Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
23:33 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Problemas - July 2015, issue n. 11 |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 | | (41) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Saturday, Jul 25, 2015 04:13]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [15-07-25] |
Thanks very much for this, Nikola :-)
Was the issue with 1.QxK obvious to you at first? Surely if so you would have pointed it out many posts ago. When wandering around in an unfamiliar area, it can take time for the implications to sink in. As is often the case, the issue for me here was needing to let go of an assumption. We are so used to avoiding being checkmated, that it's not obvious that having one's king captured would not be a bad thing. (Although I seem to remember now that when I had the original idea for these problems in about 2000, it did cross my mind that capturing the king might not be negative. However I forgot that sub-idea in the intervening 15 years.)
There is no moral in this to be drawn about "common sense" though. Chess problems are a film of a book. Retrograde analysts in particular are already taking the rules apart, not in a legalistic way, where the precise wordings would be very important, but in a mathematical way after we have used common sense to translate the imperfectly phrased Laws in our minds into the more rigorous intended rules. And for example problemists have identified (and continue to identify) where conventions need to be added to augment the rules (Tasks (2) & (3) which I mentioned earlier.)
In a chess game the game score provides a proof of legality. But in a chess problem there is no such thread. In the problem world therefore, the opportunity exists to allow an illegal start position, where the effect cannot apparently be achieved through a legal position. This is a defect in a composition, but only a defect, not a showstopper. And a position with White to move and with Black in check is no more illegal than a position with WPa2a3b2, and we can play chess in both. That's the point.
Fortunately the compositions remain sound. Indeed since they are not based on a recent Law, they would have been sound "for many long centuries", so hopefully are even more acceptable to you, Nikola. :-) And all this does leave the way open for compositions which genuinely *do* depend upon A1.2, i.e. where capturing the king in first move would otherwise be a cook.
| | | (42) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Saturday, Jul 25, 2015 20:10] |
Following on from the previous post, here is a tiny composition whose soundness does depend on the clause in Law A1.2 that forbids the actual capture of a king.
 (= 3+2 )
Illegal diagram. Black to move. h#2
Feel free to validate! :-)
| | | (43) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Jul 25, 2015 20:30] |
You're welcome Andrew, unfortunately you're again missing the relevance of my "contribution".
In your whole reasoning, you're missing or avoiding some critical points. And you don't recognize the relevance of some critical points which you rely on.
What is critical and relevant about Codex?
When you decide about that, you could formulate a relevant input to be analyzed as related to Codex.
Such an input relies on the relevant critical points of chess.
When you define what is relevant, the validity of your reasoning could be checked. I will not do it for you since I know about perpetuum mobile without checking through the equations. I'm willing to contribute only by discussing or suggesting about the relevance.
Apparently, you're no curious about the relevance and I accept that. Why would you spoil your fun by a too serious approach?
It's your party and you don't need a party-breaker :-)
The tiny CHESS composition has no solution irrelevantly to that clause, since White has the move (and King anyway could never be captured in chess). Whether there could be a solution in some OTHER game, it depends exactly on the rules of that OTHER game.
| | | (44) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, Jul 26, 2015 10:20]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [15-07-26] |
Andrew, the solution works also if the black rook is on c6 for example. I don't see how that would make a relevant point.
1.Rh6 Sh5 2.Rh7 Re8 mate
(mark the line above to see the solution)
Actually, if you really want to make the king uncapturable on d8, you have a nice h#2 with 2 solutions and dual avoidance.
It seems to be impossible with a legal position in two moves? Here is a 1.5 move version but with legal position:
 (= 3+2 )
AB, version SH (probably anticipated)
h#1.5, 2 solutions
| | | (45) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Sunday, Jul 26, 2015 15:46]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [15-07-26] |
@Siegfried. Thanks for your interest. There is 1 try & 1 solution, I think, and the theme obliges that the position is illegal.
Theme: first problem whose soundness depends upon can't-capture-king clause of A1.2.
Try:
1. x d8? (not 1.g6?) 1...  e6 2.g8  h5# but first move is illegal.
