Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
23:51 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Competitions Good Zug Tourney |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 | | (41) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Oct 28, 2010 02:24] |
Thanks for the update Cornel -- indeed, worth the wait! I posted the link over in the WCCC thread as well.
So much good material to digest! My favorite (so far) is Caillaud's Special Prize in the Japanese Sake tourney. :-)
| | | (42) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Oct 29, 2010 10:54] |
>"My favorite (so far) is Caillaud's Special Prize in the Japanese Sake tourney."
So far, I quite agree -- though, I still have much yet to view...
Perhaps not surprisingly, my least favorite would be the result of the CapZug Notation Tourney.
Even if CapZug were a valid stipulation, x= would remain a dubious notation.
It is obvious that x equates to capture... but, = equates to stalemate (not zugzwang).
And, the reasoning provided (both for the submission and the award) fails to adequately address yet another obvious inconsistency.
> "...x= can be interpreted as "capture-stalemate" or, more descriptively, as 'captures exist, otherwise stalemate.'
According to the definition of CapZug, such problems do not terminate with stalemate if no captures exist.
Even by the implied definition -- which was only shaken by the Smoking Gun probllem -- CapZug is a non-terminal state.
So, how does the symbol for stalemate belong anywhere in this notation?
Can somebody (other than submitter / judge) pleae explain how this can be considered an intelligent notation (assume it were a valid aim)?
I promise, no debate -- I'll let readers decide for themselves -- just please offer some rationale (for future tourneys of the congress).
>Dan says: "Since CapZug has much in common with Stalemate, stipulations like h=n / hx=n, ser-h=n / ser-hx=n, etc. match-up well."
CapZug has about as much in common with stalemate as "political gridlock" does.
I often see problemists criticize such misuse by "outsiders"... are "insiders" immune?
Dan seems to interpret the silence of other problemists as tacit support (calling it his "silent majority" of support).
Personally, having a great deal of faith in the faculties of the problem community, I must interpret the silence as a mixture of cowardice and apathy.
In my estimation, this invention has demonstrated an ironic inability to think just a few steps ahead...
Consider the well known aim of #/= -- which Dan calls "stiffle."
It is no marvel how the notation allows the conjoining of two widely recognized symbols of well known aims (mat -or- pat).
Good notation makes this possible -- and easily understood.
Now, just imagine what happens if somebody wants to, in similar fashion, conjoin the (invalid) aim of capzug with that of stalemate.
Nevermind the issues which might arise due to invalidity -- just assume CapZug is valid, and consider the notational arrangement.
Oops, CapZug already includes the stalemate symbol -- pity! -- if only somebody had forseen this flaw sooner!
There were better suggestions for notation.
I expect most folks know this should not be masked as an aim anyway -- so, why bother protesting such a pety matter?
Why make a mountain out of a mole hill?
Besides, if "Cap-StaleZug" provides an outlet for fairy composers who happen to be in denial about their genre...
Why not leave them be?
All true -- but, the invention could have been crafted in a consistent fashion -- without sacrificing the odor of "irrational deniability."
When you witness such a perfect example of a shortsighted invention, I find it disappointing that so few experts are willing to publically insist upon (or provide) more consistent guidelines (which might benefit other inventors).
The experts have a duty to provide analysis in these matters.
| | | (43) Posted by Dan Meinking [Friday, Oct 29, 2010 15:07] |
Re-posting the bulletin link here, so folks won't have to page-back:
http://www.chessfed.gr/wccc2010/
Re-posting this as well, for the same reason:
DM original, "to the GZT participants!"
 (= 14+9 )
PG in 12½ (14+9) C+ Natch
To view the solution, however, you'll need to page-back. :-)
Thanks again, everyone!
| | | (44) Posted by Cornel Pacurar [Friday, Oct 29, 2010 19:24]; edited by Cornel Pacurar [10-10-29] |
Kevin,
I understand your frustration that you are not receiving the support that you have been hoping for, but I do not understand why you need to include into your posts comments that could easily be labeled as offensive and inappropriate. It is really sad - you have some good ideas, you have done your homework and you certainly have a very good English language command, it is thus hard to believe that it was unintentional.
