MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

11:49 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 General What is a "line pin" and are there undefined pins?
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(41) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Oct 3, 2014 02:38]

As long as the oposition between the departure/arrival effect is clear, the "anti-battery", "anti-Grimshaw", "anti-pin" etc., look as logical and useful terms.

The fairies generalize the concept of a line into a set of particular squares. The "pure" or "simple" pin/antipin could be defined by the "departure from/"arrival to" the set of particular squares.
Departure includes a (hypothetical) removal from the board.
The example with nSa1,nKd4 shows antipin but not pin.

There could be "complex" pins. Georgy's example shows both a masked pin and a masked battery, call it "masked battery/pin".
e.p. capture would result by the departure of both w&b Pawns. Arrival is irrelevant, so there's no antipin.
Since a departure of bPe4 would not be a selfcheck by itself, there's no "simple pin". But there is a "conditional" or "relative" pin. The arrival to d3 is irrelevant by itself but the additional removal of wPd4 would make a selfcheck. So it is a "conditional pin", depending on the additional effect of a bP's departure. "Conditional pin" is a result of the complex "masked battery/pin".

Siegfried's question about a general (fairy) definition of pin looks as a hard one. Pin is an artificial concept, described by introducing a special kind of illegal move. So, what makes a "hypothetical pin-selfcheck" generally different than any other kind of an illegal hypothetical selfcheck?

Neal, en-passant is a natural move in Chess. Pawns have their particular properties which could all be considered unnatural when compared to the other pieces. It's not only the promoting potential. All other pieces move in the same way when capturing or not capturing (except in case of castling), but not the Pawns.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12761
(42) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Friday, Oct 3, 2014 08:27]; edited by Georgy Evseev [14-10-03]

@Neal @Nikola

Sorry, with my e.p. example I made things less obvious instead of simplifying them.

It is possible to give a very simple definition of "pin", which, I think, should be used normally both in normal chess and fairy chess.

The piece is considered pinned, if the king of same color becomes checked when we simply remove this piece from board.

This is enough. It does not matter if the piece in question has legal or illegal moves, or may move at all.

There may be some pin-like effects, like above e.p. case, isardam "spikes" and so on. For simplicity, we may consider them as not "pins", because there are a lot of fairy possibilities making some moves illegal, even due to self-checks.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no possibility for similar simple definition of anti-pin.


--- added
1. And yes, my last statement is becomes obvious, if you see that the pin is the property of position, while antipin is the effect of move.
2. Also similar definition of "battery" as a static feature of position is possible.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12762
(43) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Oct 3, 2014 09:13]

Georgy, it's not that simple, there are fairies where the white royal piece is not needed for a check to White.
Even King could be pinned, for instance wKe1,wRh1,bKa1; Vogtlaender chess, where Kd2,e2,f2 is illegal due to departure and O-O adds the illegal arrival of wR to f1.

Everything is somehow an effect of a hypothetical move, at least if the legality can be considered only when the hypothetical move is completed.
Antipin is also a property of position, there's a set of squares which must remain unoccupied. However, a generalization still might have some traps.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12763
(44) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Friday, Oct 3, 2014 09:31]; edited by Georgy Evseev [14-10-03]

Nikola, it should be that simple, or not be at all. At least, your Vogtlaender example does not contradict the intention of my definition (though you may replace "the king of same color" with "the side of its color".)

[offtop]
For me the boundary between "fairy chess" and "chess-like puzzles" lies in the definition of checkmate. So, I believe that some fairy conditions, including Vogtlaender, have gone too far to be still called "chess".
[/offtop]
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12764
(45) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Oct 3, 2014 12:52]

@Siegfried: I see the cylinder/OO example as a (fancy) line pin.
BTW, this can arise in Fischer 960! (Kf1 Rd1 Rg1 - Ra1 Rh1 for random)

P.S. Someone surely has made the joke with the angels on a pin,
so I rather make the joke that you can have Antipin also
at ice hockey. To be precise, Vladimir Yurevich Antipin :-)

Hauke
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12766
(46) Posted by Neal Turner [Friday, Oct 3, 2014 14:15]

From these replies it seems that the topic is anything but 'simple' (Georgy - please stop using that word!), but I haven't seen anything yet which would cause me to revise my pin/antipin definitions.

It seems some are just stuck with the idea of the orthodox pin and don't want to include strange types of 'pin' thrown up in fairy chess.
While the idea of the 'antipin' is also leading to misgivings.

