MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

14:58 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Promenade personal collection & Parry Series Hub
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
(61) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 23:08]

KB: "I said: "What composer in this genre would not want to send their problem to SG -- it's the only journal which shields them from highly diverse competition in the Fairy genre."
"Then Meinking pathetically misinterprets this ...
DM: "What you're really saying is: those who contribute to S&S are cowards who need to "shield" their meager offerings from "diverse competition"."
KB: "This goes far beyond all childishness."

I merely stated that which you clearly implied. The fact is: you refuse to examine your own words with the same microscope.

KB: "With the folly of my hypothetical scenario now fully accepted, I have no further purpose in this thread. It's a shame what must be endured, here, to vindicate the truth... "

The truth is: your hypothetical scenario IS folly. My retraction of "Parry Series encompasses *POWIC" does not change its folly status.

KB: "I yield the last word to Meinking (as if there were a chance he wouldn't have it)."

Amen.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7236
(62) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 23:18]

To save readers from having to sift through a full page of dialogue, here's the "wee parry" I posted a couple of days ago:

DM original
(= 2+2 )

pser-h#11 (2+2) C+ PWC { solution hidden below }
1.Sxg1+[+wSe2] Kh4! 2.Sf3+ Kh5! 3.Sd4 4.Sxe2[+wSd4] 5.Sf4+ Kg5 6.Se6+ Kf5 7.Sxd4[+wSe6]+ Ke5 8.Sc6+ Kd5 9.Sb4+ Kc5 10.Sa6+ Kb6 11.Sb8 Sc7#
Overlapping S rundlaufs, but the best feature is the unusual wK route.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7237
(63) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Sep 12, 2011 15:48]; edited by Dan Meinking [11-09-12]

After posting the 2011 edition of my problem collection on July 1st, I began compiling a list of "errata". Most of these were minor / grammatical errors, but a couple were significant. Since the "errata" list got fairly long, I decided to post a corrected version now -- rather than wait till mid-2012. You can find the revised PDF link on the Hub page, near the bottom:

http://parryserieshub.chessproblems.ca

Thanks to Cornel for the Hub updates! In scanning for these errors, I realized that I'd inadvertently omitted this one...

DM, Die Schwalbe 2010
(= 2+9 )

pser-h=7 (2+9) C+ { solution hidden below }
1.h1Q 2.Qc6+ Bxc6 3.c1R+ Kd3 4.b1B+ Ke3 5.f1S+ Kf2 6.Se3 7.Sc2 Ba4=

... so I'll be sure to include it in the 2012 edition.

Last but not least, a few nice "wee parries" (T63,T64,T65,T66), and one "wee series" (T62), were recently added to the CP.ca 2011 series menu:

http://originals.chessproblems.ca

Bon Appetit!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7312
(64) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Nov 17, 2011 11:14]; edited by Dan Meinking [11-11-17]

Several Parry + Zug updates:

(1) With tremendous help from Cornel Pacurar, Arno Tüngler and Gerd Wilts, we began cataloging all Parry Series and "Zug Family" problems. Yesterday, Gerd uploaded 165 (!) published examples...

http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.pdb?expression=COMMENT=%27PZV%27

... including this classic Cornel + Arno joint:

http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.pdb?expression=PROBID=%27P1224996%27

(2) This morning I 'tagged' the previously loaded examples. The tally was 58, but there's at least one duplicate-tag (over 30 other duplicate entries were bypassed):

http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.pdb?expression=USERCOMMENT=%27PZV%27

If anyone notices any duplicate or missing items, please email me: dmeinking /A/T/ roadrunner blah blah blah.

(3) The draft of feenschach/f188 is now online, and features Arno's excellent "Zug Family" article:

http://www.feenschach.de/downloads/f188-3.pdf

Of the many great examples given, the following surely deserves a diagram (wK correctly placed on e4 here):

Mark Kirtley, feenschach/f188 2011 (Z12)
(= 13+3 )

+z4 (13+3) C+ { direct-CheckZug in 4; promoted R+B+S }

Solution hidden here:
1.Ra1! zz and now:
1...e1=Q+ 2.Re3+ Kb2 3.Bd4+ Qc3 4.Ree1 +z
1...e1=B 2.Rc8+ Bc3 3.Kd5+ Kd2 4.Kd6 +z
1...e1=S 2.Rc1+ Kxc1 3.Qh6+ Kc2 4.Ke5 +z
1...e1=R+ 2.Kf3+ Re4 3.Sgh1! zz and now:
3...gxh1=Q+/gxh1=B+/gxh1=S/gxh1=R
4.Kg3/Rg2/Kxe4/Kg2 +z
Consecutive AUWs with the wK forcing zugzwang from 7 different squares!