Solution:
1.h6! (not 1.d7+?) 1... h5 2.h7 e8#
I prefer h#2.0 to h#1.5 because having two black moves allows for more dual removal because there are two ways the rook can navigate any rectangle.
| | | (46) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Sunday, Jul 26, 2015 15:54]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [15-07-26] |
@Nikola: I think that a root of our different perspectives comes in how we view chess in the past. You view the past as "many long centuries", which have established a precedent as to how things should always be done. I look at the past since Chaturanga and see continual changes, increasing in frequency, and I want us to be able to reflect these changes in our compositions.
One particularly important trend over the last 150 years has been the evolution of a separate compositional chess in parallel with OTB chess. I have used the phrase "the film of the book" to indicate that the chess played in these two worlds is not quite the same, and I briefly listed the main areas of discrepancy earlier in this long thread. It is a mistake, I believe, to conflate these two chesses. There are subtle unavoidable differences between them, which are particularly of interest to retrograde analysis composers. (It would also be a mistake for these two chesses to diverge too much, but that's another story.)
It's clear that you are shocked by the idea that the player to move can be checking. At one level, At one level, I am very gratified that this dissonant idea has had such an impact on you. :-) To avoid future repetition, let me summarize:
(1) I fully accept the point that I think you were making, that capturing a king may be a bad move (independent of whether its an illegal one). The follow-up work in Problemas Sep-2015 will acknowledge this key contribution.
(2) I do not accept at all your idea that it is "self-evident" that the checked player has the move even in illegal positions in compositional chess, as the Codex is currently configured. In OTB chess, you are absolutely right. Perhaps there is a lacuna in the Codex, but if so, it is not unfruitful.
You talked a lot about things being "relevant" and "critical" in your last post, but I didn't really understand. Beyond points (1) & (2), what have you got, concretely?
Thanks again,
Andrew.
| | | (47) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Jul 26, 2015 18:31] |
Andrew, it's obvious that you "didn't really understand" about the relevant critical thinking which is a PRErequisite for any logical reasoning.
You've missed the relevance of "can't-capture-king clause of A1.2" for your article, and you still miss it about this new "tiny composition", at least I'm not convinced that you really see the critical point.
And in case you're aware of the critical point here, you should (re)consider its relevance for other lines of reasoning.
Why do you say in post 45 "..but first move is illegal..", what's relevant in the rules for such a statement?
I'm not shocked "by the idea that the player to move can be checking", I enjoy coming out of the frames. But I remember what is relevant for the frame and what is relevant for pushing the frame.
I'm shocked by the "rigorousness" which is not rigorous when it doesn't suit your idea.
What are the critical points of the CRUCIAL relevance, which give a meaning to Codex (without them, it would be meaningless)?
Rigorousness, please!
| | | (48) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Monday, Jul 27, 2015 00:52]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [15-07-27] |
Hi Nikola,
Hmmm. I have deliberately taken a high-level approach in reasoning here, rather than getting into excruciating detail. It's not because it "didn't suit my idea" but because I wanted to communicate to other readers, and not turn them off by over-writing. I still think this is the right approach for this thread.
In one earlier post, I did list all the points in the Codex where legality is mentioned. I drew the conclusions that (a) illegality & fairiness are separable concepts (b) there is no problem as far as the Codex are concerned with a position where person to move is checking.
QUOTE
I'm not convinced that you really see the critical point. And in case you're aware of the critical point here, you should (re)consider its relevance for other lines of reasoning. Why do you say in post 45 "..but first move is illegal..", what's relevant in the rules for such a statement?
Article 1.2 says "'capturing' the opponent's king [are] not allowed." Other mentions of capturing in the rules do not specify the kind of piece. So it seems simple. Without the clause in A1.2, the tanagra would have two solutions. What is your 'critical point', specifically?
If you have one, that might suggest deeper examination of the Rules/Codex is warranted, otherwise let's move on.
| | | (49) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Jul 27, 2015 01:07]; edited by Nikola Predrag [15-07-27] |
Hey Andrey, the illegality is hardly a point without which the Codex would be meaningless. Try again.
FIDE A 3.10 is explicit about the (il)legal moves. Try again.
First, you should find a relevant input for the reasoning, in order get a relevant output.
| | | (50) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Monday, Jul 27, 2015 02:57]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [15-07-27] |
QUOTE
the illegality is hardly a point without which the Codex would be meaningless. Try again.