I suppose for me it's spending so much time with SAT, where these ideas are a natural part of the landscape, which has coloured my thinking - but in a positive sense!
It's helped me to scan new horizons where all kinds of possibilities are opened up - even if it means we have to re-examine our ideas about what constitues 'check', 'checkmate', 'pin', 'battery' and lots of other concepts we take for granted on orthodox Chess.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12769
(47) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Oct 3, 2014 16:12]; edited by Nikola Predrag [14-10-03]

Georgy, I agree with your basic points, in principle. So far I have to admit that some chess-like puzzles are not very convincing as a variant of Chess.
I have composed a Vogtlaender problem where the inversion of chess-logic is perhaps convincing enough to consider it as a variant of Chess. But I can't show it in public before the end of the year.

"...it should be that simple, or not be at all..."
I would agree with such a principle as long as I don't see that it could be EVEN SIMPLER than "that simple". Greater generalization requires greater simplicity.

One possible level of a generalized concept of "check":
It is an "executable attack" on the "Royal square(s)" which can be White's or Black's.
White can move his pieces freely (including the attacks on Black's Royal squares), unless a hypothetical white move would result with any kind of "executable attack" on the White's Royal square.
Attack might be specifically defined in chess variants as well as the "executability".
(A pinned piece could attack without executability, Patrol chess speaks about "observing", Superguards parries the executability of an attack by guarding="executably attacking" the own "Royal square" etc.)

Royal square could be variously specified, e.g. (commonly) as occupied by a Royal piece.

"White's Royal square" in Vogtlaender chess is defined as "the square occupied by a black Royal piece". Any "executable attack" on black Royal piece is automatically an attack on the "White's Royal square" and that means a check to White, including a hypothetical selfcheck.

Sigfried and Hauke, the cylinder example shows just an illegal King's move, and that's not a pin.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12771
(48) Posted by Joost de Heer [Friday, Oct 3, 2014 19:19]

> Sigfried and Hauke, the cylinder example shows just an illegal King's move, and that's not a pin.

According to Neal's generalised pin-definition, it is. I don't mind this interpretation, but 'pin' is just a really bad term for that definition. IMO of course, due to the historical meaning.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12773
(49) Posted by Dupont Nicolas [Friday, Oct 3, 2014 20:13]

Nikola, I'm afraid it is impossible to define what a check is, if you don't have previously defined a kind of family of "reasonable" fairy conditions, and decided to work only inside it. Otherwise any given subset of possible moves might be called "checks", and together with a couple of axioms to ensure consistency (how to undo check, self-check forbidden, etc.) this leads to a fairy condition, exotic of course, but nevertheless existing.

As a trivial example, what about the checking notion when there is no royal piece on the board? Or several of the same color? I beg that some interesting checking possibilities might be invented without any relationship with royalty. May be it even already exists, I don't know.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12774
(50) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Oct 3, 2014 22:57]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-04]

These debates always spiral into petty semantics battles, and no chess enthusiast will ever surrender the fight for a meaningless square.
The very same thing occurs when we debate differing interpretations for some ambiguous rule governing an obscure fairy condition
Example: are their four unique castling options in "Vertical Cylinder" problems?
We can not agree, therefore, all meaning of this term is effectively eroded.

I find substantial merit in both interpretations (of the term PIN) offered; and concede that we may yet discover more possibilities to consider.

The good news is: I believe there is a compromise -- if both sides are willing to acknowledge the following 13-step solution:

1) Neal has offered a distinct and meaningful definition for something which certainly merits a distinct term.
2) Georgy has likewise offered a distinct and meaningful definition for something which merits a distinct term.
3) Two distinct definitions can not share the same term (homonyms are only acceptable in cases where the meaning becomes linguistically obvious).
4) These two terms can not function as homonyms (just as "two" would be an unacceptable term to indicate both 2, and 3).
5) Therefore, we are merely debating which side will win the flagship term (in this case, "PIN" -- which is hardly a moniker worth fighting about).
6) None of us individuals (not Neal, not Georgy, not Neal and Georgy) have authority to resolve this matter (popular Forum decree does not yet resonate globally).
7) ONLY FIDE/WFCC has authority to resolve this matter,
8) FIDE/WFCC have repeatedly refused to exercise the authority which they have reserved entirely for themselves.
9) FIDE/WFCC lack the resources to resolve our every dispute,
10) Therefore, FIDE/WFCC should assemble a blue ribbon panel of experts, to consider making logical recommendations about our most fundamental terminology.
11) That panel might be able to resolve the meaning of "PIN," by examining chess literature as it pertains to the following:

a) the en passant special case, [aside: Neal, like it or not, en passant is long established as a standard rule of chess -- and, we can not ignore it when it profits us.]
b) Pelle moves,
c) non-absolute PINS (which both parties have conveniently ignored -- and in light of this, it is possible that neither term may deserve the flagship "PIN" moniker).

