MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

5:56 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 obtrusive force: what say you?
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5
(41) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Friday, Jan 25, 2013 05:13]

Maybe so, but even with the standard Fairy pieces the position is still patently illegal! However, in many types of Fairy problems, illegality is perfectly acceptable (e.g. AntiCirce problems). This position is almost orthodox, so I'd find its illegality unacceptable, even if in other repects the problem is superior. Press on!
 
 
(Read Only)pid=9648
(42) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Jan 25, 2013 05:50]

@Ian,

I completely agree that the prejudices of chess-gamers (particularly of the FIDE Variant) have colored some biased elements upon our chess problem art.

However, I'd go slightly further than you are willing -- I don't believe that illegality is a "fatal flaw."
Nothing is fatal, except that which violates the conservation of information (read: beware of Stephen Hawking)!

Retro-legality plays almost no role in fairies -- unless of course you happen use 9 (or more) pawns of a single color, in which case you get the hot oil!
9 promoted grasshoppers are fine, but (for reasons beyond my pay grade) never 9 pawns!

The reasoning for this aesthetic is either beyond my pay grade, or, more likely, it revolves around the infamous, pseudo-orthodox, 9-black-pawns joke problem, requiring the removal of a single illegal pawn (such that each removal produces a new way to satisfy the aim).

And, there are some corollaries:
1) 16 neutral pawns may be OK,
2) 9 fairy-pawns (e.g., Berolina Pawns), of a single color is uncertain (read: expect hot oil), and
3) The joke rule does not apply to fairy forms allowing for production of additional pawns (e.g., sentinels, degradation, etc).

It seems the joke has now become the standard treatment for any diagram with 9 (or more!?) pawns -- meaning: fairy chess aesthetics are literally governed by a joke.

The same used to be true for retro-illegal problems (requiring you to spin the board 180, or some such); but, that standard proved too much of a burden (particularly for any PWC problem with less than 32 units)!
Some smart people even tried to retro-legalize PWC, but the methodology is very difficult to elicit from its originators (the moment they reveal their accomplishment, some lesser intellect will no doubt dart through some metastable loophole, and violate the conservation of information).

It all goes to show: aesthetic favoritism should not be born from the prejudices of orthodox players, nor governed by some orthodox joke.
The problem should be the problem, UNLESS it specifically calls for some orthodox retro-consideration (from SOME SPECIFIED game array)!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9649
(43) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Jan 25, 2013 06:00]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-01-25]

@Ian,

Not in many types of fairies -- in virtually EVERY fairy problem, illegality is PERFECTLY acceptable (not even noted).
I can show you prize winner after prize winner, where the author did not even consider any method to redeem retro-legality (nor should they)!
The only aesthetic violation I am aware of, is the absurd objection to using 9 (or more) pawns of a single color (other than neutral, I believe).
[note: I once hastily revised a fairy problem of my own, which violated this aesthetic -- in retrospect, perhaps a wiser choice would have been to defy this rule.]

{added: to base your aesthetic standards for accepting legality upon your own subjectively perceived proximity to orthodoxy (ha!), clearly demonstrates that you have no business judging fairy problems! :) Just consider: if you want to publish an orthodox problem, which happens to be illegal, you send it where? To fairies, of course! But, according to your absurd standards, the proximity to orthodoxy would similarly outlaw this logical outlet! Thus, your dogmatic standards have become an absolute constraint, which violates the free expression of ideas.
You have it exactly backwards: thematic expression is King, not absurd aesthetic standards (rooted in a subjective, non-applicable orthodoxy).}

@Jacques,

Very interesting story (and nice realization of diagram C)!
This is why we have to labor to preserve the old aesthetic standards, and then quickly turn our attention to dismantling these standards in favor of something more logical.


ps: I think orthodox/fairy problems should be obliged state whether retro-content plays a role.
If not, ignore legality issues entirely / if so, solve and judge accordingly.
Most magazines do this by default, by placing problems in a retro-section.
Others do not -- and routinely mix retro-content with retro-illegal works (a mistake, in my view).
Similarly, it is a mistake that problem databases have proven slow to recognize the need for a retro-content indicator.

