be exactly defined, I'm sorry, such is our universe.
| | | (74) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Oct 6, 2014 00:40]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-06] |
I truly pity you, Nikola, for such a statement of carelessness.
[edit.
In light of Siegfried's post, I now realize that my above statement was quite poorly worded.
I should have said that I would pity anybody for such statements of utter carelessness; but, I believe Nikola genuinely does care.
He states that I do not listen, but I find this a poor excuse (nearly as poor as the false claim of a profound disinterest -- which is betrayed by his very participation).
The truth is, if anyone had an honest objection to any of my very reasonable petitions, they would not have held them back.
They certainly would not focus on whether WFCC has declared the very authority that, regardless, we all concede they do possess.
There is no good reason to deny the importance of defining fundamental terms (including the nature of WFCC).
There is no reason this community can not provide for an honest, logical arbitration, concerning the meaning of a PIN-LINE.
The truth is, we long ago sold out: for FIDE revenues, and for FIDE titles.
In exchange, we betray the truth, and we sabotage our own future.
You want a proper definition of PIN-LINE? Ask the highest bidder.
]
| | | (75) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Oct 6, 2014 01:40] |
Gentlemen, please lay your argument aside. Let us discuss anew. Let first everyone post his opinion, and then if necessary decide. Don't attack each other, please. It was a glorious achievement of this forum to unite our broken world. Don't let it be divided again.
| | | (76) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Oct 6, 2014 03:40]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-06] |
Beyond the organizational attachment (to revenue), there is always the individual attachment (to FIDE titles) to consider.
This tends to align interests against the truth, and against the future.
Should fairy chess composers aspire to titles from an international federation of orthodox gamers (FIDE)?
There are international federations for some variant chess games -- for example, I think Shogi has such a federation, and chess960.
Does this exclude such problems from the FIDE umbrella (under which WFCC currently resides)?
The list of questions is ever spiraling...
This discussion began in the interest of resolving one simple question: what is (or should be) the universal the meaning of PIN?
But, for whom shall we resolve it? For the orthodox chess subset, or for those with a less narrow interpretation of CHESS?
We can agree on this much: WFCC is poorly defined -- it is impossible to determine which subset they would serve (in answering such questions).
In either case, WFCC has an obligation to resolve the matter of their authority/jurisdiction.
Furthermore, they have a responsibility to define their elementary terms (not only the meaning of WFCC, but also CHESS, Fairy, Check, etc).
Beyond their own terminology, WFCC has a responsibility to help guide and inform debates concerning the meaning external definitions (e.g., PIN, PIN-LINE, etc).
Is WFCC the proper authority to arbitrate standards?
If not, they can merely declare that they have no such responsibility -- then, the problem community might consider the creation of an additional organization (responsible only for standards).
If this is WFCC's responsibility, clearly, they should release some plan to meet this daunting challenge.
But, to deny that WFCC has a responsibility to answer such questions -- that is nothing but the perpetration of a deliberate deceit.
I call upon every honest delegate to resolve the proper definition of WFCC, establish its boundaries, and provide definitions for its terminology.
I understand that there are fears -- but, this need not result in a full-scale disentanglement; at worst, a mere reorganization would be required.
There may be some subsets of problemists who see no conflict in accepting the influence of external agencies; and that subset may accept an entirely different interpretation of PIN, versus that which would be required by the broader set (which allow a wide variety of rules, aims, and stipulations).
The larger set need only accept problem titles awarded by WFCC -- outside agencies should give awards according to their own charter.
Some may be eligible for a FIDE title; alternatively, others might be eligible titles from the International Shogi Federation, or the Chess960 Federation, etc.
Everybody would be eligible for WFCC titles!
And, WFCC should favor no specific set of rules (allowing the continuation of a systematic unfairness would constitute a dereliction of their duty).
I believe Georgy and Neal deserve an honest opportunity to settle their dispute (as to what should be the universally accepted meaning of PIN).
I would urge WFCC delegates to make some plan which will eventually provide a fair resolution for such disputes.
Some (notably Nikola, and Juraj) seem to prefer obstructing the truth.