12) However, Nicolas has it absolutely correct -- you can not define "PIN" until you first define "CHECK.".
13) Therefore, this panel must first lay the foundation for our most elementary terminology (in delicate detail).

That said, let's consider each of these two possible definitions -- ask yourself: how useful are they?

a) Is it commonly useful to distinguish between a unit "PINNED" as a property of position, or do we really only care about "PIN" in relation to features of a unit's movement mechanism?
b) Is it proper to consider a unit PINNED, when it actually can MOVE (along the "PIN-LINE")?
c) Does the PIN-LINE observe every axiom of Euclid (or can LINE also be interpreted in the space of a non-Euclidean geometry)?
d) Would you consider a unit pinned, if it experiences no degradation of movement options?

Stated another way:

(= 2+2 )

White just played 1.Rh8-a8!

Is this black Pawn really "Pinned" by the white Rook, when not one movement option has been surrendered?
And, if so, does this really constitute a "PIN & WIN" tactic?
Suppose this was annotated ,"1.Ra8 pinning" -- how would such a comment fare in a Turing Test?
Remember: if you want an algorithm to recognize tactical motifs, the quality of its output will be no better than the quality of your input (specially, your definitions for fundamental terminology).

I do not believe these questions necessarily have any correct answers; such questions merely help us to examine our understanding of the terminology.
Furthermore, I do not believe that there exists a definition which will satisfy all the conventional uses of a given term.
Some of that is the fault of historical failings, but we become complicit if we do not begin to care about improving the foundation of chess (and problem chess) terminology.

I find such debates highly informative -- despite the fact that they seem to degrade into ego battles over petty semantics! -- because they significantly further our understanding of problem chess.
The more clear your definition for a problem term (especially themes), I find, the more likely you are to be successful in creatively expressing ideas in problem form.

I could make a strong argument for either definition of "PIN."
All sides of this debate deserve respect.

What I can't seem to do is convince anybody that we need a mechanism to resolve these matters.
But, I am highly encouraged by Nicolas' remark -- he is entirely correct: you can not define pin until you define check...

It's funny...
There are some chess players who would flounder aimlessly on the strong side of the KQ vs kr ending (I was only like that, myself).
Yet, those same players will know, by heart, how to reduce some Rook & Pawn endings to the more fundamental endgame, which they can at best call "theoretically" won (ditto).
At some point, we problemists must admit to ourselves that a reexamination of our the most elementary terms -- which have long baffled us! -- is overdue.

[offtrack physics question]
If we define "universe" in such a way that nothing can escape this term, have we not axiomatically confined ourselves, by definition, to a curvature of space-time?
[/offtrck physics question]
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12775
(51) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 00:04]

Nicholas, I mainly tried to generalize a meaning of check, to enlarge the list of fairy conditions acceptable to Georgy.
Of course, that's all highly speculative.

Perhaps you've missed that I had mentioned "Royal squares", while Royal piece is mentioned only as a most common way of determining the "Royal squares". Also, the attack might be very freely defined, as well as the "executable attack".
I have no idea how widely this could be applied.

In SAT, for instance, there are the flights of Royal piece which make a set of "Royal squares". As long as all these "Royal squares" are attacked, there's no "executable attack" on the "Royal squares". If one or more "Royal squares" are not attacked, it is a check ("executable attack" on "Royal squares").
(A selfblock of some square makes it a non-royal square)

So a whole set of "Royal squares" could be required for defining check, as well as a definition of a specific "executable attack".
"Royal squares" could be determined without a Royal piece, by simply naming them.

That was already too much from me about a check, so forget it.

Pin is an artificial concept, as I mentioned before, it is relative and therefore it could be relatively described.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12776
(52) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 00:59]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-04]

Georgy,

>>For me the boundary between "fairy chess" and "chess-like puzzles" lies in the definition of checkmate. So, I believe that some fairy conditions, including Vogtlaender, have gone too far to be still called "chess".

That strikes me as a narrow, arrogant view.
Respectfully, Georgy Evseev does not define the boundary of CHESS -- nor do I! -- and we are all better off for it.

Newsflash: you have made "CHESS" problems which contain no checkmate. Therefore, you can not honestly pretend that checkmate constitutes the elemental criterion in determining what problem can, or can not, be considered CHESS.

