Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
22:22 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Competitions Good Zug Tourney |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 | | (21) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Wednesday, Oct 6, 2010 15:41] |
Kevin,
In music's theory of functional (Classical) harmony, certain chord-formations have at least two names - chosen according to context and note-spelling (e.g C E G Bb = dominant 7th; C E G A# [sounds identical] = Neapolitan 6th). Cannot the same be true with chess problems? I fail to see why it is necessary to pin down rigid definitions of stipulation and aim.
For example, some years ago, I composed a Wenigsteiner R#18, Black moves only to Check, Circe. As labelled, the aim is R# and the latter verbiage constitutes the problem's fairy stipulations, yes? When you see the solution's (logical) structure, it consists mainly of white K moves with occasional Black checks: just like a type of pser!
Or consider HS#n. This can be viewed as either a S#n with help-play for the first n-½ moves; or as a H#n (colours reversed) with the last half-move forced. It's merely a question of emphasis, depending on what one wants to spotlight.
Has it occurred to you that you might be asking the impossible, like proving an axiom? Could this sort of thing be the result of Gödel's 2nd Incompleteness Theorem?
| | | (22) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Oct 6, 2010 17:44] |
Kevin wrote: "You are the one attempting to claim that you have self-authority to ignore precedent, with respect to formal stipulation in chess problems..."
Really?? Let's look at some of YOUR comments on MatPlus (paraphrased here) that are contrary to precedent.
(1) KB: "Series-movers should all be reconstituted as Fairy conditions." Many, many decades of PRECEDENT should overrule any interpretation of "aim" or "condition", should it not?
(2) KB: "Parry Series should be given as a Fairy condition." Parry Series is following the PRECEDENT of series-movers.
(3) KB: "Reflex-mates w/o tries should be stipulated as semi-r#". PRECEDENT tells us that semi-r# is reserved for reflex-ideas that would COOK if stipulated as r#. PRECEDENT tells us that r# with tries is stipulated "r#n vv..." (v = check-mark). PRECEDENT tells us that r# w/o tries are simply "r#". PRECEDENT tells us that tries are always desirable, but NEVER a requirement of a stipulation.
(4) KB: "A Parry Series with all-checks should be given as UltraSchachZwang (must-check)". PRECEDENT shows that USZ is reserved for LIMITING LEGAL MOVES for the purposes of soundness, and NOT as a mere description of the play that ensues. In fact, Parry Series and USZ are mutually exclusive!
You can't cry "precedent" when it suits your agenda, then ignore precedent (or usurp it) when it does not. So, please, spare me the lectures.
| | | (23) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Oct 7, 2010 02:23]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-10-07] |
@Ian: "In music's theory of functional (Classical) harmony, certain chord-formations have at least two names..."
That is an excellent point.
The core of Kevin's argument is that there can only be ONE correct way to express a problem, and that strict "definitions" and "precedents" must be adhered to. That is incorrect.
Any protocol that clearly communicates the essence of a problem is valid. Examples:
(1) In the brief existence of Parry Series, I have seen in print: pser-hs#n, phser-s#n, pserb-*, pserw-*, pser.h#n, ParSerieZ#n, etc.
(2) How about notation? axb8Q, a:b8Q, axb8=Q, ab8:Q, axb8=D, a*b8D, etc. It wasn't until 5 or 6 years ago that StrateGems switched from "N" to "S" for Knight. And how about language differences, alphabetic vs. figurine notation, etc.?
(3) How about twinning? Kf3->h3, wKh3, wK->h3, wKf3 to h3, f3->h3, etc.
(4) Popeye uses a stipulation for Parry Series; WinChloe uses a fairy condition.
(5) Proofgames: PG15½, spg15½, PG15.5, hg15½, KBP15,5 etc.
And so on...
All of these are perfectly valid -- as long as people understand them! Over time, the problem community decides what makes sense and what doesn't.
Assuming CapZug survives the present squabbling, it will be interesting to see what protocol(s) get adopted for it.
| | | (24) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Oct 8, 2010 22:54]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-10-09] |
@Dan,
>The core of Kevin's argument is that there can only be ONE correct way to express a problem, and that strict "definitions" and "precedents" must be adhered to. That is incorrect.
It is a laughable distortion to suggest that the core of my argument is hinged upon the ridiculous position that PRECEDENT must be blindly adhered to, in all cases.
This is the second time Dan has resorted to this pathetic straw-man fallacy!
Hint: when I repeatedly state the contrary position, this is an important clue that assumptions (of a contradictory position) are likely poor.
And, I have already covered this with Dan.
Examine what I said in the other thread:
> "...but if you aim to override precedent, the burden is yours to show its failure."
