Website founded by
MatPlus.Net Forum General Capture-Bound -- a new goal?
You can only view this page!
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
|(1) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 09:30]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-08-06]|
Capture-Bound -- a new goal?
LATE-EDIT: For those viewing this topic for the first time, the original name 'Capture-Bound' has been supplanted by 'CapZug', which is short for 'Capture Zugzwang'.
Capture-Bound: "The side on-move is NOT in check, and can only move to capture." We'll use "~x" to show the mate.
EDIT: Updated per notes below, including a COOK found by Bojan!
(= 3+2 )
h~x3 (3+2) C+
1.h1B h8Q 2.Ba8 Qh1 3.Kd8 Qb7~x
(= 3+4 )
ser-~x4 (3+4) C+
1.axb8R 2.Rd8 3.b8R 4.Rb6~x
Has this been done before? Seems that it could lead to many interesting possibilities!
The legal test for a forced ep-capture would be whatever the standard is for the genre presented.
EDIT: I suppose you could have a variation where the side on-move IS in check? Doesn't seem like that would be as interesting.
|(2) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 11:15]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-18]|
What you describe is perhaps a new [fairy] condition, but certainly not a new "goal."
Capture is already an aim... used in many problems...
If you change your hx#3 into hsx3.5, for example, you'll obtain your solution (plus 335 more, according to Win Chloe)...
1.b1S h8Q 2.Kb7 Qc8+ 3.Ka7 Qb7+ Kxb7 (this is not a cook).
This doesn't cook your problem, of course, because you stipulate no-checks...
(by the way, after checking through win chloe's output, I can tell you that your hx#3 is C+).
It might be possible to model this with existing conditions (e.g., checkless), but I'm skeptical any model would be a perfect fit.
[If I add the condition "Sans échec" (Checkless Chess -- A check which is not a mate is illegal), Win Chloe finds only your intent.
While this happens to model your intent for the hx#3, it fails to calculate the possibility of intermediate checks.]
So, you may need to define a new condition (perhaps something like: player cannot finish with check).
By the way, your new condition might be very interesting for selfmates too!
It's a considerable difference if a player must s# by zugzwang (much tougher than s# by check).
|(3) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 11:31]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-07-18]|
Capture-Bound is the GOAL:
checkmate = "The side on-move is in check, and has no legal moves."
stalemate = "The side on-move is not in check, and has no legal moves."
capture-bound = "The side on-move is not in check, and can only move to capture."
I think Capture-Bound could have applications across all genres.
The reason I think CB works better with the "not in check" proviso is because, as in a stalemate, the entire SIDE must be 'bound'.
|(4) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 11:43]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-18]|
> Capture-Bound is the GOAL:
>checkmate = "The side on-move is in check, and has no legal moves."
>stalemate = "The side on-move is not in check, and has no legal moves."
>capture-bound = "The side on-move is not in check, and can only move to capture."
>I think Capture-Bound could have applications across all genres.
No, it's not a valid goal.
Checkmate (#) and stalemate (=) are valid aims.
Capture (x) is also a valid aim.
But, "h#n in checkless chess" is not a valid stipulation (or goal)... [edit: and you cannot define it to be such!]
Nor is hxn in "no last move check." (or whatever you call your new condition).
[edit: these are valid stipulations + a fairy condition.]
A valid stipulation has 3 things:
1) a valid aim (capture, check, en passant, castle, checkmate, stalemate...),
2) a style of opponent's play (resist, help, help-resist?, etc), and
3) some number of moves.
Note also that series-movers and parry-movers are not any style of play -- they incorrectly hide their fairy condition (which alters the rules of movement) -- and thus, neither are valid stipulations (they are purely a fairy condition, which prefixes a valid goal).
The problem is, there are plenty of bad precedents in how stipulations are defined... mainly by people who want to pretend theirs are not a fairy form...
I'd encourage you to get it right -- and not pile on more (which will only have to be undone).
A valid stipulation (goal) does not alter, restrict, or expand the rules of movement in the game.
Only a fairy condition can do this!
|(5) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 12:09]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [10-07-18]|
How about semi-stalemate?
|(6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 12:33]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-19]|
What do you mean by a fairy goal (or by semi-stalemate)?