Did it ever occur to you that the silence that follows some of your posts may have nothing to do with “cowardice and apathy”, as you “eloquently” put it (“I must interpret the silence as a mixture of cowardice and apathy”), but maybe, at least partially, with the length, the style and, in some cases, the actual content of your posts? Feel free to embrace the “he who is not with us is against us” directive, but I do not think that this approach is going to get you anywhere.
Further, you use your hypothetical ’Cap-StaleZug’ idea to launch another dubious statement (“’Cap-StaleZug’ provides an outlet for fairy composers who happen to be in denial about their genre”), which, if projected towards CapZug, could be considered derogatory. Have you noticed that 45 entries were submitted to the Good Zug Tourney? Have you noticed that, among others, Petko Petkov, Juraj Lörinc, Eric Huber and Vlaicu Crisan participated? Do you really believe or imply that they are in denial about the Fairy genre?! I am certain that they will strongly disagree with some of your statements, as they should – in fact, they are some of the experts that you are asking to “provide analysis in these matters”.
I do hope that my post is not going to trigger another 600+ words post of more or less distorted reality from you. Without being a “coward” or suffering from “apathy”, I simply do not have the time, the energy or the desire to further communicate with you on this matter.
| | | (45) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Oct 30, 2010 02:21]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-10-30] |
Cornel,
Should I assume that you can not provide a rationale for the notation (x=) ?
That's all I asked for...
>Further, you use your hypothetical ’Cap-StaleZug’ idea to launch another dubious statement (“’Cap-StaleZug’ provides an outlet for fairy composers who happen to be in denial about their genre”), which, if projected towards CapZug, could be considered derogatory.
First, Cap-StaleZug does refer to Cap-Zug...
Second, I never intended this to be deragorty -- I am simply stating a well known fact (Dan denies many of his fairy inventions are in the fairy genre).
How exactly is this statement offensive?
Dan's inventions should be properly classified as fairy conditions.
He is in denail about proper classifications.
Others may share this denial -- for whatever odd reason, wanting to classify fairy elements as "orthodox."
If anyone finds this offensive, it CERTAINLY was not intentional -- I have no idea how it could be read as such.
But, I will promptly apologize, if anyone can explain how this offended them (or might have offended anyone).
Note: I suspect that my comments may be misconstrued as offensive, because of the deragatory connotation associated with the term "fairies."
Please note that I have lobbied the Good Companions to alter this term (to Heterodox), for exactly this reason.
My petition was voted down -- and I concede there may be good reasons for this vote (the term having come from T.R.Dawson, himself!).
Please be aware that classifying somebody's invention a "fairy" does not constitute a derogatory offense against the inventor.
There is simply no good way around this term.
>Have you noticed that 45 entries were submitted to the Good Zug Tourney?
Have you noticed that I encouraged people -- within this very thread! -- to participate in said tourney?
In fact, I would have participated myself, but I was rather busy -- too busy even to fix a simple oversight for an entry I sent to another tourney!
The problems are good -- and should survive whatever the classification.
Participation in the tourney does NOT depend upon the entrants agreeing with the mis-classification.
>Have you noticed that, among others, Petko Petkov, Juraj Lörinc, Eric Huber and Vlaicu Crisan participated?
>Do you really believe or imply that they are in denial about the Fairy genre?!
First, yes I did -- and I saw a few nice problems too!
Second, no -- I did not reference any of the participants -- I have no reason to believe that any of the participants mentioned are in denial about what constitutes a fairy problem.
Third, read Petko's articles on Parry Series -- he provided the first argument (before I became involved in any of this) for classifying parry series as a fairy condition.
He makes a very strong case.
I merely joined the discussion after reading Dan's inadequate dismisal of Petko's arguments.
And, I expanded the discussion, to examine the many flaws of CapZug's classification, definition, and notations.
>I am certain that they will strongly disagree with some of your statements, as they should – in fact, they are some of the experts that you are asking to “provide analysis in these matters”.
I assure you, Cornel, I am not without support in this matter -- but, I have no right to name the names.
No expert can support Dan's definition of "fairy condition," because he refuses to provide any definition!
>I do hope that my post is not going to trigger another 600+ words post of more or less distorted reality from you.
I don't count words... and, I'm not here to distort anything -- if you have a better version of reality, please do share.