Nikola claims to have no interest in a universal definition of PIN (and all other elementary terminology), yet his disinterest is hardly reflected by the continual obstruction.
I believe there are three primary reasons for parties interested in obstructing all such matters:
1) fear that a redefinition of the FIDE affiliation will affect individual titles,
2) fear that a redefinition of the FIDE affiliation will affect WFCC revenues, and/or
3) fear that a proper definition of WFCC would have an adverse impact upon membership.
How else could any problemist not desire a definition of our problem federation?
How else could any problemist claim to have zero interest in establishing universal standards for the most elementary problem terminology (including terminology which defines the jurisdiction of judges, and categorizes problems)?
It is one thing to be content in one's own ignorance about all such elementary terminology, but it is quite another thing to obstruct every opportunity for the larger community to gain some enlightenment.
Someday, an investigative reporter (for the general public) will ask these tough questions (what is a CHECK, what is a PIN, what is CHESS, etc).
If our best representatives are honest, how will they answer? "Sorry, but I (GM, Judge, delegate) can not answer the most basic question."
If collectively, we can not summon courage, and integrity (which some prefer to call "interest") to sufficiently resolve our most elementary disputes, if we can not even write the first chapter of our own book, then why would we partake in the awards?
I find this situation shameful.
I have made countless petitions for an honest clarification of such matters; but, scarcely have I found ANY trace of public support (and, even then, zero success).
It may be that I have some affinity against any and all affiliation (I am at least willing to consider this as a possibility); but, I submit that there is something deeply troubling about the nature of this particular affiliation.
If this community systematically refuses to define WFCC (and Chess, and Fairy, and Check, and Pin, etc, etc, etc), who could possibly be subject to WFCC (or any of its terminology)?
Who could possibly remain the loyal affiliate with a group content to remain so dishonorable to its own future, and in such legion against the truth?
Kennedy said loyalty is sometimes asking too much... but, I find the following far more appropriate:
"So full of artless jealousy is guilt, It spills itself in fearing to be split." – William Shakespeare.
How many more will this community allow to leave, without so much as a parting interest in their honest petition?
Often it is simple acts, and trivial resolutions, which might allow them to remain (or to join).
How many have been lost? How long can it continue?
How long can this community continue to find substitutes for integrity?
Bah, what does it matter? WFCC's days were already numbered.
This will inevitably become a game for computer algorithms; and, that future will have zero tolerance for today's systematic unfairness.
Sometimes, I feel like I have been chasing WFCC's deathbed confession; but, suppose I depart without it... who will remain, till that final hour?
I would have stayed...
| | | (77) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Oct 6, 2014 06:45] |
I care about chess composition but each topic becomes "enriched" with thousands of the same off-topic words. Why do you have to paste your "ballad of WFCC" everywhere. I suggest you to open a thread about WFCC.
If Gandhi, Shaw, Deleuze or Shakespeare have said something about the Pin, please paste it here.
| | | (78) Posted by Thomas Brand [Monday, Oct 6, 2014 12:13] |
Let me try an additional approach for a definition -- based of the (orthodox) definition in the "Encyclopedia of Chess Problems". There "pin" is defines as follows:
"The effect of a line-piece {the pinner} that prevents an opposing unit {the pinned unit} due to a subsequent exposed (illegal) chess." [text in curly brackets {} added by me]
For orthodox chess this definition is fine, see e.g. wKg8 wBc8 bRb8. Rb8 is the pinner, wBc8 the pinned unit, there is no (legal) move for the pinned unit.
Now let's add a bBh3 -- no changes in orthodox chess. But in Madrasi I would not call wBc8 pinned: It has no legal move, but if you remove the pinner, nothing changes. And with Circe condition there is a "pelle move" (move by pinned piece), namely wB:h3[bBc8]
But the same general idea of pinning remains true if we neglect the "topology" of the chess board: We do not need the "line-" in the Encyclopedia definition, since, according to fairy rules, the general idea applies for non-line-pieces, too, e.g. wPb4, bKa5, bQa2: in Anticirce, this is not a check, but bQ is pinned by the wP.