Perhaps you mean things like h##n, h==n?
Clearly ## is a fairy condition (it alters the rules of movement).
[edit: Whereas == is not a valid orthodox stipulation, but a fairy stipulation (rules of movement are the same, but no such thing as double stalemate as an orthodox aim - only one player can be on the move at a time).]
@my own post (above),
By the way, the three elements I listed for any valid stipulation... well, this is not entirely correct.
These are valid for stipulations (goals) w/o sub-goals (what I'd call "fundamental stipulations" -- based only upon valid aims).
The truth is, a valid stipulation (goal) is better viewed not in terms of aims, but in terms of sub-goals.
Sub-goals must ultimately reduce, by iteration, into some "fundamental stipulation" (something with a valid aim).
There may be debate as to whether counter-goals are an inherent calculation in an opponent's style of play.
Which goes to the heart of the real "reflex" confusion.
I had believed style of play describes an opponent's motivation, and motivation may be based upon counter-goals.
Reflex can be defined to be a motivation: opponent will strive to achieve your goal, but will settle for the counter-goal in 1.
However, I am beginning to believe that Christian Poisson's interpretation is better... no counter-goals.
If you eliminate counter-goals, and base an opponent's motivation entirely upon the goal, there are only two styles of play.
Either the opponent resists the goal, or they help to achieve it.
This may sound like George W. Bush's outlook, but treating complex motivations as fairy conditions does wonders to simplify stipulations.
A player probably should serve only one goal... service of a counter-goal, after all, has vast implications.
For example, why settle for the counter-goal only in a single move -- why not "reflex" in 2 moves, 3 moves, n-moves?
It might be quite interesting, for example, if you compose a problem with the following motivations:
1) White strives to checkmate black in n moves,
2) Black strives always for the fastest helpmate (for either side),
3) White knows black's motivation, but black doesn't know white's, and
4) There is a unique solution (with perhaps variations), which accomplishes this, for some given interger, n.
While it might be interesting to compose problems with such a complex motivation, it should not be considered a valid stipulation.
Primarily, this is because counter-goals directly lead us to an "imperfect game" (where the opponent's motivation might be hidden).
Such an alteration would be too profound to be treated as a stipulation change.
It would be more profound than almost any fairy condition, fairy piece, or alteration of board (shape or size).
Stipulations should not be used to model increasingly complex motivations (styles of play).
They should be kept simple (easily understood, even to beginners) -- and leave all the complexities for fairy conditions!
The symbols you've chosen also happen to be reserved: hx#n = help capture & mate in n, just as hx+n = help capture & check in n.
Please, give more thought to the matter.
[edit: Win Chloe prefers #x (mate by capture) over hx#n... but I'm not certain about other programs, or problem journals... At a minimum, the use of "#" (which is well defined) was not a wise choice... I'd suggest finding a good name -- a symbol doesn't work!]
You can attempt to define "swapping-checkmate" (%#) to be an aim, and pretend that "h%#n" = help swapping-checkmate in n.
Then, you could pretend Swapping Kings is not a fairy condition, but a stipulation.
You can try to claim this is just as valid as help-selfmate.
But, of course, it would be incorrect (if not foolish)... attempting to define it as such does not make it so!
Fairy conditions should not be dressed up as stipulations -- they shouldn't even be dressed up as fairy pieces!
Series-movers, parry-movers, h##n, this "x#" thingie -- these are not stipulations, they are fairy conditions.
[Series-movers are classified as a fairy condition, see Michael McDowell's article: http://www.bstephen.me.uk/bcps/fairies.html]
Paralyzing pieces -- these are not fairy pieces, they are a fairy condition (which directly alter the rules).
[Edit: I am unable to remember exactly how paralyzing units alter the nature of checkmate (or is it stalemate?)... perhaps somebody more familiar can refresh my memory.]
Anything that alters (or restricts, or expands) the rules (or board size, or board shape, or board integrity) is a fairy condition.
Any piece which has an altered form of movement is a fairy piece.
Any stipulation which is built upon an unorthodox aim is a fairy stipulation.