The originals (and original versions) from this article will be uploaded to PDB soon.

We've cataloged about 40 more Parry/Zug examples that are slated for publication in the next 6-9 months. Stay tuned for further updates. :-)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7634
(65) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Nov 21, 2011 08:05]; edited by Dan Meinking [11-11-21]

This weekend I removed most of the 'PZV' tags, and asked Gerd to please remove the ones I couldn't. Instead, I defined 3 new keywords to PDB -- Parry Series, Legal Parry Series, and Zugzwang Goal -- and added those keywords as necessary to the 221 parry+zug problems. You can find the corresponding problems using the keyword-links below:

Parry Series (pser-* and phser-*) -- currently 185 total:
http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.pdb?expression=K=%27Parry%20Series%27

Legal Parry Series (legal-pser-*) -- currently 9 total:
http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.pdb?expression=K=%27Legal%20Parry%20Series%27

Zugzwang Goal (xz, +z, #z, =z, etc.) -- currently 32 total:
http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.pdb?expression=K=%27Zugzwang%20Goal%27

There are currently five (5) entries with TWO of these keywords, which is why the individual keyword totals add up to 226. The German and French translations should be updated soon.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7666
(66) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Jan 4, 2012 06:10]

Some important updates on the Hub page:

http://parryserieshub.chessproblems.ca

(1) The first release of the Parry-Series & Zug-Family Collection (PDF) has been posted, with 245 problems. The link is near the top of the page. This project was made possible in large part thanks to Cornel, Arno and Gerd!

(2) I added a link to Arno's Zug-Family article, which appeared in feenschach/f188. See the November 2011 post. There are some excellent examples of the various "zug" stipulations, very much worth checking out!

(3) For those interested in composing/testing Zug-Family problems, the latest version of Popeye (v4.59) has some significant changes to the "sstip" structure. Thanks to Bojan, we have a handy cross-reference to make the transition easy! See the January 2012 post for details.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7767
(67) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Jan 7, 2012 03:03]

After the initial posting, dozens of errors and inconsistencies were discovered. Plus one missed problem (246 total now). Thanks to Arno, Cornel, Bojan and Paul Raican for their diligence! The links for items (1) and (3) above have been updated.

The plan is to update the PDF once or twice per year, as necessary.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7782
(68) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012 04:01]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-06-27]

It should be noted here, that Nicolas Dupont created a new fairy condition, which he calls "Anti-Parry Series."

In fact, the invention has virtually nothing in common with Dan's idle-mover invention, other than the name; and, it is certainly not the anti-form of Dan's fairy condition.
[note: I see no good anti-form for: "w/b player moves only to parry checks, or execute the aim (otherwise idles)."]
In fact, Nicolas' invention is a closer relative to another fairy condition, called Anti-Kings.

A small portion of his article (published in StrateGems) describing the condition may be seen here: http://originals.chessproblems.ca/pdf/APS3v2.pdf

Unfortunately, the article makes a transgression, which I had predicted (long ago).
I emphasized that Dan's classification (which should be considered invalid, as Parry-Series can ONLY be fully encapsulated by Fairy Condition -- whereas a stipulation will not suffice!) would lead to similar transgressions, further eroding the logical boundary separating fairy conditions from stipulations.

This article shows that my prediction has come to pass.
The entire fairy condition is usurped into a new stip: called "aser-".
Following the Parry precedent, Nicolas offerrs no justification for why his new fairy condition should be afforded a special stipulation (whereas many thousands of others, are not).

If anti-pser + pser = aser, why not: madrasi + pser = mser ?

Hopefully, it is now becoming clear where this trend leads: absurdity and confusion (as predicted; and they scoffed!).

---
In a somewhat related story, the chief editor of StrateGems recently revealed to me the reasons behind his journal's highly unusual genre classifications.
I consider it very telling -- in fact, I believe, it goes to the heart of this trend to erode the division between stipulatios and fairy conditions...

"We have been innovators in many genres: series-movers is one example. Our magazine publishes many articles too obscure for other magazines. We have divided fairies in two groups to give more composers chance of winning awards." -Mike Prcic.