This may partially be due to the preference of some enthusiasts to inject retro-content into the mainstream genres (without an indicator); and, there is no denying that such an indicator does/would deprive the composer (and the alert solvers) of some of the intended "splendid insincerity" of the problem (to borrow from Nabokov).
But, it is patently unfair to expect solvers to intuit the need to consider retro-content, when retro features are routinely ignored by illegal fairy problems.
Unfortunately, somebody has to compromise here; and, in the interest of preserving numerous fairy conditions which would be unduly constrained by the requirement for retro-legality, a retro-content indicator would seem the obligatory solution.

As stated above, there was some talk about methods to retro-legalize a variety of fairy conditions.
This is a fruitless endeavor -- there is no denying that high quality content should not be compromised, to service an absurd orthodox starting position (rooted as far back as Chaturanga!).

The starting position is completely arbitrary (and not at all scalable); and, as such, it would arbitrarily rule out a number of conditions, entirely (before the game begins)!
Try composing an anti-Kings proofgame, without some additional fairy element (e.g., I chose a horizontal cylinder).
Legality (particularly retro-legality, which depends upon the silly preconception of some shared back-story, for every problem!) is a complete farce, except in problems which must explicitly depend upon it.

Fact: chess problems predate our present version of the game of chess (by roughly 1100 years)!
The same can be said of variants, fairy conditions, fairy pieces, fairy boards, and alternative objectives/stipulations.
You can not impose any of the modern orthodoxy (including FIDE's present starting position) upon any fairy problem (unless that problem explicitly indicates that retro-content is an element of the problem).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9650
(44) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 05:05]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-01-26]

@Kevin. Apologies if I wasn't clear. I meant that within the realm of orthodoxy (only!?), illegality is always a "fatal flaw". I agree that that isn't often the case with Fairies. Another example is my Strict Circe, where anything less than 32 units is *ipso facto* illegal! A get-around is to declare that the condition was not in force at the start of the proof-games. This remedy cannot be employed in Jacques' 3-pawn cluster, which is simply impossible without some Fairy condition like Circé.

PS: "I think orthodox/fairy problems should be obliged state whether retro-content plays a role."

In the case of orthodox problems, I disagree: that's part of the solving task, and in cases like an e.p. key, such a declaration would be tantamount to disclosing the key! As for Fairies, certainly "The Problemist" indicates this either through publication in its Retros column or, if it's among the Fairies, numbering it F____R.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9669
(45) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 05:50]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-01-26]

@Ian,

Suppose you compose an orthodox problem, which requires an illegal position -- just suppose, hypothetically (I'm sure this will never ever happen, right?).
So, you publish it in the fairies section -- yes?
How do you stipulate that there is no retro-content (with a fairy condition: "ignore retro legality")?
That precise condition is already the presumption within the fairies section (so, do you simply publish it, as is)!

Some problem journals, like The Problemist, already do have an indicator (as you've noted).
Others use the retro-section to indicated this.
This is a good thing; but, I don't believe any databases indicate this (and that is a mistake).

ps: this information really should be relayed within the content of the problem (soundness should not be based upon genre).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9671
(46) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 09:34]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-01-26]

Incidentally, a very related discussion broke out on PDB, regarding a very fine retro-illegal problem.

http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.jsp?expression=probid='P1260649'

Here is an illegal position, which several prominent composers (!) are arguing should be classified as a retro (not a fairy), despite the fact that it contains NO retro-element (can you have backwards play from a position which, even after adding a black King somewhere, would remain retro-illegal?), all the play is forwards, and it contains two definite fairy element (it is a series-mover, and has no black King).

How can it be considered a retro????????????? (<= this would be a 13 question mark decision!).