Such comments, I find, only serve to discourage diversity (not only of participants, but also of ideas).

Long ago, in the very short time that I served as fairy editor at StrateGems, I received two original problems which occupied boards larger than 8x8.
I consulted several prominent editors there, and they almost universally insisted that such a board size (beyond 8x8) could not be deemed "CHESS."
Strangely enough, they all were willing to leave the matter of publication to my discretion, entirely -- which I found simultaneously comforting, and troubling: given the nature of their position on the matter, why would they allow a colleague to publish non-CHESS problems, in their chess problem journal?

I completely disagreed with such a narrow (and yes, ARROGANT!) view of what is CHESS; however, I had my own biased reasons to reject these particular problems.
I wish I could insist that my reasons were better educated; the real truth is, I had my own set of biases -- I take a dim view of problems which employ fairy elements, merely for the sake of achieving soundness (but, I let that interfere too much with what I deemed worthy of publication).

So, my first reaction was to arrogantly reject these problems, based upon my own narrow view of CHESS/ART (which has since evolved).
I even suggested that the author send his problems to a nearby waste paper basket.

To his credit, that author did not back down!
He made an articulate, impassioned plea for me to reconsider, conceding that his problems may not be of interest for solvers, but merited publication nonetheless.
It helped me begin to see that there was real value in his work, despite offending my (formerly dogmatic) aesthetic sense.

I realized, then and there, that I was just as narrow-minded as all the other narrow-minded editors out there.
I vowed to seek redemption!

So, I came up with a brilliant idea -- I asked that these problems be published in an article, but insisted that they still compete in the awards.
And, I specifically asked the author to make the case for such problems (just as he had made it to me).
This might help others (including those other dogmatic editors) to learn just what I had learned -- that we are arrogant to think we can define CHESS.

All sides agreed, and the problems were published in an article; unfortunately, however, the author did not devote himself (as I had hoped he would) to making the case for such problems.

Nevertheless, one of those big-@$$ board (not CHESS!) problems, which the entire crew (including myself) refused to accept, well it won 1st Prize (ahead of my own 2nd Prize finish).
I do not subscribe to the naive belief that the universe enforces karma, but secretly, I have looked back fondly on that judgement, as a coincidental form of it (attributing my willingness to reconsider for my high award, and my original failings for holding me back from the highest prize).

Can you guess who was the judge?
That's right, it was, none other than: Georgy Evseev!

Somehow, after that judgement, I assumed that you already understood what I did not grasp, before receiving this important lesson.

[edit: oops, I may have misremembered an important detail -- that author did win 1st that year, but his big problem seems to have won 1st in another year. This is either karma for my disbelief in karma, or a sign from the universe that we should never seek signs from the universe.]
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12777
(53) Posted by Dupont Nicolas [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 02:46]

Kevin,

The more I'm thinking to the question of, say, defining the foundations of a fairy chess theory, the more I'm convinced that we can't embrace every possibility - it is needed to cut some (more or less) isolated trees in the forest. Otherwise, as I already mentioned (and you agreed if I remember), each time a "reasonable" definition will be proposed, someone will construct an ad-hoc fairy condition which doesn't fill it.

This is a very complicated job, one of the main reasons being contained in your previous post – who are we to decide that a particular condition belongs or not to a “reasonable” fairy chess world? Non-standard board size is a good example (I would accept it with less qualms than you, as cylinder boards are as much exotic although customary). One can imagine other borderline contents, e.g. several Kings per side.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12778
(54) Posted by Neal Turner [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 11:35]; edited by Neal Turner [14-10-04]

Allow me to re-visit my original definitions to make a few points.

---A pin occurs when a piece's movement is constrained because of self-check due to a departure effect.---
---An antipin occurs when a piece's movement is constrained because of self-check due to an arrival effect.---

The piece in question is of course a non-royal piece.

