MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

14:41 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
(41) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Aug 29, 2011 11:14]

I've seen such an example. Check-only Chess makes sense. Or simply BUSZ+WUSZ.

Or, to borrow the 'OK Corral' analogy: I'm-OK-You're-OK Chess.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7195
(42) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 00:32]

Dan,

Having discovered no explicit meaning from your reply, I must assume you are owed the following repristination...

Though I do appreciate your unceasing creativity in these matters, I certainly was not querying you to provide inventive names for a particularly rare combination of fairy conditions (where both sides are restricted only to movements which "parry" check).
In fact, established fairy conventions implicitly discourages renaming unconflicted combinations of independent fairy elements (especially known elements).
For example, we do not rename "series-mover + Circe Exchange" (a staple of the fairy genre!) -- nor did you rename your combination of conditions ("pser-h#n + PWC").

I merely asked how you -- as purveyor of the parry-series nomenclature -- would resolve such a combination of conditions.
Given the unsolicited nature of your reply, it is difficult to discern whether you are implying that there is some prevailing reason for us to set aside a conventional name for this particular combination.

The point of my question, as you might have guessed, is that these elements seem to grate against one another, probably because one ("parry-series") is known to be at least "partially anticipated" (your words) by the other ("player moves only when checked" was known, more than 40 years prior).
More precisely, my point is to challenge the billing which suggests your invention to be a larger structure under which many similar predecessor conditions may retire.

This combination of conditions suggests more than a hole in your umbrella...
Clearly, the more logical name for this pair would be: "Players (both sides) move only to 'parry' check." ... which suggests the umbrella is on the other foot.

I honestly do not wish to appear hostile towards so many of your inventions... It's really nothing personal...
For the record, I have commented, at length, about many other fairy elements with design flaws (e.g., Atomic Chess).
And, I do concede that "Parry" is more than an economical term which implies a previously known condition ("Player moves only to 'parry' check") -- it has proven a successful marketing campaign for what was otherwise a slow-moving product.
That's high praise, given that a hero of mine once did much the same thing for proofgames!
The difference is, he did not do so by toppling our inherited history of intelligently crafted convention.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7201
(43) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 02:01]; edited by Dan Meinking [11-08-30]

@Kevin -- Anyone (except you, apparently) can see the folly in your hypothetical scenario, yet you demand a serious reply. The crux of Parry Series is the *voluntary* nature of the checks. Only the parries are mandatory.

If a "pser-*" problem also requires that the series-side may only move to 'parry' check, that is essentially BUSZ+WUSZ conditions because check is really *mandatory* for both sides.

I absolutely agree that BPOWIC/WPOWIC conditions 'partially anticipate' Parry Series. But... a parry series-mover mimicks a normal series-mover in that the 'condition' (series vs. series-with-parries) only applies to the (n-1) portion of the problem. In all pre-existing 'check' conditions (BPOWIC/WPOWIC, USZ, ZigZag, etc. etc.), the proviso applies to the full (n) moves.

I would venture to guess that less than 10% of composed Parry Series would meet the BPOWIC/WPOWIC criteria -- because most pser-* problems do not conclude with a check-and-parry. If I compose a problem that is 90% original, that is a good thing. If I discover something that offers 90% room for originality (over pre-existing forms), I'm OK with that too.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7205
(44) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 02:18]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-08-30]

>"Anyone (except you, apparently) can see the folly in your hypothetical scenario..."

I wasn't aware I was alone... lol... are you absolutely certain you have polled everyone?

>"...yet you demand a serious reply."

I didn't demand anything.... sheesh, I merely asked you a question...
I can see where this is going (yet again).
If I've asked too much from you, to expect basic civility, just forget I asked!

As for 90% of parry-series problems, it might surprise you to know that 100% of them appear otherwise -- not "pser" (usually under the umbrella of a predecessor condition) -- in the Win Chloe db.
I wonder why that is...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7208
(45) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 02:45]

@Kevin: First you accuse me of "... toppling our inherited history of intelligently crafted convention", and then you whine about "basic civility". Yes, I can see where this is going as well.

If "100%" of Parry Series are represented by a condition in WinChloe, so what? In every other published venue, Parry Series has been represented by a stipulation.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7209
(46) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 02:47]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-08-30]

I do understand the difference between your invention and "Player POWIC" (essentially, you invented: "Player POWIC, except on the last move").
But, I also remember you had argued that a problem of yours, with all-checks (clearly falling under the "Player POWIC" condition), should be classified as "pser."
Is this no longer your position -- do you now agree that pser-problems must distinguish themselves (e.g., by avoiding check on the last move)?