But, regardless, this problem makes the point, very effectively -- illegality is NOT a "fatal flaw."
And, I'm sure there are even cases where one might ask retro questions, from an illegal position (e.g., find the last n legal moves, from an illegal diagram, ignoring whatever illegal moves may have preceded the last n moves).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9676
(47) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 18:30]

Instead of the white pawns in Shinkman's problem, you could have a different sized board. There are more examples like this where you are asked to shuffle the pieces, in order to get the King from one square to another. There are several classical retros, in which such shuffling of pieces is the only way to release the position (but going backwards).
My opinion: Shinkman's problem is not a retro. It is a fairy problem using immobile pawns (or irregular board, if you prefer), only one side moves (series problem) and has a stipulation that is fairy: play KxS at the end. The fact that the position is illegal does not make it a retro problem, in the same way that all orthodox problems that have legal positions are not retros, either.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9681
(48) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 20:22]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-01-26]

I agree, Kostas.
Nevertheless, our friends at Schwalbe have since opted to categorize this as retro + fairy.
Erich Bartel calls this (translated): "a dispute about truffles."
To his taste, I suppose he's on the trail.

"Whosoever says truffle, utters a grand word, which awakens erotic and gastronomic ideas...."
Jean-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin

To categorize this as a retro is, truly, a gastronomic idea.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=9682
(49) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Sunday, Jan 27, 2013 10:37]; edited by Zalmen Kornin [13-02-02]

@ Ian: Kudos goes to You always for the nice mix of pins and unpins (that second variation with the black bishop is merely a consequence of the new arrangement - still not very easy to obtain as well, of course ...). Okay, the question of obtrusive force , also for me, is not as important - not as the unwanted effects of set-flights 1 ... g5 and gxh5. (I mean - could, eventually, get there even without that issue ...) Let's retain just (in V), a needed escape route through 1 ... h4-h3 (after, for instance, 1.Qd7, 1.Qe8 ...)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9683
(50) Posted by Mario Richter [Friday, Feb 1, 2013 12:23]

@Kevin
You completely ignored my arguments, why?????????????? (a 14 question mark question :-) )
To repeat it: I have argued that the Shinkman problem is a generalized A-to-B-problem and should therefore get the label "Retro" because there is some agreement in the retro world that A-to-B-problems belong to the retrogenre.
"Generalized A-to-B-problem" in the following sense: the composer invents a game leading from a position A to a position B, then gives only some information about the game (here: starting position, restriction of the moving area, final move KxS, Black doesn't move), and the task of the solver is to reconstruct the game. Unlike your claim, this can be very well done by starting with reasoning about the final position: if the last move is KxS, then it must have been Kf1xSe1, to get to f1, the wK's second last move must have been Kg1-f1 and so on ...
Furthermore, the discussion was not about "Kaisers Bart", but about the question, if the current classification system of the PDB is sufficient or not. (To give an example: Reflexmates got their own genre, although they are clearly fairy, series-mover, however orthodox their play is with the exception of the series-property, are all classified as 'Fairies'. This makes it e.g. difficult to search the PDB for "orthodox series-movers").
Following Kevin's logic about what constitutes a fairy problem, which of the following problems should also be labeled as 'Fairy'?
http://www.softdecc.de/pdb/search.jsp?expression=PROBID='P0576501'
http://www.softdecc.de/pdb/search.jsp?expression=PROBID='P1235210'
http://www.softdecc.de/pdb/search.jsp?expression=PROBID='P1224667'
http://www.softdecc.de/pdb/search.jsp?expression=PROBID='P1245811'
http://www.softdecc.de/pdb/search.jsp?expression=PROBID='P1226211'

(P.S. The forum SW eats the last apostroph, so to make the above links work, this apostroph has to be added manually)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9703
(51) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Feb 2, 2013 16:44]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-02-02]

@Mario,

Sorry, I have been busy, and did not notice your reply earlier... I'll try to be brief in helping resolve your obvious misconception, and help speed you back on track.
But, please understand, I can not be responsible to save everyone from speeding toward a train wreck -- at some point, you must assume responsibility for the course you have taken.