Anything else is orthodox.
|(7) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 17:16]|
There are two types of moves, capture or non-capture. A position having only capture moves is a semi-semistalemate !
Of course even stalemate is listed as Fairy in the FIDE album. So I agree with your views.
|(8) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 18:22]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-07-19]|
@seetharaman: I like CapBound for short. :-)
Since the idea is that ANY legal move (by the 'bound' side) is a capture, perhaps '~x', or even '~c' to depict the goal is better. For example:
EDIT: Updated per Bojan's COOK(s) below!
(= 3+6 )
h~x3½ (3+4) C+
1...Sa3! 2.Rh2 Sc2 3.Rg1 Se1 4.Bh1 Sg2~x
|(9) Posted by Bojan Basic [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 19:29]|
I believe that your second and third problems are cooked. In the second problem, there are many cooks, one of which is: 1.cxb8Q 2.Qe5 3.bxa8R 4.Rxc8. In the third problem, the move order can be reversed: 1...Sa3! 2.Rg1 Sc2 3.Bh1 Se1 4.Rh2 Sg2.
|(10) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 21:33]|
Good catch, Bojan! Better now?
|(11) Posted by Bojan Basic [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 21:42]|
And here is a tricky little surprise: Popeye is actually capable of solving this kind of problems!
These are input files for three Dan’s examples (notice the double S in "SStipulation"):
Author Dan Meinking
White Sg7 Ph7 Ka1
Black Kc7 Ph2
SStipulation black 6h (sx & !(-d~ & !-d~))
Author Dan Meinking
White Pa7 Pb7 Pc7 Pa6 Kh1
Black Ra8 Sb8 Sc8 Kd7
SStipulation white 4ser (sx & !(-d~ & !-d~))
Author Dan Meinking
White Pf4 Ke3 Ra2
Black Bf3 Rg3 Ph3 Sb1 Kf1
SStipulation white 7h (sx & !(-d~ & !-d~))
I don’t know whether these examples make clear how the stipulation should be given. If anyone needs additional explanation, I would be glad to give it (but I suggest a separate thread, in "Internet and Computing" forum—since these technical details do not have much in common with Dan’s invention). However, I emphasize that I am not a member of Popeye development team, nor I do have any knowledge about Popeye source code (I do have certain knowledge about programming in general, but in this case everything is purely from user’s perspective, and my interpretation of what is going on "below the hood" can also be wrong).
|(12) Posted by Bojan Basic [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 21:56]; edited by Bojan Basic [10-07-18]|
I was writing my previous message while you were correcting the diagrams—therefore, the examples there are the ones before your corrections.
Unfortunately, after corrections, the second problem still has a load of cooks, while the third one now has 1...Sa3! 2.Rg1 Sxc2 3.Bh1 Se1 4.h2 Sg2 (and Black’s moves can be reordered).
Edit: Moving Rc2 to g2 in the third problem results in C+. :)
|(13) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 22:09]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-18]|
There are duals in your "h~x3.5" (as you continue to incorrectly call this); but, unfortunately, you can't see them.
I can see them, because I recognize what constitutes a valid stipulation (as opposed to what constitutes a fairy condition).
What you call "h~x3.5" should be properly viewed as a hsx4 (help-self-capture in 4) plus one fairy condition ("no check finale").
Now, perhaps you can see the duals.
>Of course even stalemate is listed as Fairy in the FIDE album. So I agree with your views.
I don't consider these to be my views -- I'm only stating what any fairy expert would say, if they cared enough to bother.
My views, remarkably enough, are closer to Dan's than folks here might realize.
For example, I don't necessarily agree with what constitutes a dual in a selfmate, or in a help-selfmate.
But, I go along with the dogma, until I have a good, clear, illustrative example in my hands, which proves there is a better way.
[note: a philosophy I attribute to having read (and re-read!) Milan Vukcevich's excellent article on Bristols.]
Also, I don't think stalemates, help-selfmates, help-captures, or any valid stipulation should compete in the fairies section.
If completely orthodox, except a different (but valid!) stipulation, they deserve a sub-section (likely to be orthodox someday anyway)!
Fairies are just starting to mushroom, and there is a serious need to offload more orthodox content, as was done in the past, for h# and s#.