As for "accusing" you... I merely stated a fact: you often do ignore conventions.
You once even claimed that "pser" was not a fairy condition.
Cap-zug had to be renamed about a half-dozen times, even after a TT where rewards were given to your best helper.
Surely, your toppling of convention is not a crime which need be concealed.

If that is somehow offensive to you, please accept my sincere apologies.
I thought maybe enough time had passed, and maybe we could have an honest, open, objective, and (yes!) civil discussion.
I see now that my timing was (still) considerably premature.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7210
(47) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 02:53]

@Kevin: Parry Series fully encompasses all BPOWIC and WPOWIC problems. The argument that it should be necessary to avoid check on the last move to claim a valid pser-* is dubious. It is similar to the notion that, if all moves of a pser-* happen to be check, the composer must declare 'must-check' rather than using pser-*. BTW: I wrote an article on that very subject, slated to appear soon.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7211
(48) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 03:04]; edited by Dan Meinking [11-08-30]

KB: "You once even claimed that "pser" was not a fairy condition."

Really? Read the fine print on the initial post for Section-A of the GCQCT thread (below). That was written by me, BTW.

http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1314665949&app=forum&act=posts&fid=tt&tid=643

KB: "Cap-zug had to be renamed about a half-dozen times, even after a TT where rewards were given to your best helper. Surely, this is not a crime you need conceal."

I fully admit my initial choice (x=) was poor. There is still time to correct it (xz). No harm done.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=7212
(49) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 03:05]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-08-30]

I see... you stated, "No fairy pieces or additional fairy conditions" in your "pser" tourney...
So, you have accepted that "pser" is, indeed, a fairy condition... like series-movers are.
Whew, progress (what a relief)!

I'm not sure I believe your claim that "Parry Series fully encompasses all BPOWIC and WPOWIC problems."
But, let's not bigfoot your article.
My questions on this matter can wait.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7213
(50) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 03:17]

KB: "I see... you stated, "No fairy pieces or additional fairy conditions" in your "pser" tourney...
So, you have accepted that "pser" is, indeed, a fairy condition... like series-movers are.
Whew, that's progress, and that's a relief."

I never claimed otherwise. I said "Parry Series is no more 'fairy' than normal series." That statement came about from a debate with Petko on whether pser/phser problems belonged in the Fairies section or in the Series-Movers & Stalemates section (of StrateGems). Mike Prcic and Rasa agreed with me that Parry Series -- with no other fairy elements -- should go to S&S, just as normal series.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7214
(51) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 03:51]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-08-30]

Fine, if you agree that series and parry-series are fairy conditions, it's a definite relief... and, I'll accept this as your permanent, unyielding position.

As for StrateGem's S&S clusterdump, that's another topic...
It is worth noting that every problem journal on Earth continues to disagree with the reclassification you proposed to Mike, to "save" StrateGem's S&S Section.
I think most would agree that help-selfmates probably deserve first consideration for orthodox-classification...

You have an inherent bias, in attempting to reclassify your own invention (out of the Fairy section).
This is especially true, when one considers that you mysteriously classify "WPOWIC/BPOWIC" (an almost identical anticipation!) into the Fairy section!
Did you imagine that Mike could freely disagree with your biased viewpoint?
I can assure you, it's not a pleasant experience having an opposing viewpoint. :)

Where would I publish a "pser.h#n + BPOWIC"? Fairy section, or S&S section?
Is there a clear formula?
Do you share it with the section editors?

And, while I'm at it... if Parry-Series fully encompasses "WPOWIC/BPOWIC," how is it possible that Pser does not cover the above combination of fairy conditions?
Just food for thought... maybe you can squeeze a good answer into your upcoming article... until then, good day.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7215
(52) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 04:18]

KB: "As for StrateGem's S&S clusterdump, that's another topic...
It is worth noting that every problem journal on Earth continues to disagree with the reclassification you proposed to Mike, to "save" StrateGem's S&S Section."

First, I wasn't aware that S&S needed to be "saved". It was doing fine, as far as I know. The fact is: when I had the initial thought for Parry Series, I hadn't so much as looked at a chessboard for many months. I had no motives other than to present an idea.

Second, where are the huddled masses whom you claim disagree with having a separate forum for S&S? Judging by the number of composers and problems that have been represented therein, I'd say you're in the minority.