In the interest of setting a healthy tone, let me first apologize for characterizing your suggestion as a "14-question mark blunder."
Your suggestion will be shown to be demonstrably absurd, but it's an honest mistake (not the first, and it will not be the last).
But, I'm sorry for my poor wording -- which may have unintentionally suggested that this mistake somehow reflects upon you.

Problem chess is long rooted in a sad history of categorization failures (generally in the interest of advancing some tenacious favoritism) -- one accepted blunder tends to set what seems a logical precedent for the next.
The point is: we did not inherit a well structured problem classification railway, so the engineer should not be faulted for missing some key junction.

A number of your points I will have to address later -- for now, I just want to deal with the primary misconception... and, I may quote you out of order.

>"I have argued that the Shinkman problem is a generalized A-to-B-problem and should therefore get the label "Retro" because there is some agreement in the retro world that A-to-B-problems belong to the retrogenre."

The premise, upon which you have entirely based your faulty categorization suggestion, is demonstrably false: Shinkman's problem can not be characterized as an A->B problem, because no final diagram is provided (from which the solver might apply retro-analysis).

You need to be aware, particularly as a retro-composer, that the key distinction, found in EVERY A->B problem (and a number of other retros) is the provision of some final diagram.

>"Unlike your claim, this can be very well done by starting with reasoning about the final position: if the last move is KxS, then it must have been Kf1xSe1, to get to f1, the wK's second last move must have been Kg1-f1 and so on ..."

Note this carefully: we are not talking about an inference of a final diagram, from some formal (forward) stipulation -- we are talking about THE PROVISION of a final diagram, itself.

Most helpmates are actually solved by guessing the final mating position, and applying some mix of backwards and forwards scheduling to find the forward play.
This does not render every helpmate into a help-game, and thus into an A->B problem, and thus into a Retro.
We'll come back to this...


>"Generalized A-to-B-problem" in the following sense: the composer invents a game leading from a position A to a position B, then gives only some information about the game (here: starting position, restriction of the moving area, final move KxS, Black doesn't move), and the task of the solver is to reconstruct the game."

This is off the rails, at full steam -- think carefully about where your statements are heading!

Just consider your argument as it applies to ANY series-directmate (fairy or orthodox):
1) The composer would have invented a legal game, leading from some starting position (A) to the final position (B) -- exactly as you attribute to Shinkman's problem
2) The composer would have provided some information about the game, here: -- exactly as you attribute to Shinkman's problem
a) the starting position is provided -- exactly as you attribute to Shinkman's problem
b) some restriction of the moving area would be provided (maybe 8x8, maybe a fairy board, maybe some holes) -- in any case, it is exactly as you attribute to Shinkman's problem
c) information about the final move is provided -- exactly as you attribute to Shinkman's problem (except here its mate, rather than Shinkman's capture)
d) Black doesn't move -- exactly as you attribute to Shinkman's problem
3) and the task of the solve is to reconstruct this game. -- exactly as you attribute to Shinkman's problem

Everything here is exactly what you attribute to Shinkman's problem, in falsely claiming that it must be a help-game style A->B problem (and thus a retro).
So, by a simple extension of this flawed logic, every series-directmate is actually a help-game, thus an A->B problem, and thus a retro!
In fact, this can be extended to all helpmates (unless you want to argue that black's inability to move is a critical component of every retro).
Functionally, you have argued that everything comes out retro -- and therefore, retro itself becomes a useless categorization.

Can you guess, by now, where you went off track?

Yes, retro-analysis can help you solve many forward problems; but, the key distinction is, you must GUESS the final diagram -- this is not provided (as it is in retros). You can ONLY guess what the final diagram might be, from the formal stipulation (generally, from the aim -- the final objective).