If I am the only one who finds this troubling, I must be in the wrong hobby!
That they established genre divisions (which often defy logic) in order to give composers (all/specific?) more chances to win awards -- just seems outlandish...

Consider divisions in an Olympic Sport... let's say freestyle swimming.
You have the 50M, 100M, 200M, 400M, and, oops 1500M... (why not 800M, and 1600M? -- oy, don't ask me!)
But, OK, these are somewhat logical divisions -- I mean, hey, at least they all have 'round numbers.'
It would be more logical to begin at 50M, and keep doubling... but, maybe there's something about freestyle swimming I don't know...

Anyway, suppose that the host country decides to manipulate these events -- just a tiny bit...
So, instead they organize the following events: 53M, 91.25M, 217M, 383M, 797M, and 1509.5M.
Would we expect no outrage (or protest) from any visiting countries?

It doesn't take much to contrive events which favor a particular contestant (or class thereof) -- even a minute advantage can pay off big (see: Phelps win his 8th Gold)!
That's why an International Olympic Committee sets standards -- to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Now, if the pool were shaped into Buckinham Palace, and these lengths are associated somehow with some improved visual presentation, and everybody was given advanced notice, maybe it's not so bad.
But, what if you were told that these lengths were designed specifically to manipulate awards?
There's no denying that an additional category will produce more gold medal opportunities -- but, doesn't it also devalue the other events?

OK, maybe this is a bad analogy -- after all, even if a statistical correlation showed these divisions favored the host country, you'd expect this to stabilize over time (presuming SG's categories remain fixed, of course).
Nevertheless, the reason behind this deliberate undertaking remains troubling: to expand award opportunities -- not to reinforce logical divisions (as in feenschach)...

Obviously, you can't apply this protest to specialized journals.
It would be silly to protest that the Wenigsteiner Prize Publications is unfair to short proofgames.
This is a specialized event, not the Olympic Games.

OK, maybe StrateGems is not the Olympic Games of Chess Problems either...
But it's a real shame, if SG is not the broad, encompassing chess problem journal, that I once thought...
It would leave America without a chess problem journal in what I would consider the top class.

Note: that's not to say that SG doesn't have top class problems, from top class comopsers!
And, it should also be noted that the international standards, for genre divisions, can hardly be called either logical, or fair (same story in the Olympics: 34 swimming events versus 1 shotput?!).
But, at least the internationally recognized divisions are fairly non-redundant.
I mean, if you're going to put idle-movers in a particular category (Series and Stalemates), then do it fairly: include them all -- e.g., "white/black checks (or else idles)" -- in that same category; not only those which were given an artificial stipulation (ser- and pser-)!
Maybe call it idle-movers & stalemates...

In fact, why not carve this out such that it includes:
1) all fairies based upon orthodox rules (hxn, hs#n, hs=n, etc -- read: no fairy boards, units, conditions), plus
2) all problems based upon orthodox rules, with the exception that it allows idle-mover fairies conditions, only.
Maybe call it semi-orthodox...
At least then you could claim this is a logical division... even if it was partially contrived for the purpose of awards.

When I asked Mike Prcic if he would be willing to listen my protest on his fairy divisions (after informing him that I was specifically advised he would not), I was told: "...that has been decided some time ago and it is working fine."
What is working fine -- the outcome of awards? For whom?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8684
(69) Posted by Joost de Heer [Wednesday, Jun 27, 2012 23:18]

 QUOTE 
It should be noted here, that Nicolas Dupont created a new fairy condition, which he calls "Anti-Parry Series."

This seems to be just parry-series with Vogtländer.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8685
(70) Posted by Dupont Nicolas [Thursday, Jun 28, 2012 23:12]

Happy birthday Kevin !

You know (it is public) what I am thinking about the necessity of a “great unification” of fairy chess. And you also know that I can share most of your arguments concerning the way this job should go.

But what did you expect concerning my SG article? That I entered into a semantic battle against Dan? Even if I felt such a necessity, I would have chosen another communication vector…

The truth is that Parry series (with pser stipulation), is now enough popularized and, as far as Anti-Parry series is nothing more than Parry series with auto-checks playing the role of checks, I had no other reasonable option than to follow the same kind of protocol, in particular the notation pser becoming aser.