There should be a semi-orthodox section, for properly stipulated semi-orthodox content (no fairy pieces & no fairy conditions).
This should not include Dan's new fairy condition (which is poorly dressed as a goal), nor series-movers, nor parry-series movers...
Fairy conditions deserve no seat at any "semi-orthodox" sub-genre -- and certainly not an unproven fairy condition!
It only looks like manipulation (if not conflict of interest), for the Good Companions to continue to couch specific fairy conditions in such an inconsistent manner (some might consider this cherry-picking).
Consider McDowell's introduction to fairy chess:
"Fairy chess is a generic term which was introduced before the First World War to cover all problems which [were] not directmates."
He continues... "Over time, as selfmates and helpmates grew in popularity they became classed as orthodox..."
Note: helpmates and selfmates were both fairy stipulations -- no alterations in the rules of movement -- different, but valid goals!
Eventually, it will be argued that help-selfmates are deserving of their own sub-genre too.
I would instead advocate the creation of one logical semi-orthodox genre, which would house all orthodox problems with valid, but different goals, sub-goals, or aims.
The last thing we need is another cowboy fairy condition invention, from somebody who doesn't want to be a fairy condition inventor, which attempts to dictate more bad terminology to those of us who wish to compose within the genre.
>"There are two types of moves, capture or non-capture. A position having only capture moves is a semi-semistalemate!"
Hmm, is semi-stalemate a valid aim -- that's your question?
Key questions: is this an aim realizable in orthodox chess, and does it alter (or expand, or limit) the orthodox rules of movement?
Like h==n, this does not alter the rules of movement.
However, also like h==n, it is not an aim which is realizable in orthodox form -- therefore, it cannot be a valid aim.
There is no such thing as semi-stalemate in a game of chess -- it requires a fairy condition to define such an aim.
Neither would I consider any stipulation based upon this (as a goal, or sub-goal) to be valid.
Valid aims are: check, checkmate, stalemate, capture, en passant, promotion, castling, etc (things which can happen in orthodox chess).
|(14) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 22:15]|
I wonder why he didnt use a 1-5 Leaper for another solution 1.ab 15L 2.15L g2, L*g2-h1#
|(15) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 22:17]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-19]|
>I wonder why he didnt use a 1-5 Leaper for another solution 1.ab 15L 2.15L g2, L*g2-h1#
Good question! The answer is simple: for the same reason he doesn't want to call this fairy condition anything but a stipulation!
The very same reason he refuses to accept that parry-series is a fairy condition.
In fact, his only retort to GM Petkov's article (which plainly states that parries are a "fairy invention"), was:
>"I do not consider Parry Series to be any more 'fairy' than normal series."
But, we all know series-movers are fairy conditions... and if parries are no more a fairy condition than a fairy condition...
It's like saying, "I'm no more human than the next guy."
A stroke the beard, a sudden look the other way, then duck out, and run like mad from the truth.
He then goes on to admit series-movers are fairies:
"Petko argued that, according to the FIDE Album, normal series is considered 'fairy.' True, but then so are stalemate
problems (=n, s=n, h=n, etc.), even though there is nothing inherently 'fairy' about them."
Stalemate problems are not fairy conditions -- they are [treated as] fairy stipulations (just as h#, and s# were once considered) [but they are valid stipulations.]
For =n to be considered "semi-orthodox" is one thing; but, parry-series alters the fundamental rules of alternating movement.
It is more a fairy form than any expansion of the nxn board (something the GC's, in their untold wisdom of fairy conditions, were not willing to include in even the fairies section!).
>"In fact, the StrateGems editors decided many years ago to initiate a new forum for (non-fairy) Series-Movers & Stalemates, for that very reason."
LMAO. The StrateGems editors decided this?
Which editors (from which genres!) "decided" that parry-series, and series-movers are not a fairy condition.
I'd like names.
I'd like to ask each of them who granted their authority to classify fairy forms.
Also, please direct me to where it says that S&S consists of "non-fairy" elements.
I doubt that StrateGems would publish such a distortion of the truth.