That is not comprehensible sorry. A quadruple negative in 13 words must be some kind of record. But even after it has been unravelled, it seems not to offer very much. Try again.
QUOTE
FIDE A 3.10 is explicit about the (il)legal moves. Try again.
An illegal position in a chess problem has no history. (See Codex Footnote 18.) A move in an illegal position may itself be legal. (Quite rightly. See Article 3.10a, and then check Articles 3.1-3.9.) So everything works fine. Try again.
QUOTE
First, you should find a relevant input for the reasoning, in order get a relevant output.
A more formal write-up is appropriate later, and while it's possible that this may turn up something important, I think we both have already examined the Rules & Codex. Right now I want to hear your known "critical points".
If you have nothing else, I think we can move on.
| | | (51) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Jul 27, 2015 12:53] |
By "common sense" I mean a critical thinking by a sane and curious human mind.
It does not mean a "dogmatic speculating based on prejudices which have no ground".
You didn't show a single basic element upon which you build your input. You build it on the prejudices.
That's "shocking" to me.
For instance, common sense would conclude "King can't be captured" and "the checked side has the move" from the rules (even without that notorious "new clause"). And these conclusions might be used (as dogmatic prejudices) for creating a "shortcut" through the reasoning.
OF COURSE, a dogma is valid only within the frame where it was "proven" as valid. A new frame requires a new testing of some dogma.
You are "pushing" the frame but you don't test your prejudices about the very basis of the old frame, you just apply them in the new frame.
It's about a "new approach" to the interaction of the Codex-rules and the FIDE-rules so, you must re-examine them and get rid of the prejudices.
Therefore, concerning "A more formal write-up is appropriate later, and while it's possible that this may turn up something important, I think we both have already examined the Rules & Codex.", I see that you have NEVER EVEN STARTED re-examining the Rules & Codex.
You just apply the prejudices which we all have about the "usual" problems.
After reading the Codex, you should comprehend what it's all about, what gives a meaning to the articles. You need Ch1,A2 to start with. Then you need a meaningful interpretation of A2. Nails&stones on 64 black&white squares might look as a nice piece of visual art, but somehow I believe that chess composition requires a different meaning of "position on the chessboard".
And about FIDE rules, you should start with A1.1 and to re-examine its meaning.
Concerning "If you have nothing else, I think we can move on", you move on as you wish. I'm tired of fighting with prejudices.
It is not about "a more formal write-up", it's about pointing the most fundamental ground-stones.
| | | (52) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Monday, Jul 27, 2015 16:31]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [15-07-27] |
I had lunch today with a Prof of Philosophy at a local University. Such a nice guy. On his office door were various quotes and cartoons. One stuck in my mind, it was something to the effect of: "The truth is broad - two people can be within it and still disagree." This is in the spirit of the Codex which says it "is intended to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive... It is not intended to be a body of established law which problemists must observe on pain of being condemned of heresy or worse; problemists are independent spirits,"
Almost certainly, no-one thought, when they drafted the Codex, of a corner case whereby an illegal position has the wrong guy in check. So what do we do? Well we can bristle and talk about "common sense", or observe that the word "check" does not even appear in the Codex. In the end, I think the Code's stated spirit of inclusiveness has the casting vote. Here are a bunch of novel puzzles which hinge on a neat idea, and it's not going to break chess if we just say "fine".
I found two new points in your response.
QUOTE
You need Ch1,A2 to start with. Then you need a meaningful interpretation of [it] Nails & stones on 64 black & white squares might look as a nice piece of visual art, but somehow I believe that chess composition requires a different meaning of "position on the chessboard".
Codex A2 does not quite have the same assumed definition of "position" as that given in Laws Art 9.2. In the Laws, state information about the move, castling and e.p. is intrinsically part of the notion of position. The Codex uses "position" in the sense of "diagram". State comes in the stipulation or directly or by convention or by retrograde analysis. "Film of the book" again. But I don't find any issue here. You can't play chess with nails and stones, but as we have seen, the rules work fine with regular pieces if the wrong guy is in check. It turns out to be like a removable singularity in mathematics: the issue just goes away - so cool.