In Shinkman's problem, you are trying to use the aim (capture), plus a fairy condition (only white King may capture), to infer something about the final position.
This is no different than the common approach to solving helpmates -- you guess the final mating position (from the formal aim, #, not from a provided diagram).
And, somehow, you failed even to notice that this poor retrograde effort left you well short of approaching any retro solution to Shinkman's forward problem!

Consider where your logic is taking you...
Revisit any of your own proofgames, any of your own "Last Move?" retros, look at any "Resolve the Position" retro -- you will find that a final diagram is provided.
Shinkman's problem provides no such diagram, therefore, it can not be characterized as an A->B problem.

If you care to know why Shinkman's problem was not a formal fairy, just consider the date of Shinkman's publication -- 1873!
At that time, he could not even have anticipated the word "fairy."
He was hardly in a position to foresee that such problems might eventually be expressed formally, in fairy problem form.
If he could have seen into the future, it is reasonable to expect that he would have used:
1) a 3x4 fairy board with some holes (both of which are commonly treated as fairy elements),
2) a series-direct-mover fairy condition (though often hidden in the stipulation, idle-movers are nearly universally accepted to be a fairy condition),
3) a capture aim (also fairy),
4) some fairy constraint (preventing certain non-royal units from capture), and
5) he would have formally stated the number of moves (27).

Today, most of these elements are quite standard in fairies: the capture aim, the series mover, the fairy board w/ the holes, etc (thanks to a number of fairy proponents, like T.R.Dawson).

We can waste time arguing that some retros do not fully provide the final diagram (e.g., information is hidden in Kriegspiel retros, you may be required to color some units, and you may even be required to add some units, etc).
In fact, we can discuss illegal cluster, which might arise from a completely empty final diagram.
Or, you can start claiming that reflexmate stipulations may be used to determine previous moves in some retro problems -- this would just be a complete waste of keystrokes, which I'd rather avoid (hint: reflexmates are only a fairy condition disguised under our poorly classified stipulation system).
It's only a question of: how far do you want to drive this absurdity?

Just remember: retros generally provide some final diagram, it is not something the solver must guess from the aim (as in forward problems).
And, when the final diagram is not provided, generally retros will require the solver to apply retro-analytic logic to help determine that final diagram (as in Illegal Clusters).

But, to make the refutation of your suggestion plainly obvious... here's all you need to know:
1) ALL A-to-B problems provide a final diagram, and the AIM is to reach that diagram (in help-game fashion, which may involve solve retro-analysis),
2) Shinkman's problem provides NO final diagram, and the AIM is to capture something, and
3) Attempts to infer a final diagram (from a formal stipulation/aim), is in no way comparable to the provision of a final diagram (as in A->B help-game retros).

That should suffice to prove that your characterization is badly flawed: Shinkman's problem is NOT A->B -- and, that's enough for today.
Once you accept this fact, the rest of your argument crumbles easily.

>"Furthermore, the discussion was not about "Kaisers Bart", but about the question, if the current classification system of the PDB is sufficient or not."

I was not aware of the larger discussion -- I only referenced the debate about the improper classification of this one problem.

>(To give an example: Reflexmates got their own genre, although they are clearly fairy, series-mover, however orthodox their play is with the exception of the series-property, are all classified as 'Fairies'. This makes it e.g. difficult to search the PDB for "orthodox series-movers").

The PDB failure you note here is a function of the SEARCH (and the database schema), not the categorization -- these are completely separate issues.
There are tricks you can use to improve your PDB search, but the issue here is NOT categorization.

I can search the Win Chloe database for all problems showing a particular stipulation (e.g., all series-direct problem), and a particular aim (e.g., all problems where the objective is capture); and, I can further refine my search by querying for some/no fairy condition, and/or some/no fairy unit.
Win Chloe requires no specific genre categorization (other than what it inherently defines to be fairy units/conditions).

A database designer may define the genres for themselves -- however they may please (the same way some careless editors have redefined some fairy conditions).
It does not change the fact that delegates decide the genres in the FIDE Album (yet fail to provide any definitive definitions to mark their divisions).