Then, Dan responded with:
>>"... you argue that precedence should be 'corrected', but here you argue that precedence should be strictly adhered to."
Which was followed by my very clear refutation of this straw-man fallacy:
>>>"In this thread, I simply stated that precedent supports Petko's argument; and thus, the burden is yours to show it is in error. And, without any objective evidence that one form is superior to the other, well, that is a major burden on your case..."
In the context of chess problems, precedent is very important, but I never adopted the dogmatic position which Dan pretends.
If somebody wants to lecture others on the core of my argument, please, do your homework first.
Clearly, there are inconsistent precedents which may merit adjustment -- such as the formal misrepresentation of series-movers.
And, there are even some consistent precedents which might be improved.
In either case, the burden of proof lies with the challenger of precedent.
Furthermore, the proper authority is the international community (via PCCC) -- not Dan, not GC, not me, not some Uberlord!
Series-movers are well known -- virtually universally! -- to be a fairy condition.
[I have already provided Dan with corroborating evidence of this, however he continues to deny it, without any counter-argument.]
But, the poor formal casting of series-movers (to the uncareful eye, they may falsely appear to be a formal stipulation) is inconsistent.
Yes, this poor casting is a precedent -- but, in contradiction of other (arguably more important) precedents!
Therefore, there is a strong case to be made for recasting these, in a manner which would be consistent with their classification.
In fact, the apparent misrepresentation in their casting is probably what lead to Dan's misunderstanding (and later denial) as to their accepted classification.
And, this misunderstanding spawned the inconsistency in his parry-mover invention.
[Dan himself states that parry-movers "followed" the precedent of series-movers]
Witness how one inconsistency breeds another.
In fact, from there, the inconsistencies only multiply.
Consider Dan's effort to reclassify serier-movers as a formal stipulation (rather than a fairy condition).
[They are a demonstrable fairy condition, per the widely accepted definition of the term: anything which alters the rules of movement.]
It is not strict precedent which hampers this effort -- nobody is unwilling to hear his case! -- rather, it is Dan's failure to accept the burden of proving the merits of his alternative classification idea.
He can not make the case -- he can not even provide an alternative definition for the terms (fairy condition / aim).
I should confess that have repeatedly challenged Dan to provide us with his own definitions, knowing -- full well -- that he can not possibly oblige my request.
His own definitions would completely discredit him -- it is impossible to consistently define an Aim in such a manner that it includes CapZug, while simultaneously excluding our well established fairy conditions.
The same goes for his Parry-Series invention, with respect to stipulation-type.
Nevertheless, I repeated this challenge, in the interest of establishing that he does not have, handy, any consistent definition (or classification system).
And, I trust that Dan will stipulate this point, by -- yet again -- providing no definitions for the terms he employs (when insisting, based upon personal mood, that his inventions do not fall under a certain classification).
If you are going to make an argument against precedent, the following steps are important:
1) Acknowledge the proper authority in deciding the matter (PCCC),
2) Acknowledge precedent:
a) presently accepted definitions of the terms used (and provide alternatives where necessary),
b) presently accepted classification system of formal stipulation,
3) Present your remedy,
4) Demonstrate the advantages/disadvantages of applying such a remedy (including which precedents require alteration), and
5) Make your case.
To my knowledge, Dan has been unable to take even the first step here.
Instead, he prefers to shuffle his feet, and knock down "strict precedent" arguments -- which were never made!
Finally,
@Ian,
>...certain chord-formations have at least two names...
Two names for a single chord is redundant, yes... but, redundancy is not the principal violation being perpetrated by Dan's CapZug.
Would a music theorist allow Dan to define the "chord" (C E G A#) as a single "note?"
I think not!
>I fail to see why it is necessary to pin down rigid definitions of stipulation and aim.
This seems to be a very intelligent question, Ian -- why indeed should "rigid" definitions be "necessary?" -- except that "rigid," and "necessary" are the wrong words.
[If we change your words, slightly, I think you might begin to see things my way... ]
Why should clear distinctions (between aims and fairy conditions) be so highly desirable?
[Note: clear distinctions need not be rigid... nor are they necessary -- they are merely very desirable.]
One could equally ask a piano instructor why it is desirable to clearly distinguish between the chords and the notes!
A good instructor knows these concepts are not entirely "necessary" -- many gifted pianists learned to play without any formal training.
But, after developing a clear understanding of these concepts, the student is generally expected to appreciate music with greater rapidity (if not at a deeper level).
How does it benefit a problemist to develop a clear understanding of the distinction between Aim and Fairy Condition?