Specifically, I'd like to know:
1. What is the definition of "fairy condition?"
2. How is it an intelligent decision to mask a fairy condition as an aim (CapZug), and then include the stalemate symbol within its notation?
| | | (46) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Saturday, Oct 30, 2010 02:35] |
Where Kevin is certainly correct is in the pitfall of confusing stalemate (=) with zugzwang (zz or ~). So personally, I would prefer either "xz" - as already proposed - or "x~" become established as abbreviations for CapZug: e.g. Ser-Hxz3 or Hx~4. Thoughts Dan?
| | | (47) Posted by Cornel Pacurar [Saturday, Oct 30, 2010 09:04] |
@ Ian
Like I said on another forum, after taking into consideration some new information that I cannot disclose here, I would have actually preferred something more descriptive, or literal - Arno Tüngler’s “cz”. The precedents are “ep” = en-passant, "ct" = circuit and “ctr” = circuit by rebirth. As Arno noted, “cz” also does not conflict with the "Z" used for targetsquare (“Zielfeld” in German), that being written in the “Zxy” form.
@ Kevin
Facts and reality can be distorted in many ways, one of those being by deliberate omission. By totally failing to acknowledge and address the chief concern of my previous post – the fact that you openly stated that while “Dan seems to interpret the silence of other problemists as tacit support”, you “must interpret the silence as a mixture of cowardice and apathy” - you did just that. I personally find the above mentioned comment of yours to be both offensive and inappropriate, and I trust that I am not the only one that feels like this. Also, there are other less direct ways of distorting facts and reality, and in your reply you have given quite a few examples, but it is not worth my time to demonstrate that and argue with you – your misleading and even off-topic at times harangue (645 words, as per Microsoft, by the way) speaks for itself. This forum does not have an ignore feature, but I will do my best to disregard such posts in the future.
| | | (48) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Oct 30, 2010 15:13]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-10-30] |
@ Ian and Cornel:
I've received mostly positive comments about x= as notation. Those who differ are:
Kevin: CapZug is not an aim
Ian: prefers x~ or xz
Cornel: prefers cz
GZT: one composer liked the original ~x
One composer thought x= was "perfect" (and, no, that wasn't Seetharaman). Another thought it was good, and that folks would "get used to it". Other opinions range somewhere in between. But generally positive. To me, the combination of "x=" is readily discernable from the independent "x" and "=" symbols.
@ Kevin:
When the composing community comes to a consensus that a Stalemate is NOT fairy, then we can have a discussion about whether CapZug is. Not too long ago, Helpmates and Selfmates were considered fairy; then they magically became non-fairy. So the "definition of fairy" is not carved in stone.
What is an aim? It is a STATE or an EVENT.
STATE: mate, stalemate, check, target-square, etc. and yes, CapZug
EVENT: ep, capture, 0-0, etc.
An EVENT can only be verified by move-history. A STATE can generally be verified by the position on-board. There are exceptions (as seen in the GZT awards) where, for example, move-history must be considered to confirm ep/no-ep in a final position. Notation ceases when the STATE is achieved, or when the EVENT occurs. And that is the case with CapZug.
Classifications: The composing community does not live in a bubble. Surely it is the desire of said community to be able to SHARE our creations with those from the outside. THAT aspect, in my opinion, must always be considered before we make absolute classifications.
For example:
ser-h#5; OR
h#5 with condition "white plays only to achieve goal"
pser-s#8; OR
s#8 with condition "black plays only when in-check, or to achieve goal"
hx=3; OR
black 6h with condition "black has one or more legal captures; and no legal non-capture; and is not in-check", and throw in "dual-truncation" for good measure
The implementations I chose for both Parry Series (pser-* and phser-*) and CapZug (x=) are not simply because I like them. I feel they clearly and succinctly communicate the essence of the problem -- whether the audience is a composer or not. I stand by both.
@ Everyone:
Barring any GZT-specific updates, this is my FINAL word on this thread. That is not out of cowardice nor apathy. I simply feel that Mr. Begley's continued rants do not warrant further response.
If anyone wishes to discuss these matters further, feel free to email me. My address is on the tournament PDF (see the above link).
| | | (49) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Oct 31, 2010 02:02]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-10-31] |
@Ian:
>I personally find the above mentioned comment of yours to be both offensive and inappropriate, and I trust that I am not the only one that feels like this.
You seem to be the only one, Cornel -- so, you'll have to explain how these comments are offensive to you.
As I have said, there is nothing offensive intended...
I notice that you left out the definition of "Fairy Condition."