I have covered these topics extensively on Mat Plus Forum -- I have always argued for a consistent categorization, based upon definitive criteria, where fairy elements are both codified and sanctioned by the delegates (given input from a large consortium of sources, including programmers, variant gamers, and fairy enthusiasts).

If PDB developers want to talk about shortcomings in their database structure, they should not have to look very hard (in any direction).
If any of them are actually bothering to listen to a completely misguided classification suggestion, it will not help which direction they look.

Until you square your understanding of what constitutes a retro, you'll forgive me for not wanting to engage on a number of periphery topics.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9708
(52) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Feb 2, 2013 17:11]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-02-02]

>"Following Kevin's logic about what constitutes a fairy problem, which of the following problems should also be labeled as 'Fairy'?

With all respect, Mario, I don't think you are yet ready to learn the definition of "fairy."
Find your way back to the retro track -- then, maybe we'll talk.

Just remember: I am not responsible for your misdirection, nor for any genre categorization damage you may inflict on PDB.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9709
(53) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Feb 2, 2013 18:35]

Well , who is ready to learn a definition of "fairy"? Considering all many previous posts, Kevin is probably not ready to learn even his own definition, if there is one :)
 
 
(Read Only)pid=9710
(54) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Saturday, Feb 2, 2013 22:39]

For me this is never an A-to-B-problem. B is not given at all, there are several arrangements for the white rooks and bishops possible.
This is a serx-27 which would be enough to belong to the fairy genre.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9713
(55) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Feb 3, 2013 01:07]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-02-03]

@Nikola,

I was recently reading an old article -- I think it was in Fairy Chess Review (sorry, I can't recall) -- where somebody was attempting to define chess (and chess variants) according to the presence of a Knight.
I found it rather amusing -- because this absurd categorization attempt is actually far better than most chess enthusiasts would care to admit (or could ever come up with); but, unfortunately, it still falls well short.

It is very difficult to define this term, Chess Variant (or Fairy Chess), such that checkers is excluded, whereas problems involving Japanese Fers-locusts (absent royal units), are included.
The real truth is: I see no value in helping to define an impossible term.

If somebody insists on my providing a concise definition, here it is:
Fairy chess is a Feathering in the wind. :-)

There are only three logical options to define such a term, and all three only manage to define the term against what it can not be considered:
1) Fairy chess is any type of chess, except the present set of FIDE rules (which have evolved, and may continue to evolve, over time).

This definition fails.

First, it considers Tic-Tac-Toe to be fairy chess.
Second, it allows for the genre status of problems to change, over time.
For example, the solution of several orthodox studies has been altered (indeed, the very intent is damaged) by FIDE's adoption of dead-reckoning rules.
If the above definition holds, formerly orthodox problems can move into the category of fairies (and vice versa), and they may shift back.
Do we plan to continually work to save an ever increasing number of problems, against FIDE's rules (which are manufactured to keep a game interesting)?

If problemists want to form a conclave, and elect to follow FIDE (as a false prophet), that's their problem.
There is no value in an inconstant genre classification, which brings us to the second option:

2) Fairy chess is any type of chess, except the full list of FIDE rule sets (over all time: past, present, and future).

Again, the holes in this system are too obvious to enumerate.
Immediately, orthodox would require an elaborate sub-classification (and a special set of glorified fairy conditions).
You may as well concede that the practice of illogical segregation amounts to nothing more than a virulent strain of tenacious favoritism.

The third option is something that survivalists (and the bene gesserit) will certainly appreciate...
3) define the FIDE variant, for all time (and resist any change -- necessary or otherwise!).

Essentially, FIDE must declare itself immortal (at this very moment) -- the perfected culmination of a multi-generational evolution program (read: the quizat haderach).

And, that entire process of evolution must completely freeze, just so that we can nail down what a fairy chess game is NOT.
We still could not begin to address what fairy chess really does mean (all we would know is what it can not be).