Try presenting our system of formal stipulation to a few complete beginners.
[It is quite possible (in fact, I have been working on this very project, myself).]
Be sure they understand our system of formal stipulation -- have them solve a few simple self-mates & self-capture problems, etc.
Be sure they can identify any duals/cooks in such problems too, and sprinkle a few into their solving...
And, when you are certain they are competent -- they needn't become strong solvers just yet...
Provide them only with Dan's definition of CapZug.
* show none of his truncated solution notation,
* show none of his dualistic example problems.
And, have them solve a few simple CapZug's ... ask for complete solutions, ask them to identify duals/cooks...
(include a few problems of Dan's, and a few like my Smoking Gun problem).
Watch what happens!
[Remember, these solvers were trained to understand the fundamentals of formal stipulation!]
If -- by some miracle! -- a few of them should happen to agree with Dan's interpretation, you are really in luck!
Have those students debate (with the other students) which is the correct solution.
Good students will quickly discover the ambiguity.
The really good students will understand that the inconsistency violates the fundamentals of our system.
You will soon realize that CapZug, when defined as an Aim, has violated the inherent contract of formal stipulation.
To return to your question...
There are numerous reasons why a formalized system (of both stipulation and classification) is highly desirable in chess problems.
I will endeavor to provide a few answers to your question, and simultaneously help explain why CapZug offends our formal system.
Formal problem stipulations -- which I would define to be "type of play" + goal + number of moves (n) -- carry a wealth of information, in a limited space.
[It doesn't require a publisher to appreciate this]
Essentially, a formal stipulation transforms a wordy word-problem into a reduced (but universally understood) form...
Not only does this reduced form contain the obvious information (e.g., how many moves are required, etc)... it completely defines what is expected of the solution.
It contains even the basic information about which side begins, when the solution must cease, what constitutes a dual/cook, etc.
On the rock of our formal stipulation, which has stood against the tides of a countless combination of fairy conditions and aims, the very correctness of a problem may stand.
As such, it constitutes an implicit formal contract -- between composers and solvers, and beyond.
But, as I have demonstrated in the other thread (see my Smoking Gun problem), CapZug violates this formal contract.
It is not merely misclassified -- as Dan's Parry-Series was -- this CapZug invention would constitute an invalid Aim.
If accepted, it would breach the inherent contract of formal stipulation, and destroy the meaning of Aim and Fairy Condition.
...To say nothing of how it might hinder the development of new chess problem enthusiasts!
>...[Truncated R# issue].. Or consider HS#n. This can be viewed as either a S#n with help-play for the first n-½ moves; or as a H#n (colours reversed) with the last half-move forced. It's merely a question of emphasis, depending on what one wants to spotlight.
This really is another matter entirely... it goes to the issue of database redundancy -- which should be avoided, obviously, whenever possible.
This is a substantial problem with parry-series [which even Dan admits is "partially" anticipated].. but, CapZug is far worse.
>Has it occurred to you that you might be asking the impossible, like proving an axiom?
>Could this sort of thing be the result of Gödel's 2nd Incompleteness Theorem?
Keep in mind that Gödel's Theorem required a formal proof. :)
Whereas, you seem to be suggesting that we should not attempt to make consistent our definitions, because it might not be possible.
Having been working on the project myself, I honestly believe it will be easily possible to achieve a logical, consistent framework.
And, with only minor adjustments to precedent.
However, if we travel too far down Dan's path -- and disrupt the meaning of our formal sytem (and our terms!) -- consistency may require substantial upheaval.
Anyone who invents problem elements -- especially a FM composer -- has a responsibility to think beyond their immediate preferences.
We are owed an honest consideration of the long-term implications of accepting a new class of aim, which violates the present definitions (both Aim and Fairy Condition), and alters the inherent contract inherent in our (well established) system of formal stipulation.
If you don't require this of Dan, how will you insist this of the next inventor (who will claim to be following Dan's precedent)?
ps: I do apologize for the length here -- but, I am forced to refute a litany of absurd claims (taken out of context) from other threads. And, even at this length, I still haven't covered all the errors in Dan's above posts. Meanwhile, Dan continues to provide no definitions for his terms (Aim, Fairy Condition), and no corroboration for his claims (I have demonstrated to him that series-movers are a fairy condition -- where is his evidence to the contrary?).
Two brief points of clarification:
1) w/2 semi-reflex mates requiring tries, obviously, I meant "reflex-tries" (when viewed in context, it is clear this is what I intended).
2) Though there may be many forms of writing the same stipulation, a single database (or journal) would obviously adopt a single format.
| | | (25) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Oct 9, 2010 00:34]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-10-09] |
@Kevin,
All of your many, many attempts to distract cannot change this fact: people understand what CapZug is all about. It is clearly defined in the PDF, and amply demonstrated by the examples.
