Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

10:43 UTC
ISC 2020



Remember me

Forgot your
Click here!
to create your account if you don't already have one.

Rating lists


MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Good Zug Tourney
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
(1) Posted by Dan Meinking [Friday, Sep 17, 2010 20:46]

Good Zug Tourney

As part of the WCCC-53 festivities in Crete next month, the Good Companions are sponsoring an informal quick-tourney for help-CapZug originals. You can find all the "Good Zug Tourney" details here:

A discussion on CapZug (originally dubbed 'Capture-Bound') can be found on this MatPlus thread:

We wish everyone a Good Zug! :-)
(Read Only)pid=5894
(2) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Sep 17, 2010 21:40]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-09-17]

Notation Suggestion: h:-(n. hehe.

I withdraw my other suggestion...

CapZug should not be accepted as an aim, if duals are not considered in a manner consistent with every other valid aim (#, =, +, x, ep, OO, etc).
Furthermore, stipulations & aims which alter the rules of movement (this goes for ser-movers, pser-, and CapZug) should be properly notated (and classified!) as fairy conditions.

I am saddened by the Good Companions eagerness to embrace yet another inconsistency.
(Read Only)pid=5895
(3) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Sep 18, 2010 06:54]

"I am saddened by the Good Companions eagerness to embrace yet another inconsistency."

Yes, we are one sad, sorry lot!
(Read Only)pid=5896
(4) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Saturday, Sep 18, 2010 16:33]

Believe in yourself
Believe in yourself
Don't think about it, you got it all there inside
Believe in yourself
Believe in yourself
There ain't nothing to it, just stand up and do it
What can you lose when you try
When you try

(Flash and the Pan)
(Read Only)pid=5898
(5) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Sep 19, 2010 03:19]

"Believe in yourself," I fear, is not only profound wisdom for the righteous.

I should clarify by saying that I would encourage participation in this tourney -- except the one offering a book as reward, to encourage folks to join the Good Companions in carelessly forging contradictory new classifications for specific fairy conditions.

To hold a tourney to characterize a fairy condition as an aim... it is a ridiculous low for the GC.
(Read Only)pid=5901
(6) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Sep 19, 2010 03:47]

"To hold a tourney to characterize a fairy condition as an aim... it is a ridiculous low for the GC."

We're so ashamed!
(Read Only)pid=5902
(7) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Sep 19, 2010 05:06]

I meant to say "mis-characterize."

> Dan: "We're so ashamed!"

Have "The Good Companions" given you authority to react on their behalf?
Are you supported by the entire group, or is the entire group simply you?
(Read Only)pid=5903
(8) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Sep 19, 2010 06:56]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-09-19]

"Are you supported by the entire group, or is the entire group simply you?"

I speak on behalf of the silent masses who would rather NOT listen to another interminable argument by YOU. Is that sufficient authority, O Keeper of the Fairy World?

PS: This tournament was not my idea.
(Read Only)pid=5904
(9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Sep 19, 2010 11:08]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-09-19]

I will not deny that the silent masses have good reason to tire of this subject -- I'm tired of it myself.
But, this will not be interminable -- here is my last post on the subject (my closing argument, if you will).

1) What is CapZug?

Fundamentally, it is self-capture, plus a fairy condition (no check on the final move), minus possible duals on the final move.

There are other fairy conditions which are denoted as aims, such as double-checkmate, triple-check and a few others.
And, there are fairy conditions which are denoted as stipulations, such as series movers (ser-), and Dan's parry-movers (pser-).
A good case can be made about reclassifying some of these as fairy conditions, but I will spare everyone these tangents.

2) So, what is the problem with having CapZug as another fairy aim?
After all, virtually all problem journals judge these as fairies -- what does the distinction in classification matter?

Up until this point, very few fairy aims (and fairy stipulations) have been accepted.
Nearly all aims are orthodox, and span a wide swath of numerous fairy conditions!

e.g., #, =, x, +, -ep-, -OO-, ==, ++, -platzwechsel-, s-AUW-, s-mirror-, s% (gain a piece), s-circuit-, etc...

There is good reason for adhering to this logical classification, which I will come to presently...

Take a long view.
It's easily conceivable that composers might want to explore allowing duals in selfmate problems...
If not in selfmates, they might become interested in self-capture problems, without the "No-Check Finale" fairy condition!
Or, they might want to employ another fairy condition (perhaps reverse CapZug, to get: self-check, with a "No Capture Finale").

They might also want to borrow the underlying fairy condition ("No Check Finale") for entirely different purposes.
This would not be possible if the condition is embedded in a specific aim.
It is bad form to code such redundancy, nor would it be wise to house equivalent problems under multiple database classifications.

It's not difficult to foresee -- if CapZug is any good, there are likely to be dozens more good things to follow...
But, if folks follow Dan's lead, imagine how the list of aims (and stipulations) will expand... over the long run.