I don't consider this omission to constitute a "distortion of reality" -- you merely ducked & dodged of the question, and diverted attention with some pretense about being offended.
As I said -- explain how this is offensive (to you, or anyone else), and I will gladly apologize.
But, if you cannot explain how my words are offensive, your unfounded claims are entirely tangential.
Also, I notice that you did not address the poor use of stalemate symbol in the awarded CapZug notation.
Even after Ian's post made clear that this was a poor choice -- you ducked & dodged the issue.
I asked for two things: 1. define fairy condition, 2. explain the use of the stalemate symbol in capzug.
Can you provide either?
@Dan,
Helpmates appeared in the fairies section, but were never considered a "Fairy Condition."
Please provide your definition of "Fairy Condition" and "Aim" for us!
Otherwise, you have little credibility using these terms.
>"The implementations I chose for both Parry Series (pser-* and phser-*) and CapZug (x=) are not simply because I like them."
The classifications you have suggested -- both for Parry Series and CapZug -- was based entirely upon your "likes / dislikes."
And, you claimed that the inventor had such a right!
There is a well established theory of formal stipulation -- and, your inventions should be classified accordingly.
And, if you think x= is "clear and succinct," you are fooling yourself.
>"Mr. Begley's continued rants do not warrant further response."
Dan, you may call me Kevin.
You have not adequately responded to any of the valid arguments against CapZug.
Nor have you been able to adequately respond to Petko's arguments (re: pser is a Fairy Condition).
It is not a rant to point out that the stalemate symbol does not belong in this "aim" (which is not an aim).
Note that Ian agrees with me on this point -- meanwhile, nobody has provided any support for your position.
The error in your logic is obvious -- you want to treat "x=" as one independent entity.
But, you need to be aware that there are combinational notations, built upon these independent symbols (it goes far beyond #/=)!
So, a combination of known symbols does NOT make a new independent entity -- do you get it now?
Until your are better informed (about fairy forms and aims), you are not qualified to judge notation tourneys.
Nor are you qualified to classify your own inventions!
As for your running from rants...
It is not a rant for Petko to explain that Parry-Series is a "Fairy Condition" -- and should be classified as such.
(Just as "series movers" are a FAIRY CONDITION).
You have provided no alternative definitions -- even in the face of overwhelming evidence as to the classification of these elements.
It is not a rant to illustrate that your CapZug invention does not fall into the class of any familiar AIM.
It is not a rant to illustrate that your CapZug falsely claimed to be a terminal state (like stalemate), but turned out not to be.
It is not a rant to illustrate that your definition of CapZug did not (and still does not) adequately convey the rules (re: truncation of duals).
You have not been able to provide any valid argument to counter these points -- you can not even provide the definition of AIM or FAIRY CONDITION.
So, don't pretend that it is "offensive rants" that you are running away from.
You are running so that you don't have to admit the truth...
Can you not even admit that the stalemate symbol does not belong in Capture-Zugzwang's notation?
Can you not even admit that series-movers are a fairy condition?
I walked a river in Egypt, and rode upon a camel -- but, I have never seen "denial" like this!
| | | (50) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Oct 31, 2010 10:45]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-10-31] |
Mr. Begley:
"...I must interpret the silence as a mixture of cowardice and apathy."
"I assure you, Cornel, I am not without support in this matter -- but, I have no right to name the names."
So... anyone who disagrees with you without doing so publicly is cowardly and apathetic, but those who secretly "support" you are not? Like Cornel, I find many of your posts "offensive and inappropriate" (and not just on this thread). And I assure you, we are not without support in this matter.
Since you're so keen on definitions, here's one you should learn:
rant
–verb (used without object)
1.to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave: The demagogue ranted for hours.
–verb (used with object)
2.to utter or declaim in a ranting manner.
For the record, I've already addressed most of the points in your previous post. If you'd stop ranting long enough, you'd know that. However, I don't feel the need to address every point and sub-point of your many, many, MANY rants. Doing so would only trigger more rants.