But, all hope is not lost to categorize chess problems.
The trick, which was never so elusive, is to categorize problems based upon the TYPE of problem (which is fixed, over time), rather than a uncertain, evolving set of rules.

It doesn't take a library scientist (or a database developer!) to realize that problems should be first separated into help/direct categories (and further separated according to the presence of retro-content) -- rather than as it has been: according to small differences in a constantly evolving rule set.
Check the card catalog: there is no listing yet provided which can support the present classification system (the books are burned, and the library door is bolted).

The logical way to categorize problems is based upon actual problem criteria: the type of stipulation, subdivided by the goal, subdivided by the aim, subdivided by the number of moves, etc.

I see no value in defining the term "Fairy."
We have a vast sky, filled with variant rule sets (including the present FIDE set) -- each a slight alteration of the next, more born all the time, and all in a constant state of flux.
By comparison, we have only a few valid problem stipulations, all of which are clearly defined (for all time).

The solution is plainly obvious -- and has only been avoided because the orthodox crowd are not yet willing to relinquish that their special favoritism (which could instead be tied to the present set of evolving FIDE rules) was not provided by divine birthright.

How do you define a "math problem" ?
Any expression or equality involving some orthodox set of mathematical operators? No!

var y = 'x' + 1; // solve for y.

Here is an equality, involving a mathematical operator.
For us, the sequence of alphabetical characters might seem no math problem; but, the computer inherently understands what Pythagoras long ago knew: all is number (including ascii codes)!
The moment you insist upon defining mathematics by some orthodox set of mathematical operators, you have inhibited the inclusion of new mathematics.

The best you can do is to categorize the various TYPES of math problems.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9714
(56) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Feb 3, 2013 15:22]

Majority can proclaim any artificial set of rules/laws and I woud have to accept that fact. The Sun might be proclaimed to circle around the flat Earth, for instance. But I am really interested in the proclaimed laws which are based on the natural laws.

People from different countries, having differentlly proclaimed laws, do not look as the fairies to me - they are still humans. Fairies would be a term for the creatures which would exist on different natural laws.

The rules of chess did not essentially change for a long time. Meanwhile, the game with this rules has been accepted by millions.
This I see as one abstract universe with own natural laws. For practical purposes, there are some additional, proclaimed rules (but not natural) like draw due to the repeated position or 50 moves, dead-reckoning and I would count here also the initial game array position.

Fairy chess has to present "supernatural" features to justify the name. Max/min, reflex and seriesmovers do not look essentially supernatural, for instance. Actually, even a position with more than 32 pieces doesn't look essentially supernatural to me (perhaps the various dimensions of the board too).
Anyway, I can't take seriously any definitions without a clear distinction of natural and supernatural. Artificially proclaimed rules can not draw my true attention.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9717
(57) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Feb 3, 2013 18:08]

<troll mode> The stipulation "Löse auf!" ("Untangle!"...eh, what is it in
English?) also in praxis isn't A->B (with fixed A, that is).
You *can* set A=game starting position, but it's widely accepted that for
"solving" you just have to unknot the retro knots and do not actually write
down the remaining trivial moves back to starting position.
Likewise, A could be a set A1,A2,A3,... of different histories. (E.g. I could think
of a problem where the last move is either OO or e.p., and the resolving of the
two possibilities is completely different.

Problems, Officer? :P

Hauke
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9718
(58) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Feb 4, 2013 23:26]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-02-04]

@Nikola,

Some inconsistencies should be highlighted:

>"Majority can proclaim any artificial set of rules/laws and I (would) have to accept that fact. The Sun might be proclaimed to circle around the flat Earth, for instance. But I am really interested in the proclaimed laws which are based on the natural laws."

OK, so you'd prefer a categorization of chess problems by nature, not by majority rule?
That's interesting.

>"The rules of chess did not essentially change for a long time. Meanwhile, the game with this rules has been accepted by millions."