QUOTE
And about FIDE rules, you should start with A1.1 and to re-examine its meaning.
It includes the nit I mentioned about White not having the move at the start. Assume that gets fixed. Otherwise A1.1 seems fine as long as we note this is talking about games not illegal positions in compositions.
So here's where we are:
(1) Getting one's king captured means one can't lose. Lucky the existing problems remain sound, and new ones (e.g. the tanagra) are possible.
(2) I have formalized a new explanation of Lese Majeste (It's a keyword in PDB. Check out the description there with detailed references back to Laws & Codex.)
(3) However we are going to have to differ on whether we think "common sense" means that some illegal positions are too illegal to be illegal :-) "The truth is broad."
On that note, I will end this conversation. Thanks very much. If you have any new comments on my PDB entry, get my email address from some editor or from my website, and we can pursue that without (further) boring people here.
| | | (53) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Jul 27, 2015 18:08]; edited by Nikola Predrag [15-07-27] |
OK Andrew, you're again missing the critical difference in the meaning of "The truth is broad". Beyond the borders of the broadest truth, there is a LIE, a concept relevant for the meaning of the TRUTH. That's actually your main trouble, you use the concepts deprived of their genuine meaning or even, of any meaning at all. And non-meaning is non-sense.
Apparently, you didn't even bother to read the FIDE rules (or, I don't understand what you mean by "It includes the nit I mentioned about White not having the move at the start".)
And only after reading the rules, you might understand what is decisive about "who has the move". Or, probably not, since you impose your beliefs above the rules,
And you can surely play chess with nails&stones if chess rules give a meaning to such a position. And you can't play chess with the nicest pieces if the chess rules give no meaning to them. You're painfully stubborn about abandoning the relevance.
Codex is clear about the meaning of A2, FIDE rules are applied or modified to give a clear default meaning.
And since you're about to accept that Codex "is intended to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive...", do not insist on the opposite by claiming that your problems apply FIDE rules, due to the "rigorousness". I haven't heard such a contradiction for quite some time.
You're problems are welcomed by the intentions of Codex, but your violent wish to impose "your classification" is exactly opposite to the spirit of Codex.
Joke problems, because some of the rules are applied out of the context of the complete rules.
If you manage to define a consistent definition, they could become the fairy problems.
And the other statements of your last posts are deprived of a meaning within Codex & Rules.
Fare well, may you find a clear way through the jungle you got lost in.
| | | (54) Posted by Rajendiran Raju [Monday, Jul 27, 2015 20:00] |
Kevin Where are you....!!
| | | (55) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Jul 27, 2015 20:09] |
Lost in a jungle...
| | | (56) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Tuesday, Jul 28, 2015 08:39]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [15-07-28] |
The pun called me. I am only human. I could not resist the pun. :-)
 (= 3+2 )
Illegal diagram. Black to move. h#3.0
Dedication: "to Nikola, with warm affection"
Title: "Predrag to a bull."
| | | (57) Posted by Per Olin [Tuesday, Jul 28, 2015 11:49] |
To me it sounds sensible and necessary to define the relationship between o-t-b chess and problem chess; this thread has may useful inputs for future development. Incidentally, there is one upcoming issue on the agenda of this year's congress: 9. ‘Dead position’ in the endgame studies (proposal by the Studies committee). As per the protocol from the Berne congress the rule for dead position will be excluded from endgame studies.
A similar situation as in endgames exists in selfstalemates. A short example: Unto Heinonen Tehtäväniekka 2012 Kh6 Qg6 pawn h5 - Kh8 Qg4 1#, 1=, s#1, s=1. The solutions for the four stipulations are easy to find. The selfstalemate solves by 1.Qg8+ K/Qxg8=. In a chess game the position after White's move 1.Qg8+ is a dead one as neither player can ever win. According to the rules of chess the game ends immediately, but the solution of the problem continues half a move more. As the Codex refers to the chess rules, the status of selfstalemates deserves attention.
