Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
15:50 UTC
| |
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 | | (121) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Sep 22, 2010 05:52]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-09-22] |
"If CapZug truncates the solution, and terminates (as in checkmate or stalemate), then the is no solution possible."
Then that's like saying there's no solution to my =1 example above, which is incorrect. Just because Black is zugged when White moves first, and vice versa, does not alleviate the burden from White or Black of "finding" a move that maintains the zug status.
Here's another simple example:
 (= 2+1 )
~x1
1.Kf7!~x
Black is already zugged, but white (due to the requirement of the stipulation) must make a move that does not upset the zug state.
| | | (122) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 22, 2010 06:11]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-09-22] |
"The aim is 'self-capture by zugzwang'." -Dan Meinking.
Look again at the diagram:
"Smoking Gun"
 (= 2+4 )
~x1? b) s~x1? c) r~x1?
Duplex.
The aim is already met, Dan.
You said CapZug is like # or =, and this is why your solutions were truncated.
>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."
Your own words.
Then, you said there are (duplex) solutions to part a) of the diagram.
Care to revise your remarks?
Care to answer b) and c)?
As for your =1 example, it is yet another bad analogy.
Show me a #1/=1 where it is already ##/== in the diagram.
Otherwise, take a hard look at the difference.
You can not justify a truncation of the solution, based upon this being an AIM (you said GOAL, but you meant AIM), if there can be moves which follow an already met AIM.
This truncation is inconsistent with all other valid aims.
This explains why #/= are unique aims -- unlike all others (x, +, ep, OO, etc), they terminate the game, and end the solution.
This is why duals do not apply to moves of a checkmated King -- why your 1.Qc8# ...Kb7 analogy was poor (...Kb7 is NOT a legal move).
But, now you admit there are legal moves following the already met aim of CapZug.
If they do not terminate the game, the solution must continue.
It is inconsistent with all other aims (we have established that # and = do not apply!) to truncate any moves following a CapZug [which inherently contains the compelling aim of capture]
You can only truncate solutions if you expressly state this truncation within your definition.
Are you [finally!] ready to compromise on the definition?
At long last, there is no alternative but to concede that this fairy condition is not correctly classified.
CapZug = self-play stipulation + capture aim + no check finale fairy condition + truncation of solution (including possible duals) fairy condition.
| | | (123) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Sep 22, 2010 06:51]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-09-22] |
@Kevin,
"But, now you admit there are legal moves following the already met aim of CapZug."
Let's use the =1 example again. In a stalemate, the aim is to leave the opponent with no legal moves while NOT being in check. Also, in a stalemate, the solution is "truncated" -- once stalemate is delivered -- just as we are doing with CapZug.
 (= 2+1 )
=1
By your flawed logic, this has "no solution" because the aim is already met in the diagram. That is INCORRECT. The solution is 1.Kg6!=. White MUST move due to the requirements of the stipulation.
It seems that you are more interested in arguing (as usual) than actually discussing anything meaningful.
| | | (124) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 22, 2010 06:56]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-09-22] |
Incorrect -- my logic (being sound) provides that there is a solution to the =1.
But, you have only shown black already stalemated.
I have shown, in Smoking Gun, that BOTH players are in this situation.
Do you see now why your analogy doesn't hold -- mine is DUPLEX!
Thus, the player on the move (not the opposite!) can not move -- the aim is already met.
Mate and Stalemate terminate the game.
They are a unique class of aims -- whereas other aims apply only to the opponent.
Consider the stip sx2 (self capture in 2).
Even if white has a capture in the diagram, he may proceed to move (with or without capturing), en route to the aim.
This is not so with #/=, they are unique (you can not stalemate your opponent, if you stand stalemated on the move).
But, all your analogies about truncation, which were based upon ~x being akin to # and =, are now refuted.
They are not in the same league, and their consistency must be applied to the league of aims in which they belong!
This refutes your previous claim, which used the #/= analogy as the basis for truncation in CapZug.
Therefore, it is inconsistent to truncate the solution following a CapZug.
>"It seems that you are more interested in arguing (as usual) than actually discussing anything meaningful."
Gheez. How much have I helped you to see the truth about this, only to be attacked as argumentative!?
Will somebody else please explain why it is inconsistent to terminate the solutions in a problem with a compelled aim.
Have you not claimed the following:
1) CapZug terminates the play, like checkmate or stalemate (thus there is no need to show the compelled capturing move(s) in solution -- why there are "no duals"), and
2) CapZug does not in any way inhibit the rules of orthodox chess movement -- and is, therefore, not a fairy condition.