If Dan would have defined Parry series as a fairy condition, I would have followed with Anti-Parry series, whatever is my own opinion on what is the best presentation. I prefer to be coherent with existing definitions (as far as their meanings are fully clear, which is the case with Parry series), than to add my own theoretical point of view.

Finally, note that Anti-Parry Chess is defined as a fairy condition. It was possible to make my own choice here, as Parry Chess doesn’t exist yet!

Nicolas.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8687
(71) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Jun 30, 2012 19:03]

Thanks for the birthday wish, Nicolas. :)

I also appreciate your considerate reply.
You are absolutely right about protocols -- although it may seem counter-intuitive, I can not hold you responsible for your own article's format, when it is certainly proper for the format to adhere to the publisher's standard; therefore, I will redirect my disagreements on this issue.

That said...
I still don't see how the naming convention makes sense.
I presume the name of your invented condition (and article) was of your own chosing -- yes?
It is certainly not the anti-form of the parrying idle-mover.
So, why call it "anti-parry" (given the strained association)?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8691
(72) Posted by Dupont Nicolas [Sunday, Jul 1, 2012 01:28]

The term "anti" doesn't have a unique meaning in the chess problem universe. For example Circe and anti-Circe exchanges capturing and captured pieces, while Pronkin and anti-Pronkin exchanges original and promoted pieces.

In fact I have in mind another fairy condition, to be called "Auto-Parry Chess". Roughly speaking, the same side may play a "double move", an auto-check followed by a move which restore it (i.e. such that the double move is "legal"). The whole picture "Auto-Parry, Anti-Parry" seems to be a legitimate notation, in the sense of exchanging the two sides, while answering to an auto-check.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8692
(73) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Jul 2, 2012 18:45]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-07-02]

@Nicolas,

>The term "anti" doesn't have a unique meaning in the chess problem universe.

The meaning of this prefix may not be unique, but when preceding a fairy condition, it does generally imply the anti-form. That is the implicit convention (and though we have no Fairy Codex which states this convention, I would expect any experienced fairy editor to concur).

For example:
Some years ago, I sent a joint Retro-composition to Eterscacco, employing a particular version of Atomic Chess.
In fact, there are three versions of Atomic Chess (which I described in an old article in the Mat Plus Forum), none of which are the original form; nevertheless, all would prefer to retain the simple name "Atomic."

Since my joint problem was based upon the version which allows no check whatsoever (win requires actually capturing the King), my first instinct was to declare the condition "Checkless Atomic" (there is no check, it must be checkless -- right?).
The astute editor, Marco Bonavoglia, was quick to point out that my naming convention was poorly considered.

Checkless, he pointed out, is a well known term in problem chess (it is a fairy condition in which checks are forbidden, unless resulting in checkmate), and my problem had no association with this term; therefore, I was in violation of an unwritten fairy convention!
I had to admit he was absolutely correct -- my problem had no association with the checkless condition, thus my notation would undermine an established term (it might even undermine the logic of fairy convention, before we have a chance to codify our terms).
I changed the name to "Checkfree Atomic" (though, I certainly don't recognize that the other two forms of Atomic have a more legitimate claim to declaring themselves the default version).

I submit to you that your naming convention (as expressed by your article) is considerably more dubious!
Your invention has no association with, and is certainly not the anti-form of, the established term your name clearly references (Dan's Parry idle-mover idea).

I'm surprised Dan (and StrateGems) didn't know to object -- but, unfortunately, they don't seem to have a keen awareness of implied (though as yet non-codified) fairy conventions.
That they would continue to usurp more fairy conditions into the stipulation is a profound demonstration that their awareness of fairy chess notation is severely lacking in experience.
[note: StrateGems would do much better to consult their own fairy editor, in such matters!]

>For example Circe and anti-Circe exchanges capturing and captured pieces, while Pronkin and anti-Pronkin exchanges original and promoted pieces.

I will grant you that Pronkin and anti-Pronkin are not exactly anti-forms.

Pronkin: A promoted piece moves on the initial square of a captured unit of the same kind and color.
Anti-Pronkin: A piece moves on the promotion square of a piece of the same kind and color.

However, in this case, "anti-" is a thematic prefix -- these are not fairy conditions.
That is not to justify the above names -- the notation for these thematic names seems quite dubious, as well (perhaps in haste to show respect to Dmitry Pronkin, the notation was not carefully considered!?).
But, one violation of convention does not justify another (neither can the improper pser- stipulation-prefix be used to justify further erosion of convention, by inexperienced parties).