PS: Your previous post begins "@Ian", but I'm certain you meant "@Cornel". When one rants in this manner, it's easy to forget to whom you are ranting.
| | | (51) Posted by Cornel Pacurar [Sunday, Oct 31, 2010 11:40]; edited by Cornel Pacurar [10-10-31] |
@ Kevin
Very entertaining post, it really merits a final response. Quite an “original” interpretation of the old "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt" too, I am sure everyone here reads Mark Twain in English and has totally enjoyed your pun! It almost made me think about the first four lines of Pam Tillis’ “Cleopatra, Queen of Denial”! :-) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_vxI0sOsIY - enjoy!]
Seriously now - I have nothing to answer or explain to you; the one that needs to explain something is you. Instead of turning a blind eye on yourself or pretend not to see what the problem at hand really is, how about you try to explain in plain English what makes you believe that stating that you interpret the silence (read lack of CapZug/Dan Meinking critique) of hundreds of forum members as a mixture of cowardice and apathy, is appropriate and is not offensive?
Here is the whole paragraph:
“CapZug has about as much in common with stalemate as "political gridlock" does.
I often see problemists criticize such misuse by "outsiders"... are "insiders" immune?
Dan seems to interpret the silence of other problemists as tacit support (calling it his "silent majority" of support).
Personally, having a great deal of faith in the faculties of the problem community, I must interpret the silence as a mixture of cowardice and apathy.“
You have associated cowardice with hundreds of problemists because they do not criticize, like you do, and then you ask others to explain how your words are inappropriate or offensive?! Have a nice day and a nice life Kevin, I have really had enough of this!
| | | (52) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Oct 31, 2010 22:11]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-11-01] |
@Cornel,
> "what makes you believe that stating that you interpret the silence (read lack of CapZug/Dan Meinking critique) of hundreds of forum members as a mixture of cowardice and apathy, is appropriate and is not offensive?"
I did not say "all problemists are cowards" -- merely that those who know better (that Mr.Meinking is incorrect about classifications), do have a duty to speak up.
Even if I had said "all problemists are cowards," Cornel, it is hardly the personally offensive statement you pretend it to be.
If I said "Kim Poser is a coward," you might have a valid point -- I'm a LONG way from making (even by inference) any such statement!
Meanwhile, what is with this "have a nice life" stuff?
Get a grip.
I expect most are apathetic to Mr.Meinking's ill conceived inventions -- you should not misinterpret silence in this thread (& participation in his tourney) as a show of support for Mr.Meinking's classification system.
Already, the vast majority of problemists can be demonstrated to be in opposition to a classification system where series-movers and parry-movers are considered orthodox (whereas an exactly equivalent problem, expressed in the anticipatory form of parry-movers, is mysteriously claimed to be fairy).
ALL respected journals (save perhaps the Good Companion's Journal) have already voted against Mr.Meinking's classification system.
If not apathy -- why do they not put their mouth where their magazine is?
[edit: StrateGems adopted Dan's proposal to place series-movers in another section, mainly because he claimed that stalemates would not survive without their help. At the time, help-selfmates were not so popular (especially in SG). Stalemates, like selfmates and helpmates before them, constitute a separate type of fairy problem -- these are not fairy conditions (they do not alter the rules of movement), but fairy goals. Series-movers, and Parry-movers are not equivalent to these forms. Nor is CapZug equivalent as an aim -- unlike all other aims, this non-terminal state requires a fairy condition (no check finale), and is based upon a dual-supression strategy (which is concealed from the definition -- evident only in the example problems). The intent of Dan's inventions are the same -- to help bolster the struggling S&S section of StrateGems (he was its first editor), which was dying, and ignore the increasing inconsistencies required in this pursuit. The Good Companion members (and editors!) will have no vote in this matter -- it will be decided entirely by two members (one of which is Dan).]
[edit2: In the interest of full disclosure, the "Good Companions" once voted me a "National Master of Chess Composition." At first, I happily accepted this title. I completely ignored that a wiser member was simultaneously rejecting the "Master Solver" title they attempted to hand him, by vote -- this was a completely improper decision (circumventing their own established process to award solving titles)! Later, I wised up -- a few years ago, I rejected their composing title too, on the basis that flaws in their voting process render the title meaningless (to me). With such a flawed voting process -- it's remarkable that they must accept Mr.Meinking's ill informed suggestions without even such a vote! And, it is circularly-pathetic that he uses the SG classification system as evidence of support for his ideas!]