Can you see that CapZug does not terminate the play, if there is a solution (as you claim there is) to the Smoking Gun.
| | | (125) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Sep 22, 2010 07:32] |
"Do you see now why your analogy doesn't hold -- mine is DUPLEX! Thus, the player on the move (not the opposite!) can not move -- the aim is already met."
The aim is not double-CapZug. It's CapZug duplex. That means it is solved in TWO separate phases.
When White moves first, the AIM is to CapZug black. And vice versa. When white begins, he MUST make a move that puts black in CapZug; it doesn't matter that White himself (or Black) is zugged in the diagram. And vice versa. Same as with the =1 example.
CapZug is a STATE, similar in nature to Stalemate. Therefore it should be implemented like Stalemate. The rest of the world seems to understand this just fine.
| | | (126) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 22, 2010 07:52] |
>CapZug is a STATE, similar in nature to Stalemate. Therefore it should be implemented like Stalemate.
You can not be on the move, and stalemated, and force your opponent into stalemate.
Therefore, CapZug is not like #/=.
And, the solution should not be terminated, as it is with these unique aims.
The duals which you claimed follow 1.Qc8+ ...Kb7, are clearly not the same as the duals which I demonstrated in the s#1.
They are clearly not the same as the (truncated) duals following your CapZug problem.
You claimed this truncation justified, based upon CapZug being a state which terminates play, like # or =.
I have shown that this is not the case...
The state of CapZug either does not terminate play (akin to #/=), or there can be no solution to Smoking Gun (part a).
| | | (127) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Sep 22, 2010 08:02] |
"You can not be on the move, and stalemated, and force your opponent into stalemate."
TRUE. But you CAN be on-move, with only capture moves available, and put your oppenent into CapZug.
In your so-called "Smoking Gun": when it's white-to-move, he has a legal move; and when it's black-to-move, he has a legal move.
I said "CapZug is a State, similar in nature to Stalemate." I didn't say CapZug and Stalemate are the same thing.
| | | (128) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 22, 2010 11:44]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-09-22] |
Up until this point, as I see it, there have been four unique classes of formalized aims:
0.Those which are FUNDAMENTAL to the game (Win or Draw), which may depend upon the assurance of a specific game termination,
1.Those which depend upon DEFINED STATES OF GAME TERMINATION [note that all of these terminate play in the game (e.g., #, =, #/=, etc)],
2.Those which depend upon SPECIFIC MOVES [note that none of these terminate play in the game (e.g., x, +, OO, ep, circuit, platzwechsel, etc)], and
3.Those which depend upon some COMBINATORIAL LOGIC from the two common classifications (1 & 2) [(e.g., #x = mate by capture, #x = mate or capture, mate by castling, etc)]
[The aims in Math & Retro problems do not always fit into a formal structure.]
CapZug fits into none of the above classifications.
Dan claims this is a defined state, but then admits that it does not terminate play -- this is inconsistent.
Indeed, it is unlike any other aim -- it would be the ONLY aim which contains a sub-stipulation + sub-aim (that being self-capture, or sx) -- this would be unprecedented.
Let this be an aim, and aims would cease to be the kernel of a solver's given task... and there would be no dividing line (between aim, stipulation, or fairy condition).
Can new states of game termination be manufactured?
Yes, certainly... providing these new states terminate play by some other means (and clearly resolve what to do about orthodox states).
For example, you might claim that MAFF redefined a new state to end the game (checkmate + one, and only one, flight).
This certainly is a terminal state -- so then, why is MAFF classified as a fairy condition (rather than an aim)?
Might it be due to the rules of movement having been inherently altered (in order to deal with the possibility of orthodox checkmate)?
Actually, that is probably why MAFF's inventor realized it should be a fairy condition... but, unfortunately, his wisdom seems to be the exception.
Other aims -- such as ideal#, and model# -- do not account for the possibility of orthodox checkmate; yet, they are often listed under the category of "aim."
So, why is MAFF a fairy condition?
Why is Ideal# not classified as a fairy condition (like MAFF)?
Why should CapZug -- which does not even terminate the game, but does blur the line in an unprecedented manner (containing sub-aim, sub-stip, sub-fairy condition, and dual-truncations) -- be treated as an aim?
How can we tolerate these inconsistencies?
Dan says these things should be classified according to whatever may be the inventor's mood -- as if there were no intelligent distinction within the divisions themselves.