But you wish to keep wallowing in technical details that, frankly, do not rise to the level of urgency that you claim. We've listened to you opine AD NAUSEUM about how we'll "march into ruin" (your words) if we do not comply. Time to move on.
| | | (26) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Oct 10, 2010 03:20]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-10-10] |
Dan,
>All of your many, many attempts to distract ...
Distract? It was never my intention to distract you, Dan -- merely to explain why your invention is misclassified.
I see no valid counter-arguments to the strong case I have made.
>cannot change this fact: people understand what CapZug is all about. It is clearly defined in the PDF, and amply demonstrated by the examples.
I do not consider this to be clearly defined (unless you've updated the definition -- which is exactly what I had requested).
[If it has changed, could you please post the new definition?]
If it were clearly defined, there would be no ambiguity in the Smoking Gun problem (or the related problem you posted in this thread).
Without the examples, few would guess that truncation (to avoid duals) was acceptable.
And, those who did guess this might be surprised that play may begin in the "non-terminal CapZug state."
I don't understand your reluctance to admit this -- maybe you take this personally, because the suggestion comes from me?
We've had a few debates about fairy inventions before, but I never considered them personal.
I do wish somebody else had explained the ambiguity -- trust me: I find no joy in delivering bad news to you.
>But you wish to keep wallowing in technical details that, frankly, do not rise to the level of urgency that you claim.
There is no urgency...
I am confident that PCCC will, in its sweet time, begin to sanction formal stipulations, aims, and fairy conditions.
When it arrives at your CapZug & Parry inventions, it will make the right choice (recasting them according to proper classification).
The good news is that the problems will live on, no matter what PCCC decides.
Which is why I do encourage composers to participate in the CapZug tourney!
>We've listened to you opine AD NAUSEUM about how we'll "march into ruin" (your words) if we do not comply. Time to move on.
Yeah, OK, maybe I've explained the flaw "ad nauseum," but, we've also had to watch you repeatedly duck the central issues.
So, we are even. :-)
I am satisfied to rest the matter... but, let me leave you with this one (somewhat sideways) compliment:
I do think your truncation idea is a remarkably good one!
But, I happen to think you underestimated the scope of its value, by limiting it to merely captures by zugzwang...
If you expanded this, it might serve as a splendid alternative to our present standard of formal stipulation (with its own special denotation).
I think a good case could be made for this truncation alternative (on its own merits)... [I wish you had made it.]
And, it is very much related to some recent efforts to thematically extend some problems beyond checkmate/stalemate -- except that your alternative goes the other direction (truncating, rather than extending).
| | | (27) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Oct 10, 2010 16:09]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-10-10] |
Solvers: WCCC-53 organizer, Harry Fougiaxis, has approved EMAIL participation in our Cook-Hunting tourney! If you're interested, please let me know by Tuesday, October 19th. My address can be found on the tourney PDF:
http://www.chessfed.gr/wccc2010/files/wccc_2010_goodzug_announcement.pdf
Email participants will receive the candidate problems shortly AFTER paper copies are distributed on-site, the morning of Wednesday, October 20th. Look for an email between 09:00-11:00 Greek time.
Remember: Cooks must be emailed to me no later than 21:00 Greek time that evening (Wednesday, October 20th). Winners will be announced in the event bulletin. And, of course, we'll let you all know here as well.
This goes without saying: computer-aided solving, and collaboration, is perfectly fine! Our two main goals are: (1) weed out cooks that might otherwise make it into the awards; and (2) provide some modest solving entertainment. :-)
Good luck, and better skill!
| | | (28) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Oct 17, 2010 18:11] |
In sports we have a "2-minute warning". Consider this the "48-hour warning" for the Good Zug Tourney. OK, the deadline is actually 51 hours away, but who's counting? :-)
So far, 32 entries received. Always room for more!
| | | (29) Posted by Cornel Pacurar [Monday, Oct 18, 2010 06:06] |
2-minute warning?! That's gotta be NFL, up north here in CFL it is a 3-minute warning! Anyway, in more serious sports, like hockey, there is only a "last minute of play" announcement! :)
| | | (30) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Oct 18, 2010 18:02] |
@Cornel: Consider this the "last minute of play" warning. :-) 39 entries so far.
T minus 27 hours, and counting...
| | | (31) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Oct 23, 2010 16:12]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-10-23] |
The Good Zug Tourney awards were forwarded to WCCC organizers at 4pm Greek time (9amET) on Thursday, October 21st. I will post them online after the WCCC-53 bulletin has been published. In the meantime, I distributed (just now) the awards in PDF form to tourney participants.