[edit3: I do not send my problems to the FIDE Album, and therefore, would very much have liked to be recognized nationally... I even petitioned GC to change the basis by which they award such titles, but they "voted" against my proposal. I have even been considering a change in my nationality (as a composer -- I am a legal citizen of Ireland, as well)... but, obviously, I would prefer to first exhaust avenues to improve circumstances in the organization occupying my country of residence.]
Some are perhaps afraid of how Mr.Meinking might retaliate -- as we have seen in this thread, he does not address the issue, but attacks the man.
This is a form of cowardice, and I am only "encouraging" them (in the literal sense) to speak up!
e.g.
* series movers are classified a fairy condition -> Mr.Meinking's retort: "stop lecturing us."
* stalemate symbol has no place in Capture-Zugzwang (even if it were a valid aim, which it is not) -> Mr.Meinking's retort: "stop ranting."
* what is your definition of a fairy condition? -> Mr.Meinking's retort, "here is the definition of rant."
If Mr.Meinking were aware of some alternative aims (for example, x# = mate by capture, x+ = check by capture), he would have known that the combination of two independent symbols do not combine to make a new, independent entity; these symbols RETAIN their value, even when used in conjunction with other symbols!
Note: he didn't even know #/= was an aim (he thought he'd invented it himself, and chose to call it "stiffle" -- imagine, "stiffle" rather than "#/=".)
Should somebody this uninformed be judging a notation tourney? dictating notation to experts? classifying his own inventions?
He doesn't know the nomenclature in this field -- and, he ought to realize this after countless corrections (not only from me!).
It is clear that the inclusion of the stalemate symbol was a poor choice in his CapZug, but he stubbornly refuses to even concede this obvious point.
Most everybody knows this -- it is elementary -- but, Mr.Meinking refuses to even accept/discuss this.
[send him a private email he insists! -- a shame this classic "divide and conquer" strategy is required, when we have this excellent public forum]
Virtually everybody knows that series-movers are a fairy condition -- but, Mr.Meinking refuses to accept/discuss this.
Virtually everybody agrees upon the definition of "fairy condition" -- but, Mr.Meinking refuses to accept/discuss this -- he refuses even to provide his own definition for the terms he uses (AIM vs FAIRY CONDITION)!
As I have said, he can not provide a consistent definition -- you'd think this would provide a hearty clue!
A few experts have started to chip away at Mr.Meinking's inconsistent views -- and, I applaud them for insisting upon sound classifications/definitions.
But, if more experts would voice their objections, right here in this thread, we might extinguish the symphony of errors being promoted by Mr.Meinking.
What prevents experts from helping Mr.Meinking to see the light?
On some level, it is cowardice to shy away from Mr.Meinking's style of argument.
And, on some level, it requires apathy -- those who know better have a duty to speak up.
I concede that Mr.Meinking may continue to refuse to hear the truth.
He has not listened to GM Petkov (re: the proper classification of parry-series).
He has not listened to what experts have to say about the proper classification of series-movers (including The Problemist's pages online).
I could go on and on... but Mr.Meinking would claim I'm lecturing/ranting...
[and you -- Cornel -- would only count my words (to avoid hearing them!)]
There is a pattern here...
But, those who know better have a duty to speak up, for the benefit of others -- regardless whether Mr.Meinking choses to benefit from their insight.
| | | (53) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Nov 1, 2010 01:25] |
From my last post:
"For the record, I've already addressed most of the points in your previous post. If you'd stop ranting long enough, you'd know that. However, I don't feel the need to address every point and sub-point of your many, many, MANY rants. Doing so would only trigger more rants."
I rest my case.
| | | (54) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Nov 1, 2010 20:42]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-11-01] |
And, Mr.Meinking's "response" speaks volumes...
...unable to counter overwhelming evidence that series-movers are a "Fairy Condition."
...unable to provide any alternative definition of "Aim" or "Fairy Condition," yet continually insists that his inconsistent interpretation is correct.
...unable to present a single AIM which is based upon a non-terminal state (like CapZug).
...unable to provide a definition of CapZug which justifies its dual-truncation (without the examples, nobody would imagine truncation possible).
His response:
1) any challenge to his view must be a rant,
2) he attempts to stiffle conversation in this public forum (private emails please),
3) he refuses to respond to the obvious error in his notation award,
That being: the intrinsic meaning of symbols (such as = [stalemate]) is always RETAINED.
Stalemate is never reinterpreted -- e.g., it does not become zugzwang -- when used in combination (even new combinations) with other symbols.