No longer will aims be widely recognized...
Journals will need to constantly print aim definitions (stipulations too!) -- which had been generally confined to fairy conditions.

3) So what -- this only describes a normal expansion of chess problems, right?

Not entirely....
The projection is quite different, if we own up to what CapZug is, and what CapZug does...

Instead of an ever expanding list of aims, this could all be vastly simplified, by using one (solitary) fairy condition.
Quite simply: "Dual Free" -- that is: no Duals on the final move of Self-Problems.
That is enough to inform solvers that the final move of the solution should be truncated.
(and, perhaps a generic aim character, denoting "fini" can be added to the end, regardless the aim -- and I do mean aim!).

There is no shame in admitting that CapZug is based upon such a "Dual Avoidance" condition.
It only pushes duals back one level -- composing does not become magically easier.
A judge confronted with a CapZug problem should not begrudge the fact that dual theory has been deliberately relaxed.
This was never my argument -- my problem with CapZug is entirely the erroneous classification which has been pushed along with it.

"Fairy" is what CapZug is, and "Dual Allowance" is what CapZug does.
These are not bad words -- there is no reason not to own it.
(Read Only)pid=5906
(10) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Sep 19, 2010 11:55]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-09-19]

After Juraj's question in the other CapZug thread...

... and subsequent email discussions with both Arno and Juraj, the three of us have agreed on a more precise (and less ambiguous) definition for CapZug, which can be found on the revised PDF:
(Read Only)pid=5907
(11) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Sep 19, 2010 22:28]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [10-09-19]

Here are two new aims:

The King in check is mated if it has ONLY capturing moves available !!

The King in check is mated if it has NO capturing moves available !!

I am sure lot of interesting and original problems can be composed with these aims.
(Read Only)pid=5916
(12) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Oct 3, 2010 01:43]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-10-03]

While receiving tourney entries, an interesting theoretical question surfaced. Four of us (Cornel, Geoff, Arno and I) debated the issue in the GZT thread on (Cornel's private forum):

(= 3+1 )

h~x2 (?) [help-CapZug in 2]

The reason for the (?) is obvious: black is already zugged in the diagram! Even Popeye "recognizes" this (although WinChloe does not):

1.Kh1*g2 x
1 (Kh1-h2 Time = 0.031 s)
2 (Kh1-g1 Time = 0.031 s)
3 (Kh1*g2 Time = 0.031 s)
1.Kh1*g2 g7-g8=R + 2.Kg2-h1 Rg8-g2 3.Kh1*g2 x

There were 2 reasonable candidate stipulations: "h~x2" and "h~x2 exact". The four of us were initially split, but some convincing arguments -- and precedent problems -- made the choice obvious:

T. Petrovic, MAT 1992
(= 12+9 )

ser-h+46 (13+9) C+ [series-help-check in 46]
1.Kxa6 9.Kh8 10.Bg8 21.Kxc2 32.Kh8 33.Bh7 45.Kxf6 46.Ke7 d6+

Also see problem HC4, a 20-unit-record version by Arno, at this link:

Arno Tüngler, 2010
(= 10+8 )

ser-h+39 (10+8) C+ [series-help-check in 39]
1.Kxh4 17.Kxg1 34.Kxh3 37.Kh6 39.Rg5 fxg5+

Cornel Pacurar (original?)
(= 1+2 )

ser-Zh8 15 (1+2) C+ [series-target-square h8 in 15]
8.Kxa1 15.Kh8 z

CONCLUSION: Clearly, h~x2 is the correct stipulation for the (3+1) diagram above!

Finally, the form "h~xn*" (set-play) must be reserved for situations like this:

(= 3+2 )

h~x2* (3+2) [help-CapZug in 2 moves, with set-play]
set: 1.....Rg4+ 2.Kh5 Rg6~x
play: 1.Kg7 Rg4+ 2.Kh8 Rg7~x
(Read Only)pid=6096
(13) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Oct 5, 2010 03:56]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-10-05]


The essence of this confounding situation was already expressed in the Smoking Gun problem (see the other thread).

GoodZug does not conform to the standard theory of formal aims.
The essence of the problem lies in the inability to classify GoodZug into any class of aims (it is neither a STATE, nor a MOVE).

If it were a state, there would be no continuation in the problem above!
If it were a move, there would be no justification for dual-truncation!

Until you can present some definition for AIM, you have no basis to claim CapZug is an AIM.
Until you can present some definition for FAIRY CONDITION, you have no basis to claim CapZug (and pser-) is not a FAIRY CONDITION.

Further, you must answer the following question:
Is GoodZug a defined (terminal) STATE (like #, =, etc), or is it only a MOVE with a particular feature (like +, x, ep, OO, etc)?

In your last post, you rely upon the "precedent" of MOVES... to justify continuations beyond an diagram starting in CapZug STATE.
In other posts, you rely upon the "precedent" of STATES... to justify dual-truncation beyond CapZug MOVES.