KB: "I think most would agree that help-selfmates probably deserve first consideration for orthodox-classification..."

I think a separate HS# forum would be great. But where do you get "most would agree" that HS# should be "first"? How is it more deserving than (say) orthodox stalemates??

KB: "You have an inherent bias, in attempting to reclassify your own invention (out of the Fairy section)."

Then my 'bias' also applied to normal series which, I still believe, deserve their own forum. Clearly many composers agree.

KB: "This is especially true, when one considers that you mysteriously classify "WPOWIC/BPOWIC" (an almost identical anticipation!) into the Fairy section!"

When a WPOWIC/BPOWIC is presented as a non-series, where else would it go? Parry Series encompasses all cases of *POWIC (whether you wish to believe it or not), and it also carries the 'series' element. Thus, there's no conflict in publishing Parry Series in S&S. Again, it's clear that many agree.

KB: "Did you imagine that Mike could freely disagree with your biased viewpoint?"

Yep. He has on many occasions. Very recently, even.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7216
(53) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 04:22]

KB: "Where would I publish a "pser.h#n + BPOWIC"? Fairy section, or S&S section?"

First, this combination (again) is essentially BUSZ+WUSZ.
Second, the Series-Movers section does not accomodate other fairy elements (pieces or conditions).

I'm certain all SG editors would agree that your folly scenario would go to Fairies.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7217
(54) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 08:14]; edited by Dan Meinking [11-08-30]

In light of today's discourse, there are two important points that should be stated clearly and unequivocally:

(1) Parry Series is a *better* presentation than non-series forms with condition BPOWIC or WPOWIC. Why? Because the latter discloses the fact that the final move (for one side) must be a check -- at least for help- and self-genres.

(2) Parry Series, where all moves happen to be checks, is a *better* presentation than non-series forms with a 'must-check' condition. Why? Because the latter discloses the fact that all moves (for one side) must be checks.

It is not incumbent upon a composer to unnecessarily disclose information about a problem's intent (or content). Surely our 'history of intelligent convention' supports this position. The above points assume, of course, that the pser-*/phser-* form is sound.

That said, I correct my statement that "Parry Series encompasses all *POWIC cases". Why? Because in Parry Series, checking on the final move is optional, while in *POWIC it is not. Thus one could, in theory, have a position -- just before the (nth) move is made -- where both checking and non-checking moves result in the desired aim. I would say, though, that such instances would be rare exceptions.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7218
(55) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 09:34]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-08-30]

DM: "...where are the huddled masses whom you claim disagree with having a separate forum for S&S?"
>"Judging by the number of composers and problems that have been represented therein, I'd say you're in the minority."

A smart sheriff does not count his posse by the dinner bell.
What did you expect -- everybody would huddle up in opposition to this dumb idea?
Composers in this genre should all boycott SG -- is that how it works, Dan?

In all the years SG has been riding, to a spectacle, the fool horse you sold them, not a single journal on Earth -- not a one! -- has saddled up to ride along on your S&S epiphany.
Not one, not anywhere -- open any journal... you'll see I'm right.

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.
And, here you are counting these composers as feathers in your cap -- as if they all lined up in support of a fairy division prescribed by somebody unwilling to define his own basic terms (you refused even to provide your definition for "fairy condition," despite the fact that your TT insisted upon seeing no other fairy conditions... other than the one which is no more fairy than the fairy series-mover).

This one doesn't get decided by a popularity contest, Dan.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7219
(56) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 09:46]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-08-30]

DM "1) Parry Series is a *better* presentation than non-series forms with condition BPOWIC or WPOWIC. Why? Because the latter discloses the fact that the final move (for one side) must be a check -- at least for help- and self-genres."

I hereby invent the Thrust-Series.
The series player may move, check (free parries), or optionally thrust a move upon his opponent...

1) Thrust Series envelops Parry-Series,
2) Thrust Series is a *better* presentation than Parry-Series. Why? Because the latter discloses the fact that a side must check to activate the other.

Using only simple hypothetical scenarios (sans voir), I demonstrate the folly of your logic.
Nevertheless, I refuse to lower myself into claiming, ad hominem, that you (somebody I have called a friend) must be the only one unable to observe your own folly.
The one thing clear from your discourse today, is that you are not yet capable of civil discourse, today.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7220
(57) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 14:00]

KB: "What did you expect -- everybody would huddle up in opposition to this dumb idea?"
"In all the years SG has been riding, to a spectacle, the fool horse you sold them, not a single journal on Earth -- not a one! -- has saddled up to ride along on your S&S epiphany.
Not one, not anywhere -- open any journal... you'll see I'm right."