Had he known more about alternative forms of aims (such as Win Chloe's x# mate by capture), he might have avoided this mistake.
When confronted with this information, he stands stubbornly by his uninformed decision -- incapable of admitting his misjudgement.
4) he refuses to explain what qualified him to judge such a controversial tourney,
Has there ever been a tourney like this -- in the history of the congress?
Mr.Meinking claims this brand new type of tourney wasn't his own idea -- but, this was neither voted by Good Companions members, nor SG editors!
Whose idea was this -- why does it seem the inspiration must have come from somebody acting as Mr.Meinking's agent?
And, was it not Mr.Meinking's decision to ACCEPT this offer to judge the notation tourney?
What qualifications did Mr.Meinking possess -- he has already proven remarkably uninformed when discussing stipulations, aims, and fairy conditions.
His composing shows very little experience with either fairy conditions, or alternate aims.
Why not find -- and entrust -- an independent/impartial judge?
-- somebody without Mr.Meinking's predetermined, unique, and highly-controversial opinions,
-- somebody experienced in parsing a larger span of formal notations, and
-- somebody with a working understanding of our known terms (fairy condition, aim, stipulation, etc).
5) he refuses to answer why the Good Companions name was dragged into this matter?
Was this not done, purely, in the effort to manufacture support for Mr.Meinking's ill considered classification system?
After all -- much of the StrateGems divisions (especially the S&S section) is based upon Mr.Meinking's unsubstantiated classification system.
[and, I suspect more to come!]
It is offensive that the congress' tourney format might have been used as a vehicle to bribe others into supporting Mr.Meinking's views.
Though, it failed utterly -- evidenced by exceedingly low support in this leg of the Good Companion's Tourney (something even Cornel failed to appreciate!) -- the full fiasco is yet to be addressed...
Mr.Meinking's response ("my decision is final," says this Good Companion's certified authority) is noted.
All manner of his dismissing dissenting opinion (as if a "rant") is also noted.
His efforts to stiffle the conversation in this thread (directing dissenters to his email address), is also noted.
We have heard quite enough from Mr.Meinking -- even if it all amounts to no response!
Now, it is high time the "Good Companions" disclose their full involvement in this matter.
| | | (55) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Nov 1, 2010 22:02]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-11-01] |
"5) he refuses to answer why the Good Companions name was dragged into this matter?"
If anyone (except Mr. Begley) would like to see the original emails (from Mike Prcic, suggesting the idea, and my initial refusal; and, later, to/from Thomas Maeder, requesting Popeye support), please contact me. You'll find my email address at the link posted about 4 or 5 rants ago.
EDIT: Here are the emails, in case anyone needs proof:
http://www.alphasleuth.com/CapZug%20emails.pdf
"Some are perhaps afraid of how Mr. Meinking might retaliate..."
How desparate.
| | | (56) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Nov 1, 2010 23:36] |
A nice rant is appropriate every now and then, but please not against chess composing colleagues. :-)
| | | (57) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Nov 2, 2010 12:07] |
@Siegfried:
http://www.asperger-gallery.de/asperger-gallery.de/popup/popup_kataloge.php?id=Misch%20du%20dich%20auch%20noch%20ein&we_lv_ct_katalogbilder=image%2F*&we_lv_ws_katalogbilder=3613&we_lv_se_katalogbilder=0&we_lv_start_katalogbilder=xxxxxxxxx&we_lv_pend_katalogbilder=46&we_lv_pstart_katalogbilder=0
:-)
Hauke
| | | (58) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Apr 11, 2011 04:34] |
I just added a short "preview" article on my Hub page (dated 04/10/2011):
http://parryserieshub.chessproblems.ca/
In short: CapZug notation must change to usher in the "Zug Family" of stipulations! Arno is preparing a more comprehensive article to appear in feenschach later this year.
| | | (59) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 12, 2011 22:35]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-04-12] |
CapZug notation must change?
Who would have ever seen that coming?! :-)
I called the oracle, Glenn Lee Beck, on his red-phone, for comment... but no answer...
Perhaps this news drove him out, for a jar.
| | | (60) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Apr 13, 2011 11:07] |
Would you two gameroosters accept a final verdict on the matter
by Inglip the Internet Captcha God? :-)
Hauke
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Good Zug Tourney |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