1) Some people seem to have missed the last statement which implies that the King being unable to move except into check is not considered to be pinned.
2) I used the word 'constrained' which I hoped would be understood to cover both absolute pins and partial pins.
3) In some situations it might not be easy to decide whether the self-check is due to a departure or arrival effect - but it doesn't really matter!
4) Yes of course we have to understand what we mean by 'check'. However we don't need a general definition of 'check' - all we need to know is what 'check' means according to the particular rules in force.
5) Georgy's piece-removal test is indeed simple, but unfortunately it's too simple to cover the myriad possibilities found in fairy chess. It's really not on to dismiss anything that doesn't fit the definition as being 'chess-like' rather than 'chess'.
6) Pinning pieces & pin-lines are indeed required in orthodox chess, but not generally - that's why there's no mention of them in my definitions. I suppose some die-hards will never accept the concept of a pin without a pinning piece, but it's no big deal, we can call any other types 'fairy pins' - which is what they are!
7) In all this talk about WHAT pins are, we seem to have lost sight of WHY they are! Kevin asks: Is this black Pawn really "Pinned" - well the answer is Yes! But the question should be: What does it mean for this pawn to be pinned?
In the the diagram it means nothing, but add a couple of pieces and produce a sequence where it needs to capture 6...a2xb1 to avoid checkmate then certainly it would mean something and you could add a couple of extra exclamation marks to your first move!!!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12779
(55) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 17:01]

There is much talk about the strict definitions but the true value of this discussion is asking the GOOD QUESTIONS!
Georgy's intention is not to proclaim what belongs to the Chess-family but to ask about the frontiers. So, he offered the definition of check(mate) as a possible criterion. I'm sure that Georgy will except any other convincing and sufficiantly self-consistant criterion.

I support his approach and if someone explaines it convincingly, I might accept football, movies or ikebana as Chess. The specific logic makes Chess, the board and pieces make just the appearance. Why would any senseless invention become considered as Chess, if appearance of a chessboard is the only similarity?

I have offered a rough example of generalized concept of check. It could be analyzed - how usefully it could be applied and what might be a better concept?
Are the "Royal squares" indeed applicable, as a same concept, to Vogtlaender, SAT, many Kings, no Kings etc.?

I think that "pure pin" occurs when a "pure-departure" effect would be a selfcheck. If any additional effect is needed for a selfcheck, the pin is not pure. It could be relative, conditional or whatever.
Vogtlaender chess; wKc4,bKb7,bBa8, 1.Kc4=!, stalemate because bK is purely pinned (pure departure of bK would cause a selfcheck).
So much about "...The piece in question is of course a non-royal piece...."
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12781
(56) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 18:36]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-04]

@Nicolas,

Well, I am not disagreeing that there are extreme cases (given that artists intentionally seek to reach beyond the formal boundary, this will always be the case), but I believe that the extremes represent such a miniscule fraction, versus the broad swatch of fairies which could be formalized, and well defined today, that our agreement on this issue becomes unworthy of focus.

Eventually those beyond the boundary will establish a new, expanded formalism.

We can define "fairy chess" conceptually, such that it erects no artificial boundary.

WFCC can only sanction the "FORMAL FAIRY CHESS," but nobody can declare that "CHESS" has a boundary.
The trick is to encourage/help WFCC to take responsibility to codify formalized definitions for our most elementary terminology, in the most logical and consistent manner, AND to continually expand this foundation, such that it embraces the greatest set of problems possible.

As it is today, chess problems (especially fairies and retros) are like a branch of high mathematics, without any axioms.
Yes, there were mathematics before Euclid defined the point, the line, the right angle, etc...
However, there is absolutely no doubt that Euclid's postulates were essential to the success of mathematics.

Sadly, the postulates of problem chess were never codified.
We have been unable to universally agree on the rules governing a large number fairy elements, we can not agree on the definition of pin (or pin-line, or even line), we can not define check (and we have no means to count checks), etc.

Long ago, I discovered a method to formalize stipulations, which would include a broad number of problems which were previously beyond the formal boundary -- in fact, this even allowed me to predict new stipulations.
And, that's the real trick -- not only to describe the larger set of problems which presently exist, but to accommodate (and predict!) new possibilities.

After Max Lange introduced the helpmate, undoubtedly there was plenty willing to insist that the non-direct motivation can not possibly be considered "CHESS."
After all, at that time, there was NOTHING more essential than the notion that the opposite side would resist whatever the stipulation!
Certainly checkmate was not essential (stalemates existed), nor were the rules (the rules of chess were not yet resolved to international agreement), nor was the size/shape of the board (larger variant chess games were commonplace, and there were already a few published problems employing strange board shapes).

There is only one thing that is essential to the chess problem -- it must have something to do with chess.

I would define a chess problem something like how the math problem is defined.
Thus, chess problem - a problem that is amenable to being represented, analyzed, and possibly solved, using some understanding of the rules of chess.