Dumb? Spectacle? Fool horse? Good to know how you really feel about S&S. And... because other journals haven't followed suit, you count that as proof they're in "opposition" to the idea?

KB: "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."

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: "And, here you are counting these composers as feathers in your cap..."

So, according to you: if a magazine doesn't form their own S&S, they're in "opposition" to the idea; and if a composer (or judge) publishes in S&S, that's not to be viewed as "support".

KB: "... as if they all lined up in support of a fairy division prescribed by somebody unwilling to define his own basic terms"

Ahh, now we see your true motives. Your disdain for S&S, and Parry Series, and CapZug are really reflections of your disdain for me. Glad we could clear that up.

KB: "I hereby invent the Thrust-Series."

Congratulations, you've just invented the "pass". Good luck with that.

KB: "The one thing clear from your discourse today, is that you are not yet capable of civil discourse, today."

I'm actually enjoying the discourse. See you next time.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7226
(58) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 15:13]

Personally I do not see anything wrong with S&S section in StrateGems, even if I had not published there even the single problem (if my memory serves me well). It is true that the problems there need not compete with many other fairies, but that is just like in any other section with somehow limited admittance. Let's see a few examples - current or from history:
- Circe section in feenschach (it was there once upon a time),
- feenschach even had Series section for some time for any kind of seriesmovers ,
- Tanagras section in Phenix (existing since Rex Multiplex times and still flourishing),
- s# and r# together in The Problemist (selfmates are totally different set of competitors for r#s than all fairies).

But you know what? This all does not affect the quality of the individual compositions themselves. A good orthodox =n is good regardless of publication place, it being SG, The Problemist, Pat a Mat or local journal Scarboro Daily.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7227
(59) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 21:20]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-08-30]

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 to suggest I am calling composers cowards...
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"."

This goes far beyond all childishness.
I'd like to respond in kind, but I'm sorry, my work is done here...

Here's a recap:

I originally asked a very simple question (based upon a hypothetical scenario), with a very specific (explicitly stated) mission:
KB: "...to challenge the billing which suggests [Pser] to be a larger structure under which many similar predecessor conditions [such as BPOWIC] may retire."

Meinking does not accept the premise, and begins to veer into ad hominem:
DM: "Parry Series fully encompasses all BPOWIC and WPOWIC problems."
DM: "Anyone (except you, apparently) can see the folly in your hypothetical scenario, yet you demand a serious reply."

After many twists and turns, Meinking has admitted that Parry Series does not encompass WPOWIC or BPOWIC.

With the folly of my hypothetical scenario now fully accepted, I have no further desire to continue a conversation with Mr.Meinking.
It's a shame what must be endured, here, to vindicate the truth...

I yield the last word to Meinking (as if there were a chance he wouldn't have it).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7234
(60) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Aug 30, 2011 21:35]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-08-30]

@Juraj,

The debate stems from an article Petko (the SG Fairy Editor) published...
Petko disputed any suggestion that Parry-Series was anything other than a Fairy Condition.

Meinking quickly retorted: "...no more than series-movers are a fairy condition."

Obviously, the intent was either to imply that Series-movers were anything other than a fairy condition, or to fog the matter entirely.

I joined the debate, by asking Meinking to provide a definition of his terms ("Fairy Condition," "Aim," "Stipulation," etc).
Meinking has repeatedly refused (still refuses -- even refuses to state whether he considers series-movers to be a fairy condition).

As to your comment:
"This all does not affect the quality of the individual compositions themselves. A good orthodox =n is good regardless of publication place, it being SG, The Problemist, Pat a Mat or local journal Scarboro Daily."

I completely agree.
I have great respect for the authors (for the S&S section editor, as well), and appreciate their good works.

But, there is little doubt that awards (for problems in the so called "S&S" genre) have been expanded, by the creation of this section.
[note: statistical analysis will demonstrate this.]
Biased parties were instrumental in advocating for both the creation of this section, and for establishing its ill-defined division (a division which even SG's Fairy Editor has questioned in public).
These artificial barriers constitute an inherent manipulation.
[note: there need be no malice, here -- it's enough to say that such a system is inherently slanted.]
 
   
(Read Only)pid=7235

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4

MatPlus.Net Forum Promenade personal collection & Parry Series Hub