With neither justification (nor having provided any alternative definition), he refuses to accept that parry-series fall under the classification of "fairy condition."
So, when FIDE-titled composers have such an opinon of our classification system, imagine what chaos they might encourage.
The fact is: the present system of classifications may have a few inconsistencies, but it is not yet beyond a foundational reconstitution.
But, as more absurdities pile on, without a thought (or care!) given to the possible inconsistencies...
PCCC should be directly involved in establishing clear distinctions, and sanctioning only those "inventions" which are consistent with an intelligent classification system.
How the world must see problemists... the merry souls who have so relished satirizing (in problem form) even the slightest imprecision in the wording of FIDE's chess rules... yet, have no idea what constitutes the fundamental difference between aim and fairy condition... can not even agree on what constitutes a dual... or correct problem... and have holes in fairy rules which go beyond Steven Hawking's imagination.
Nevertheless, the march continues... onward... into ruin.
While the apathetically "silent masses" might just as well be pushing us off.
| | | (129) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Wednesday, Sep 22, 2010 13:04] |
@Kevin: As reasoning in English and laying precise principles are not my strong points, I do not dare to discuss every detail of your post. However, I think your classification of already existing aims is far from complete. What about famous Fabel's problem "non-mate in 1"? Where does it fit?
Further there were a lot of (let's call them) configurational aims presented over years mainly by Romeo Bedoni in Phenix. They usually do not end the possible play, just some specific aim (in wide sense) is reached and that's it. Phenix editors, quite knowledgeable in fairy chess, have classified them as aims, e.g. in the form h-something-3 - this is helpplay with aim something in 3 moves.
| | | (130) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Sep 22, 2010 15:35] |
"Nevertheless, the march continues... onward... into ruin.
While the apathetically "silent masses" might just as well be pushing us off."
The only thing that might "ruin" chess problems is endless red-tape, endless politics, endless debate. That seems to be your forte. How many 1000+ word essays must the "silent masses" endure, just so YOU can attempt to dictate what should and should not be??
Please, go lecture someone else.
| | | (131) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Sep 23, 2010 00:15]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-09-23] |
@Juraj,
Non-Mate = survive n moves, without terminating the game by checkmate, yes?
This simply reduces to a SPECIFIC MOVE, which is non-terminal.
Think of this category as any move achieving a specific feature (even for aims like circuit, platzwechsel, etc).
They are not, by themselves, a defined state of termination.
The following post is somewhat long -- not too long for some, I hope! -- but, it describes the basic theory of aims, fairy conditions, and goals.
Dan will only argue that CapZug is whatever he defines it to be -- as if AIMS are not already defined by the larger problem community.
And, he may try to bring up a few inconsistencies, in order to make room for yet another.
What he will not provide you with, as I have attempted to do, is ANY clear definition which marks the division between aims, stipulations, goals, or fairy conditions.
[it would be impossible to maintain consistency for the classifications of both parry-series, and CapZug.]
Suppose one aims to deliver a comprehensive understanding (rather than the progressive model) of chess problems, to those armed with nothing more than basic chess rules.
And, in the process, perhaps provide some review for a few with a deeper understanding of the subject (in light of this thread, some review is badly needed!).
An important early step is to provide the theory of formal stipulation -- aims, goals, and fairy conditions (among other elements) must be clearly defined.
This is essential, in order to translate from the formalized task (for example how to read: semi-r#/=5 Andernach Chess, 10x10 board) into words; and vice versa.
I will not provide the complete theory here -- I can only briefly explain a key part of the process.
Consider the steps necessary to explain this formal structure in reverse:
Begin with the following word problem, and identify the formalized task contained within:
The board is expanded to 10x10, but the normal chess rules still apply, except that non-royal units change color after capturing. White moves first, and forces black into a position where black is on the move, having either a checkmate (to wK) or stalemate (to white) in 1 move, or both. White is not so compelled -- any #1 (to bK), and any =1 (to black), may be diregarded.
For most in this forum, the process of reading the task is so routine, we don't even notice the steps we have taken, in arriving at our formal understanding: semi-r#/=5 Anernach, 10x10 board.
But, a closer look at the steps taken will reveal important information about our classification system...
The first step in this process, naturally, is to identify the style of play.
This is easy enough, because there are only two possible styles:
1) Direct (unless otherwise stipulated, the white-side begins, and is tasked to achieve some goal; the black-side plays strictly to prevent an achievement the goal, which culminates with white's final move), and
2) Help (unless otherwise stipulated, the black-side begins, and both sides conspire to achieve the goal, which culminates with black's final move).