That's the best we can do.
Max Friedrich Wilhelm Bezzel's 8-queens problem is a chess problem -- even if it can be described mathematically, without using any chess, the fact that it *might* be represented as a chess problem (note: it does not matter that it actually was first represented in such a form) is good enough.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12782
(57) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 19:08]

Here we go again, THEY should do something. WE will just complain.
And if someone tries a serious step or two, WE will readily criticize without offering any amendment or simply ignore it.
Quite a company!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12783
(58) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 19:49]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-04]

@Nikola,

WFCC claims sole authority to codify "the formulation of rules and guidelines in all domains of chess composition" [1]; otherwise, quite obviously, nobody would petition them for anything -- we would endeavor to create these standards ourselves (form a legitimate organization, consider all recommendations, provide analysis, and implement intelligent standards).

Moreover, nobody is asking them to do the heavy lifting here!
We can acknowledge that only a few delegates have any expertise (interest is a better word!) in governing the matters of fairy/retro chess.
To be frank, they barely take any interest in orthodox chess -- they sleepwalk through votes on Study of the Year, they refuse to define their categorical terms (which form the divisions of their Albums), etc etc etc...
I understand that -- most were "elected" to the title of delegate, merely to enhance themselves, and I'm certainly not asking that they lift a finger.

WFCC does not function as an arbitration mechanism for standards disputes (as you yourself admit), so let WFCC vote to create a standardization authority (or a panel to make recommendations -- they need not even surrender the pretense of power).
The only difference will be: instead of having individual software developers do their work (creating standards), they will have a universal authority (and sanctioning authority).

There are many here who would be happy to volunteer assistance!
I have no doubt that many problem chess software developers will want to be intimately involved (a consistent set of standards would greatly simplify their task -- and they have been the primary force in creating most of the defacto standards).
I have no doubt that variant game enthusiasts might want to help (insofar as this would benefit their own standards).
There are a number of fairy inventors who would want to be involved.
We might even encourage the involvement of those who write the FIDE rule book!

The point is: we can seek a diverse variety of voices, and address these matters in a way that is mutually beneficial.

We merely ask that WFCC FORM A COMMITTEE, to investigate the creation of formal standards, and universal axioms for the most elementary terminology (without which, standards are impossible).

Remember the browser wars?
It used to be such a ridiculous burden to program for differing internet browsers!
Standards have greatly improved that situation, today!

If WFCC does not sanction such an action, it will happen without them.
The question is not "to be or not to be?", the question is: "will WFCC be involved in the future of problem chess, or will it be lost in the past?"

You seem to only want to hear me saying: "You do it."
That's not what I am saying at all -- I am actually saying 1) "let US do it," and 2) "we would be happy if a diverse set of YOU would help us."
We only need to know whether WFCC will be involved in final arbitration -- otherwise, we eventually have to consider alternatives (I am reluctant to suggest a split, though a fairy & retro problem federation might avoid the festering historical biases, the systematic unfairness, and the indefensible categorizations).

What I hear from defenders of WFCC is: 1) "WFCC can not do its job," 2) "this might be too big a journey to take the first step," and 3) "we will never get there, let's stand pat."
No, what I honestly hear is: "wahh, this might affect our petty title pursuits."
Whether you admit that PAT has become the defacto goal of WFCC, you must admit that they have achieved it.

[1] see WFCC's charter: http://www.wfcc.ch/wfcc-about/
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12784
(59) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 20:29]

While I have my own reservations about WFCC functioning, there is obviously false claim right at the beginning of Kevin's post: 'WFCC claims sole authority to codify "the formulation of rules and guidelines in all domains of chess composition" [1]'. WFCC surely does not claim sole authority in any matter, if anybody finds it on the referenced page http://www.wfcc.ch/wfcc-about/, please, go ahead and point it precisely.

Quite the opposite - anybody can do any chess composition work completely out of WFCC reach, and if valuable, it would be welcome by chess problems community, including WFCC delegates and leaders.

Endless ranting is not valuable.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12785
(60) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Oct 4, 2014 20:36]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-10-04]

Juraj,

You make a foolish presumption that an individual can go create new standards, which WFCC will adopt.

Where is there any evidence that such individual work has ever been adopted (when you can not even agree on how to count checks -- and can not even define whether check is a state of position, or a property associated with a move!) ???

Yes, Georgy and Neal can define "PINS" however they like.
WFCC is not listening.
WFCC is not going to arbitrate the meaning of our most fundamental terms -- they can not even define their own term "FAIRY" (which forms the backdrop of Album categorization, which divides the jurisdiction of titled judges, etc etc etc).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12786

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

MatPlus.Net Forum General What is a "line pin" and are there undefined pins?