Anti-Circe is, in fact, a near anti-form of Circe -- actually, more precisely, it is the anti-form of strict Rex Inclusive Circe; nevertheless, the point remains, there is not only a strong association between Circe and Anti-Circe (based upon circe modalities), there is also a converse association (rebirth is associated with a converse unit: captured/capturing):

Strict Rex Inclusive Circe: Upon capture, the captured unit (including King) must be "reborn" onto its unique square (determined by "circe modalities"), which must be unoccupied (otherwise the capture is not legal).
Anti-Circe: Upon capture, the capturing unit (including King) must be "reborn" onto its unique square (determined by "circe modalities"), which must be unoccupied, (otherwise the capture is not legal).

Any fairy condition preceded by "Anti-" will, generally, exhibit both a strong association (e.g., modalities to determine rebirth square), and a robust converse relationship (e.g., a duality between capturing unit, and captured unit).

Your invention exhibits neither!
Therefore, your naming convention appears highly questionable.

I will grant you that your invention does require that checks be parried in some fashion related to an anti-King's style interpretation. Furthermore, I will grant you that "anti-Kings" may be a somewhat strained anti-form of conventional Kings. Therefore, it's perhaps not easy to describe, precisely, the conventional element to which your invention is an anti-form. In this case, until the essence of the duality is penetrated, I would recommend a using more generic name.

However, it is dubious to use the word "Parry," because this suggests an anti-form of a known term.
"Parry" has a well known association -- and, even if it improperly described, by some, as a stipulation, this term can be expected to carry over into a legitimate form (as an idle-mover fairy condition).

I would suggest that the correct form of idle movers is as follows:

White/Black Checks idle-movers:
"White/Black idles, except to give checks"

Series idle-movers:
"White/Black idles, except to reach the aim"

Parry-Series idle-movers:
"White/Black idles, except to freely Parry checks, or to reach the aim"

etc.

>In fact I have in mind another fairy condition, to be called "Auto-Parry Chess".

Again, unless there is a strong association with the "parry" condition (which I do not see), your naming convention seems dubiously non-conventional.
If you are going to break with convention, you will owe your readers a good explanation.
I don't consider your justification (which amounts to an unsupported declaration that this is a "legitimate notation") to be sufficient.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8696
(74) Posted by Dupont Nicolas [Tuesday, Jul 3, 2012 02:34]

The term "anti" means in general “opposite”, but the opposite of what? And how is defined this opposite?

Roughly speaking, this is the opposite of the main property, and there is no universal definition of what this opposite is. For example we define the opposite of a non-zero number to be the other number with same absolute value. The main property of a particle is to have a positive weight, thus an anti-particle has a negative weight.

It follows that “anti” should be defined case after case, as it depends on which property you are inverting, and how are you inverting it. For example the definition of an anti-Pronkin is fully correct, providing we define the main property of a Pronkin to be a promoted piece reaching the initial square of an original one (of same color and nature), and we define the opposite of a promoted piece to be an original one (of same nature and color), and vice-versa. In the Circe setting, the main property is the rebirth of the captured unit. To get anti-Circe we define the opposite as the rebirth of the capturing unit, but we might have done another choice.

Please note the heart of my argument: it is only by pointing out the (or one) main property of X and the way to invert this property, that anti-X can be defined. To my mind there is no hope for a general definition of anti-X, and this is the very reason why it doesn’t exists yet!

In my setting, Anti-Parry Chess is the anti-form of Auto-Parry Chess (and vice-versa), providing the main property of those new fairy conditions is to allow some “auto-check/immediate undoing”, and the opposite of “undoing the auto-check by the moving side” (auto-parry) is “undoing the auto-check by the opposite side” (anti-parry).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8697
(75) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Sep 27, 2012 18:05]; edited by Dan Meinking [12-09-27]

Rather than update my collection, I decided to assemble some personal favorites from the past year or so:

http://parryserieshub.chessproblems.ca/pdf/DM2012xr.pdf
http://parryserieshub.chessproblems.ca/docs/DM2012xr.doc

The *.doc is identical and is included in case you have trouble with the PDF links. Thanks to Cornel for the PDF conversion, and for advising of this recent gem by Luis Miguel Martin:

http://www.problemiste.fr/#/2012-f059-solution/4135769

Over and out.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=8885

No more posts
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4

MatPlus.Net Forum Promenade personal collection & Parry Series Hub