The Berne protocol states that by applying the dead position rule to endgame studies, certain stalemate positions would no longer exist and important thematic or artistic content would be lost. Should a similar exception be made for selfstalemates in order that a stipulation is not lost?
| | | (58) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Jul 28, 2015 12:37]; edited by Nikola Predrag [15-07-28] |
Let's see what is this (post 56). Presuming it's a chess composition we read the Codex to find out. Ch I, A 2, it could be a position on the chessboard, stipulation and a solution. What is the meaning of this image, how its elements are related? And what h#3 means? Ch II, A 5, footnote 9(d) says a lot but what is "mate". And what is a "move" and "to move"?
Ch I, A 1 is clear about "chess activity" but where the Codex defines chess in the first place? Oh yes, Ch I, A 7!
So, to understand the meaning of that image & words, we should comprehend the FIDE rules of the game of chess!
There we read A 1.1 which gets a meaning when we read A 2, and A 2.3 tells us where a game begins with White making the first move.
And A 1.1 is EXPLICIT about "A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’."
So, if I have ever presumed that I may freely decide about who has the move, now I must comprehend the frame defined by the rules.
After reading and comprehending the complete system defined by the FIDE rules, I know the "nature of chess" (A 1) - Black may have the move only when White's move has been made.
The image from the beginning which we try to understand could be a chess position after Black's move has been made (with White on the move), and we would be able to play chess.
It is NOT a CHESS POSITION position after White's move has been made, and Black can't make a CHESS-MOVE!
The modified rules should be applied for pushing the frame which defines who has the move. Then we might understand that "image & words".
| | | (59) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Tuesday, Jul 28, 2015 16:53]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [15-07-29] |
Dear Per,
I totally agree with what you said about it being a good idea to clarify the relationship between OTB & problem chess. And I hope the discussion has helped to take this forwards.
You bring up the subject of dead position for endgames. It really deserves its own topic so I will only comment briefly. I am totally in favour of the proposed endgame convention change. In my opinion, the blockage for so long was that some people couldn't accept that the Rules and Conventions were indeed working in a novel way.
Dear Nikola,
Now, back to the subject in hand. The question of who has the move applies to any composition with an illegal position, and has nothing to do with Lese Majeste.
In the game array position, according to the rules, White does not 'have the move', because there was no prior move! And yet we are told White makes the first move, so obviously we can just begin the game. Similarly, in a illegal position with state information saying who is to move, we can just play chess. We are not in the game array, we are not starting a game, so there is no reason to suppose that White would necessarily have the move. Otherwise there would have already been a complaint about helpmates not being possible in illegal diagrams! The Codex states that in tournament scoring "A problem with an illegal position is treated like one with a legal position." So it's pretty clear the Codex authors have no issue with it being impossible to start play in an illegal position. In sum, there is no significant issue lurking here.
So stop maundering on your hobby horse, Nikola, and have a go and solve your problem! :D
| | | (60) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Jul 28, 2015 18:37]; edited by Nikola Predrag [15-07-28] |
We have to understand the rules before claiming what they say. Codex refers to FIDE about chess and FIDE rules begin with defining the nature of chess.
Send quickly your problems to Axel Steinbrink to use them at WCSC very soon in Ostroda and if he accepts them, you might test how the solvers understand the nature of chess. There would surely be no claims about irregularities or, one or two claims would be rejected due to the clear word of Codex :-)
Perhaps you're right, it's 21st century and who would bother to understand the very nature of things? :-(
Legality of a position is pretty irrelevant for the very nature of chess.
Codex surely does not encourage any deformation of the nature of chess but on the contrary, Codex is very careful about preserving the nature of chess in a great variety of modifications.
And the illegal positions are not acceptable by default, in absence of additions/exceptions. Even Ch IV, A 14(2) is formulated to say that illegal positions ARE NOT acceptable...unless.
We should first understand the nature of chess and then the nature of Codex whose spirit preserves the nature of chess.
Don't claim that you can play chess after deforming its very nature, it would be seriously disdainful.
Try to understand the nature of chess and spirit of Codex.
The content of "my problem" is well known, hypothetical R/B promotions, there's line opening/closing, selfblocks, guards and mates. Of course, this is a joke problem where wK has no Royal attributes. In one solution wR plays the Royalty and wS in the other. This part is original and nice.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
MatPlus.Net Forum General Problemas - July 2015, issue n. 11 |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
