MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

9:07 UTC
ISC 2021
 
  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-Apr-2021





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General The Fairy Chess Classification Project @ Julia's Fairies
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
(41) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, May 7, 2021 10:28]

@Kevin: Sorry if I misquoted your intentions -
my brain probably went on standby during read (and now
that you bring on tomatoes, you made me hungry :-)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=21118
(42) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, May 7, 2021 19:07]

@Hauke,

No worries.

Speaking of tomatoes...

"The man who can't visualize a horse galloping on a tomato is an idiot." -- André Breton.
I find that the point of Breton's quote is so elusive, it's best to visualize either the inventor of French Mustard answering a fan question, or a fairy chess judge critiquing an excessively obvious key.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=21121
(43) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Wednesday, May 12, 2021 23:08]

It seems the discussion was interrupted before touching many other results of this long-term project, apart from the classification. All interested may still switch to the main page of project, now with the links to all previous steps:
https://juliasfairies.com/fairy-terms/fairy-classification-project/ (Under the [FAIRY TERMS] top menu of JF)
As the main reason not to keep commenting this topic on MPF, you may take the following „glossary” (in alphabetic order) of the words and phrases used to describe a deeply devoted and enthusiastic work of your colleagues:

abomination, absurd, "any rookie can do", arbitrary, betrayal, bias, blunder, chaotic, "continued disregard", corrupted, cowardly, crap, deceitful, delusion, desperate, disastrous, disgraceful, dishonest, disordered, dumb, failure, falsehood, faulty, favoritism, flawed, foul, "fundamentally bad", gross, hideous, ignorance, half-baked, illogical, incoherent, indiscriminate, laughable, madness, malfeasance, meaningless, mindless, misbegotten, misdirection, "no basis", "nothing original", obsolete, pathetic, petty, pointless, poison, plagiarized, ridiculous, sabotage, self-serving, sham, shameful, unworkable, wasted …
 
   
(Read Only)pid=21146
(44) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, May 15, 2021 23:06]

You forgot one term: "indefensible".
Nice try though.

The very title of this project ("The Fairy Chess Classification Project") promises a classification of fairy chess elements.
The first draft failed to deliver on that promise (a fact which nobody can dispute).

Don't take it personally.
There was no need to impugn the motives of -- nor to question the contributions from -- any person who dares acknowledge this undeniable fact.
It's not the end of the world if you completely miss the first boat out.

I respect all who volunteered for this project, and I greatly respect all who helped to bring so many members of the community together for this important endeavor. I am hopeful they will greatly improve upon their first draft.

Let's all agree that providing an actual classification should be the focus -- not words spoken, not personal slanders made.
Please, Marjan, let's set any vendettas aside. If anyone harbors bad feelings, I'm happy to help resolve that in private discussions.

Anyone who can not discuss the project in this forum is not seeking more than the appearance of a discussion (where they may exert editorial control over any criticism).
Don't feed us this thin-skinned, snowflake defense (where an inability to process colorful terms renders the entire team immune from all legitimate criticism). You did falsely malign my intentions in this very thread, so I doubt you're the sensitive kind who runs away at the drop of any artful expression.

If the team will not discuss this on MPF, they will have limited the reach of their own effort.
It would constitute a terrible blunder to confine any actual classification -- should one emerge from this group -- to one, censored forum.

Make your case here, and allow people decide for themselves.

I'm eager to congratulate the team on their success.
That is, after all, what brought me into this thread in the first place (see the very first lines of my very first comment)!
You needn't run away from that. Just solve the simple problem (provide us definitions for your classification system).
This is not a big ask -- it's the necessary foundation to succeed in the promise conveyed by the very title of this project.

If you can't make the case on MPF, don't pretend it is due to a collection of mean words.
We'll all know the actual reason why.

I'm here for no reason other than in the hope that this project succeeds in providing a logical (read: definition based) classification of fairy elements (which has been carelessly neglected for decades).
I don't even care to compare it to any alternative classification possible -- any logical definitions will suffice, as this will inherently render equal the playing field.
That's why I congratulated the team WITHOUT READING their specific definitions (it doesn't matter to me how they define their terms, so long as they deliver on the promise to unambiguously define terms which provide a categorization of elements)!

I'm not asking for much -- just meet the fundamental requirements to deliver on the promise made in the project title, and I'm overjoyed.
If the team needs you to cite a collection of overly critical terms, as an excuse to run away from my tiny requirement, may Caissa save us all (problemists are in more serious trouble than I had imagined)!!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=21150
(45) Posted by Dupont Nicolas [Sunday, Jun 13, 2021 18:56]

I didn’t participate to the fairy classification project because I know there is no chance for my viewpoint to be adopted: a big cleaning of the discipline leading to big changes in what already exists (it looks clear to me that the actual project do not want to change something, only to try to better explain existing things and make some correlations).

For e.g. fairy definitions, one should go from basic, clearly defined small pieces, to more elaborate conditions. The parrain circe example has been already mentioned in this thread. This is nothing but equipollent circe coupled with “wait a move” (this is the correct viewpoint adopted by Jacobi).

To my mind there is no serious reason (except historically) to use the name “parrain circe” instead of “equipollent circe & wait a move”. The latter is far more flexible/understandable, and naturally allows extensions “other type of circe & wait a move”.

Concerning series-movers, the direct type is nothing but #n coupled with “black passes”. Here too I don’t see any serious reason to use new stipulations such as ser-#n and pser-#n, as far as a good and simpler alternative in smaller pieces exists “#n & black passes” and “#n & black passes except to parry a check”. Moreover this approach solves a dilemma – a series mover is a usual orthodox stipulation together with a fairy condition allowing various possibilities of pass moves.

So is my very modest participation to the fairy classification project!
 
 
(Read Only)pid=21261

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

MatPlus.Net Forum General The Fairy Chess Classification Project @ Julia's Fairies