In the example, we are told that the white-side must "force" some goal [it is implied that the black-side is resisting] -- so, obviously, the style of play must be Direct.
The second step is to identify the GOAL.
What exactly is a goal?
I believe goals are best described as the task which is to achieved following the culminating move (for the given style) -- this may be a simple aim, or a sub-stipulation (in 1 move).
So, if the task is directmate in 5 (#5), the goal (following white's final move) must be b-# (black to move, stands checkmated -- which is defined to be a terminal state of play).
Goals for some other well known tasks would include:
Selfmate in 5 (s#5) -- the goal (following white's final move) must be b-c#1 (black to move, stands compelled to checkmate the white-side, in 1 move).
Helpmate in 5 (h#5) -- the goal (following black's final move) must be w-#1 (white. to move, has a directmate in 1).
Help-selfmate, requires an adjustment in numerology (at present, it is inconsistent with the standard model -- black should begin, which explains why hs#1 is not a valid task, but merely a s#1).
If it were to begin correctly, with black on the move: help-selfmate in 5 (hs#5) -- the goal (following black's final move) WOULD be w-s#1 (white. to move, has a selfmate in 1).
Finally, in the example given (semi-r#/=5), the goal, following (white's final move) must be b-#/=1 (black to move, has a either directmate in 1, or stalemate in 1, or both).
Note that the reflex action need not be a fairy condition, using this method of classification.
Instead, white achieves his goal (giving black a possible #1), and the sub-goal is then provided in the solution.
The solution, by default, must iterate down to the final AIM (either a terminating state, a move with a specific feature, or some combination of these).
The final step is to identify fairy conditions/boards -- anything which restricts, expands, or alters the rules of orthodox movement (this includes fairy boards).
In the previous example given, Andernach Chess is the fairy condition, along with the 10x10 fairy board.
The AIMs need not be explicitly identified in this process... but for completeness...
AIM is the element describing the final state(s)/action(s) to be achieved (the terminal result of an iterative process of all sub-GOAL evaluation).
Aims are irreducibly atomic -- consisting of no sub-aims, they must either be a terminal state (e.g., #, =, #/=), or they must be a terminating action within a move (e.g., x, +, ep, OO, etc).
When such a process is applied, it precisely reduces tasks into their correct assignment -- save only those which do not adhere to a consistent theory of intelligent classification.
In CapZug, the aim reduces, by this logical process of iteration, down into a well known terminating action: cx (compelled capture).
It does not reduce to a terminal state, as was demonstrated by the Smoking Gun problem.
Therefore, any attempt to "define" CapZug as an aim, would bankrupt the definition which applies to all formalized stipulation.
It should also be noted that there is a specific theory about how far the sub-goals must be reduced, in all such problems -- always down to a terminal state, or to a specific move (action).
That is why you see the capture in a self-capture problem, and you see the mate in a selfmate.
And, the theory of duals, for such problems (whatever that may be!), must be based upon consistency, spanning all aims.
CapZug would similarly -- without providing any clue for solvers (nor any mention of this in its definition) -- bankrupt this practice...
All in the interest of skirting the duals upon which it was founded.
Attempts to define aims, based upon mood -- such as with CapZug -- will have immunities against ANY logical classification technique.
This is why the inventor refuses to provide a definition of fairy condition, aim, goal, and continually attempts to evade a discussion concerning CapZug's (mis-)application of dual-theory.
It is unfortuante that the Good Companions would be willing to approve of new inventions which do not adhere to our long established system of intelligent classification.
Perhaps they had a hand in the development of the descriptive notation (read: KN-QB4), as well.
PCCC has a duty to establish a consitent theory.
Please note that I am not attempting to impose my own definitions here -- I do not "lecture" from a pulpit.
I am not the one attempting to impose my own definition of AIM / Fairy Condition, without providing any definition of these terms!
I am not the one trying to impose my own version of dual theory, without any so much as a discussion of present theory!
I merely wish to see to it that clear, consistent, and intelligent definitions are established (to the benefit of the larger community).
I trust that any attempt to explain the formal classification system to a complete beginner, in a consistent manner, will clearly demonstrate the correct classification of all things -- including pser- and CapZug.
We should agree that PCCC is the proper authority to provide "sanction" for all formal notation (e.g., aims, stipulations, and fairy conditions), and an inherent theory of correctness (e.g., dual theory w/2 compel problems & promotions, etc).