Whereas, an electron may be treated as a particle, or as a wave... this analogy doesn't hold for GoodZug.
CapZug completely misbehaves whether it is a STATE or MOVE...

I've demonstrated that your invention does not conform to the standard model of formal aims.

And, if expressed in a word problem, the underlying aim (as defined in the previous thread) reduces to capture...
(with goal of self-capture, plus fairy condition no-check-finale, plus fairy condition truncating duals).

No other standard aims can be further reduced.
Note: Checkmate/Stalemate are terminally defined states -- they do not reduce farther (into capture of the King).
(Read Only)pid=6108
(14) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Oct 5, 2010 04:07]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-10-05]


Someday, when you're appointed Fairy Uberlord, you can dictate what is and isn't valid. Until that time, you'll just have to deal with the imperfect world the rest of us live in.
(Read Only)pid=6109
(15) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Tuesday, Oct 5, 2010 21:02]

Perhaps an answer to the specific query of Kevin would be better. If Cap-zug is indeed an aim, I dont see how there can be a (HELP PLAY OR DIRECT PLAY) problem starting from a position in which black is already in 'cap=zug' state. Is it not like asking me to solve a #2 problem with the black king already mated?
(Read Only)pid=6117
(16) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Oct 5, 2010 21:27]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-10-05]

@Seetharaman: CapZug is a non-terminal state. Classify it however you wish, but it is a STATE.

If it's the first of this kind, others will surely follow. How about GuardZug: "No unit is presently guarded, but all moves arrive on guarded squares".

(= 2+2 )

help-GuardZug in 2 moves

1.Ka8 c6 2.Sb8+ Kb6 gz

And so on...
(Read Only)pid=6118
(17) Posted by Bojan Basic [Wednesday, Oct 6, 2010 08:03]

help-GuardZug in 2 moves

Stipulated in Popeye by SStipulation black 4h (d~ & !-dx & !(1h !dx)). This one is C+. :)
(Read Only)pid=6119
(18) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Oct 6, 2010 10:33]

Since the kennel fight gets somewhat sphexic,
here some more fun by the Lord of Chaos (me).

W Ka8 Qd2 Sd3 Se3 - S Ka1 Qa6, Black to draw.
The board is infinite to the right!

Clearly (or so I think - but even if not, you get the picture)
the only way for Black to draw is answering K?8 with Q?6,
and the draw by perpetual is obvious for a human.
Still, no terminal position exists. Now implement this
into your pet theories :P

(Read Only)pid=6122
(19) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Oct 6, 2010 11:40]

@Bojan: Very good! When I'm more awake, I'll see if I can decipher it. :-)

@Hauke: Draw by 50-move rule?!
(Read Only)pid=6124
(20) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Oct 6, 2010 14:30]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-10-06]


>Someday, when you're appointed Fairy Uberlord, you can dictate what is and isn't valid.
>Until that time, you'll just have to deal with the imperfect world the rest of us live in.

You are the one attempting to claim that you have self-authority to ignore precedent, with respect to formal stipulation in chess problems...
When were you awarded this Uberlord title?

I have said, all along, let the greater problem community (via a democratic PCCC) decide such matters.

1) Will you define Fairy Condition (your usage)... Define Aim (your usage)... Define Stipulation (your usage).
Let us all understand what exactly is your method of classification.

2) Will you concede that the larger community (by way of Democratic PCCC) has authority to decide whether your "inventions" conform to the standard methodology of a formal chess problem.

Even in this imperfect world, the "rest of us" are capable of providing definitions.
Until you do this, your classification scheme holds no value.

By the apparent rules of your classification scheme, as I have come to understand it...
Wilhelm Röntgen would have been free to "define" Xrays to be a "force" in physics.
The violation of a long established definition ("force," as provided by Newton, and followed by others), would be of no consequence.
Nor would Röntgen be required to provide any definition as to his own interpretation of "force."
Forget about analytic methods -- or even basic dimensional analysis...

According to you, the person who discovers/invents some new (or even slightly altered!) phenomenon is free to redefine well established terms (without providing any new definition whatsoever), because the world is not perfect.
...and, this person can only be challenged by somebody in possession of some "Overlord" title.

I presume the "overlord" title is bestowed by your Good Companions, yes?
If so, is it by a simple majority vote (of whomsoever might appear at a GC Meeting) -- as it is for all other GC titles?


>Still, no terminal position exists. Now implement this into your pet theories :P

Win/Draw is a special case -- they are recognized as studies (not problems!), primarily because they do not conform to the standard methodology of formal aims/goals/stipulations.

The CaptainZuggernaut invention, on the other hand, attempts to read as a formal aim... but fails to live up to well established precedent.
(Read Only)pid=6129

Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4

MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Good Zug Tourney