Also you do not need the "orthodox geometry" for pinning situation as in my first example: move wBc8 to a8, and with Anticirce condition nothing changes, the wBishop keeps pinned.
So a generalised definition of pinning might be (see Encyclopedia):
Pin: "The effect of a piece {the pinner} that prevents an opposing unit {the pinned unit} due to a subsequent exposed (illegal) chess."
Pelle Move: "Legal move by pinned piece."
And so it's easy to define "line pin" of a unit, if this unit is pinned and has pelle moves. -- Again, "line" comes from the orthodox chess topology. This we should completely ignore when dealing with generalised definitions, when transfering "orthodox" definitions to fairy chess.
| | | (79) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Oct 6, 2014 15:27] |
Yes, it was said. A fairy-line is a set of squares. A piece could be pinned to a single square, to an Euclidean line, or generally to a fairy-line (particular set of squares).
wQa2,bKg8,bQd1, AntiCirce allows Pelle moves Qd1-b3/Qd1-d5. Or, if bQ is on d5 or b3, one of its Pelle moves would be to f1.
Patrol chess adds a possibility of Pelle moves along the "observing-lines", SAT pins the self-blocking pieces to the unguarded flights but also pins the hurdles which enable the guards of flights, etc..
Any pure departure of a piece which would cause a selfcheck might be considered as the pure/simple pin.
Georgy's en-passant example is not a pure, but a conditional pin. It should be considered as some kind of pin because without wRa4, exd3ep. would be legal. The previous white move d2-d4 allows bPe4 to move on d3 but only if that would annihilate wPd4.
White Locust on e4 would be able for Pelle-capture LOxd4-c4, annihilating wP, while ep.-capture by wPe4 would not be a Pelle move because of the departure from the pinning-line.
In these conditions, it looks as a kind of line-pin.
Siegfried's cylinder example includes the arrival of wK. It might be speculated that O-O is illegal because wRh1 is pinned when the "first half" of castling is done (wKe1-g1). But Rh1-f1 is a legal Pelle move with (wKe1), so the wK's arrival to g1 makes the difference. Moving a Royal piece to an attacked square would be a selfcheck but not of the "pin-type".
Some convincing argument is required to consider this as an example of line-pin.
| | | (80) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Oct 6, 2014 20:51]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-07] |
"A pin has as much head as some authors and a good deal more point." --George Dennison Prentice.
If our terms (pins) have no meaning, what hope have our authors?
"The more you try to pin a word down, the more you realize that it has its own cape, sword and little hat." --Roy Blount, Jr.
Language is an enduring challenge; but, for those who can hear the dropped pin (those who care to hear the meaning cascading from our language), this unique, undeceiving sound is instantly recognized as a call to action. It rings out clear -- even when few will hear, and nobody will answer.
"To pin your hopes upon the future is to consign those hopes to a hypothesis, which is to say, a nothingness. Here and now is what we must contend with." -- Angela Carter.
We can contend with the PIN (create a pathway to establish meaning for our most fundamental terminology), here and now, or we can continue the ceremonial deception (which amounts to a nothingness), far into the future.
Does anybody in this community care (about meaning)? Enough to lend their voices?
Well, you could almost hear the pin drop...
I offered a plan which would call upon WFCC to do its duty (increasingly arbitrate the meaning of fundamental problem terminology, spanning all domains of problem chess).
I believe WFCC could gather a diverse set of volunteers, to assist them in developing intelligent standards -- if only WFCC would ask.
If somebody has a better plan, now is the time -- no more withholding, no more excuses, mo more deception.
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
What could matter more than the precious meaning of words?
Titles? Revenues? There is no profit in concealed treasures -- more is paid in surrendered courage, if we dare not claim them.
I am encouraged by those who do question the meaning of such terms.
Yet, these champions have no means to contest their ideas -- they are systematically deprived access to a fair arbiter.
It does not speak well for this community to remain silent so long, concerning such important matters.
Something is deeply wrong with the priorities -- not because our greatest champions can not answer a child's question about the most elementary term; but because we do nothing about it.
Often in fact, we do much worse than nothing!
| |
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? |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