"Mood's a thing for cattle and love play... "
-Gurney Halleck, in Frank Herbert's DUNE
| | | (132) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Sep 23, 2010 02:30] |
"Perhaps [the Good Companions] had a hand in the development of the descriptive notation (read: KN-QB4), as well."
"To hold a tourney to characterize a fairy condition as an aim... it is a ridiculous low for the GC."
| | | (133) Posted by Dan Meinking [Friday, Sep 24, 2010 04:11]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-09-24] |
Hopefully this idea is sound now:
DM original (version)
 (= 6+8 )
pser-h~x9 (6+8) C- [parry-series help-CapZug in 9]
Intent hidden below:
1.Ba5 2.g6+ Kh4! 3.Be1+ Rxe1! 4.f2 5.fxe1B+! Kg5 6.Ba5 7.Bd8+ e7 8.Ra5+ Sxa5 9.Kc7 exd8R~x
Double Phoenix, with pseudo-switchback motif.
Here's one cook possibility, but the quickest I could make it work is 10 moves:
1.g6+ Kg4 2.Ra4+ Kxf3 4.Re3+ Kf4 5.Bg5+ Kxg5 8.Ra5+ Sxa5 10.Ka8 Rb1~x
It seems that the "loose" bPa6 almost surely necessitates that Ra5+ Sxa5 be played at some point.
| | | (134) Posted by Geoff Foster [Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 03:19] |
Unfortunately there is a cook in 8 moves:
1.Bc7 2.g6+ Kg5 3.Bd8+ e7 4.Ra5+ Sxa5 5.f2 6.fxg1=Q+ Rxg1 7.Kb8 8.Ka7 exd8=Q
| | | (135) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 07:37] |
Good sleuthing, Geoff!
This setting seems promising:
 (= 5+4 )
pser-h~x7 (5+4) C- [parry-series help-CapZug in 7]
Intent below:
1.Ba4 2.Bd1+ R3xd1! 3.c2 4.cxd1B+! Kd3 5.Ba4 6.Be8 7.Kd7 fxe8R~x
Double Phoenix with pseudo-switchback motif.
Shorter and considerably lighter than prior versions.
| | | (136) Posted by Geoff Foster [Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 14:19] |
Cooked in 5 moves.
1.Ba4 2.Bd1+ Kxd1 3.c2+ Rxc2 4.Ke7 5.Kd8 Rc7
| | | (137) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 18:04]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-09-25] |
Very good, Geoff! I missed the Rc7! zug completely.
OK, what if we nail down Rc1?
 (= 5+7 )
pser-h~x7 (5+7) C- [parry-series help-CapZug in 7]
Intent hidden:
1.Ba4 2.Bd1+ R3xd1! 3.c2 4.cxd1B+ Kd3 5.Ba4 6.Be8 7.Kd7 fxe8R~x
Double Phoenix, with pseudo-switchback motif.
This was my original setting, but I didn't think a1/b1/b2 were necessary. Still reasonably good economy. If this happens to hold, there are probably ways to tweak it.
| | | (138) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Sep 25, 2010 18:39] |
Here's one in just SIX moves:
 (= 5+5 )
pser-h~x6 (5+5) C- [parry-series help-CapZug in 6]
Intent below:
1.Bg4 2.Bd1+ Bxd1! 3.e2 4.exd1B+! Kb1 5.Bg4 6.Bc8 bxc8B!~x
Double Phoenix with pseudo-switchback motif.
Only 1 capture in the finale, but it is a "model CapZug".
| | | (139) Posted by Geoff Foster [Sunday, Sep 26, 2010 01:31] |
6-mover cooked: 1.Bg4 2.Bd1+ Kxd1 3.b1=Q+ Ke2 4.Qc2+ Kxe3 5.Bd4+ Kxd4 5.Qc8 bxc8=B.
7-mover cooked: 1.c2 2.Bc6 3.Bf3+ Rxf3 4.d3+ Rxd3+ 5.Ke7 6.Ke6 f8=Q.
| | | (140) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Sep 26, 2010 02:59] |
Geoff -- You are one wily customer. Well done, sir!
The 6-mover seems easy enough to fix:
 (= 6+5 )
pser-h~x6 (6+5) C- [parry-series help-CapZug in 6]
Intent below:
1.Bg4 2.Bd1+ Bxd1! 3.e2 4.exd1B+! Kb1 5.Bg4 6.Bc8 bxc8B!~x
Double Phoenix with pseudo-switchback motif.
Fingers crossed. :-)
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
MatPlus.Net Forum General Capture-Bound -- a new goal? |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