DM original
"to the GZT Participants!"
 (= 14+9 )
PG in 12½ (14+9) C+ Natch
Solution hidden here:
1.e4 b5 2.e5 Ba6 3.e6 Qc8 4.exf7+ Kd8 5.fxg8R Qb7 6.Rxg7 Kc8 7.Rxh7 Bg7
8.b4 Bxa1 9.Rxe7 Rxh2 10.Rxd7 Rh6 11.Rh3 Bc3 12.Rxc3 Rb6 13.Rc6 CapZug!
Perhaps the first/shortest PG ending in CapZug? And no extra-set pieces. Surely someone out there will do better.
For the record, here are a few PGs ending in stalemate listed on PDB: P1003999 (Meinking, my first PG), P1004131 (Tomasevic/Prentos, shortest stalemate PG!), and P1004135 (Prentos, 16 units frozen!)
EDIT: Another nice one: P1004002 (Elkies, stalemate with 29 units on-board!). Perhaps the LONGEST proofgame ending in stalemate?
Thanks again, everyone...
| | | (32) Posted by Joost de Heer [Sunday, Oct 24, 2010 15:15] |
Only white stalemate proofgame seems to be P1067996
| | | (33) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Oct 24, 2010 16:15] |
Thanks, Joost. A beautiful PG by Heinonen with 16 frozen white units!
Using criteria STIP='BP' AND SOL='patt' returns 6 problems, including the Meinking and Elkies examples. The Caillaud / Secker / Secker examples were from 1982, when proofgames were not necessarily unique in sequence.
But... P0001605 (Pronkin/Frolkin) from 1987 looks accurate, and leaves a lone wK stalemated! Unfortunately, it is well beyond both my solving and computing abilities. :-)
| | | (34) Posted by Cornel Pacurar [Wednesday, Oct 27, 2010 03:23]; edited by Cornel Pacurar [10-10-27] |
The results of all WCCC 2010 composing tourneys have been already announced [EDIT: online] on October 25th at 07:42 PM here:
http://chess-problems-gr.blogspot.com/2010/10/composers-results-in-wccc-2010-crete.html
(Just the "Composers' results", the awarded compositions are not included).
The last posted note on the official website (http://www.chessfed.gr/wccc2010/), dated October 23rd, says: "The PDF file with the awards of the composing tournaments will be made available in a couple of days".
| | | (35) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Wednesday, Oct 27, 2010 08:32] |
Actually, congress participants were (as usually) provided with bulletin, the compilation of all results, both solving and composing, and including all awarded problems. But the bulletin could have been easily composed of even mutually incompatible files provided by tourney participants and it needs some effort to be converted to one pdf.
(To tell the truth, not all tourneys are there. The culprit is also usual, Spisska Borovicka, due to its late schedule. But that's another story...)
| | | (36) Posted by Cornel Pacurar [Wednesday, Oct 27, 2010 10:08]; edited by Cornel Pacurar [10-10-27] |
@ Juraj: Of course, but that was not my point. My post was not necessarily addressed to the congress participants, but to those curious ones who did not participate and have to rely on information found online and got tired of hitting the 'refresh' button on the congress' official website.
| | | (37) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Wednesday, Oct 27, 2010 10:53] |
A-ha, I see :) So instead of pushing refresh button on all relevant pages it is enough to push it here in the CapZug hub. :) (Just joking, I got the idea.)
| | | (38) Posted by Cornel Pacurar [Wednesday, Oct 27, 2010 16:43] |
Indeed, and as long as the CapZug button is pushed every 108 minutes (http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Pushing_the_button) we should all be fine! :-) The almost classical "pushing the button" versus "turning the key" dilemma!.. The alternative is, of course, to shoot the messenger, that way no one hears the message!
| | | (39) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Oct 27, 2010 22:01]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-10-27] |
@Cornel & Juraj: Thanks for the updates! A few more details below:
Cook-Hunting Contest:
Arno Tüngler, 1st
Bojan Basic, 2nd
Cornel Pacurar, HM?? :-)
Notation Contest: won by Seetharaman Kalyan
Full details will be disclosed once the WCCC bulletin is posted. Until then, you'll just have to keeping pressing the Refresh button. :-)
| | | (40) Posted by Cornel Pacurar [Wednesday, Oct 27, 2010 22:03] |
Well, the final bulletin is now available - http://www.chessfed.gr/wccc2010/ . 73 pages very nicely done and excellent content - certainly worth the wait!
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Good Zug Tourney |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