The "CaptureBound" fairy condition masquerades as a stipulation for the very same reason... the inventor is in denial.
|(16) Posted by Cornel Pacurar [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 22:20]|
Very nice idea Dan! It looks promising and worth further exploring, in one form or another, regardless whatever the final official label will be! Here is a simple Wenigsteiner, with two minor promotions and Excelsior:
(= 3+1 )
Solution: 1.e2-e4 2.e4-e5 3.e5-e6 4.e6-e7 5.e7-e8=B (e7-e8=S?) 6.d7-d8=R 7.Rd8-d7 8.Rd7-g7 Kh8*g7 x
(C+ as white 8ser (sx & !(-d~ & !-d~)) )
|(17) Posted by Cornel Pacurar [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 23:16]; edited by Cornel Pacurar [10-07-18]|
@ Kevin: RE:
(Posted by Kevin Begley on Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 22:17)
>I wonder why he didnt use a 1-5 Leaper for another solution 1.ab 15L 2.15L g2, L*g2-h1#
Good question! The answer is: for the same reason he doesn't want to call this fairy condition anything but a stipulation!
Kevin, no offense, but it seems to me that there are cases when you either disagree or agree without reading carefully what you are disagreeing or agreeing with!
Seetharaman's message, above, was posted here by mistake, it was only meant to be posted elsewhere (http://matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1279486721&app=forum&act=posts&fid=prom&tid=572&pid=5630#n5630), and has nothing to do with Dan, his problems, ideas or beliefs, as it relates to Yoshikazu Ueda's Problem Paradise 2005 ser-h#2 problem from the other thread!
|(18) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 23:27]|
@Bojan: Thanks! I'll have to take a closer look at the 2nd example, though; my 'fix' is still badly cooked. I think the 3rd example is fixed by +wPh2, but I get 'no solution'? If you can email me directly (dmeinking /a/t/ roadrunner (etc.), I'd like to hear more about the stipulation mechanics. (Thomas explained the general principles to me once, but I didn't quite understand it. Having a concrete example will help!)
@Cornel: Cute one. :-) Working on a changed promotion idea, but not quite there yet.
|(19) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jul 18, 2010 23:46]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-19]|
>no offense, but it seems to me that there are cases when you either disagree or agree without reading carefully what you are disagreeing or agreeing with!
It's true that I had no interest to check where the leaper went... in any of Dan's problems (or nowhere).
You certainly got me there, sport!
Yet, you would say nothing about this Capture-Bound fairy condition, which pretends to be a stipulation?
You would say nothing about the duals, which are evident to anybody who knows how to popeye this fairy condition (and it doesn't take much fairy expertise to see what this "stipulation" reduces to).
If you have a good argument why my views are incorrect about the classification of this fairy form, I'd love to hear it.
Otherwise, don't read too much into my having missed the incorrect placement of a post.
That's not reading me carefully!
I averted a completely incorrect, ill conceived stipulation ("x#").
I tried to avert the incorrect use of a stipulation too, but there's no point helping Dan with these things...
He offers no logical counter-point -- he just plows full steam in the wrong direction.
I've been through this before... many times... as you can probably see, if you are anything close to a careful reader.
It's completely useless... of course... but I happen to care about the fairy genre, and I don't like to see it misused.
I sincerely hope you gleaned that when you were reading me... because, with any luck, it might just spread.
|(20) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Jul 19, 2010 01:22]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-07-19]|
@Bojan: My +wPh2 doesn't fix anything, sorry! I may have to settle on Rc2=>g2 as you suggest, but I had hoped to show the 3 units crossing over g2, with the wS plugging the hole at the end. Will take another look.
EDIT: Example #3 is sound now. And example #2. :-)
@Cornel: Here's the promotion idea I mentioned before, although the "change" may be impossible to get sound:
(= 2+3 )
h~x5½ (2+3) C+
1...b4 2.f1S b5 3.Se3 b6 4.Sc2 b7 5.Sa1 b8R 6.c2 Rb3~x
I'd hoped for a twin, bK=>a1, with 2.f1B ... 5.Bb1 6.c2 Ba2~x. Problem is: 6...Ba2 works without bBb1. Perhaps you (or someone out there) can find a way?
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Capture-Bound -- a new goal?