Now, you're arguing based upon a plurality of millions?
Either all those millions accept that the FIDE Organization has authority to set the rules, or you must be arguing for a multi-generational democracy (in which case, please divulge: you are the self-appointed nominee for what specific time period?).

>"For practical purposes, there are some additional, proclaimed rules (but not natural) like draw due to the repeated position or 50 moves, dead-reckoning and I would count here also the initial game array position."

Do tell: what time period is it which you would prefer to enjoin?
First, you say majority doesn't matter (it's all about "natural laws" -- which you don't bother to explain).
Then, you say it's important that you have some plurality of support (from some unspecified time period).
Next, you discount the rules of the game itself (unto which you have attributed some natural, universal laws).
If the universe is no longer abiding by some law, that should be your first indication that you physical law (derived under some earlier circumstance) could not have been entirely "natural."

You can not dismiss these inconvenient rule changes, which took place fairly recently, by:
1) proclaiming them "unnatural" and,
2) stating that "the [NATURAL] rules of chess did not essentially change for a long time."

Your entire commentary seems a bogus pursuit to glorify a set of subjective favorite fairy elements; but, I'm going to give you an opportunity to prove me wrong...

Before I come to that, I do think that you should perhaps avail yourself better to a study of chess history.
I find no indication that chess occurs in nature (anywhere) -- it is a game, developed by people, which has considerably evolved over time (and continues to evolve!).
From which specific version of this game are you attempting to derive your universal, natural laws?
How do justify your failure to account for the game's continued evolution, beyond your "natural" laws?
Has chess suddenly mutated, by interaction with some unnatural, science fictional force?

Please provide a concise definition for what it is you believe would constitute a "Natural" (versus a "super-Natural") set of chess rules.
And, please provide the relevant universal law (governing the universe) which you believe would apply (to any fairy condition you would be willing to rule upon).

Personally, I anticipate that you'll soon find yourself having to dodge the issue (perhaps even recant your entire commentary); but, if you want to stand by your statements, I'm eager to hear your supporting evidence.
I suspect your response will either completely alter the significance of chess in our universe, or it likely proves an educational misadventure.
I must say, either way, I certainly look forward to your reply.

Finally, I'd like you to consider chess from something very near your own perspective: for the benefit of better understanding your own implied set of suggestions (which I'd rather not entirely dismiss as a partisan bathwater), let's imagine that the present FIDE rules (or whichever particular version of the rule-book you may favor as most "natural") actually did occur in nature.
Then, from this naturally occurring phenomenon, I'd like you to explain how we might logically determine which fairy elements (e.g., idle-movers, cylinder boards, grasshoppers, PWC, etc) are "natural" (versus "super-natural") derivatives.

If we are to take your categorization proposal as a matter of natural reasoning, then you must be willing to share your scientific formulation!


>"Fairy chess has to present "supernatural" features to justify the name.
Max/min, reflex and seriesmovers do not look essentially supernatural, for instance.
Actually, even a position with more than 32 pieces doesn't look essentially supernatural to me (perhaps the various dimensions of the board too). "



That is your proposed categorization -- based upon what "essentially looks supernatural" ???

It's all very nice for you to share which fairy elements Nikola may (or may not) think have some "essentially supernatural look."
Of course, Nikola might also think that the sun "looks essentially to go around the Earth."

Nothing you have said makes any sense, in terms of helping to categorize fairy elements.

>"Anyway, I can't take seriously any definitions without a clear distinction of natural and supernatural."

So, you offer this absurd categorization, without providing ANY clear distinction (or even definitions); and then, you categorically reject any similarly artificial categorization.

>"Artificially proclaimed rules can not draw my true attention."

It should, by now, have occurred to you, Nikola, that your "true attention" is not necessary in the foundation of natural laws... nor in the development of a logical categorization for chess problems.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9723
(59) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Feb 5, 2013 02:03]

Kevin, if you did not understand what was the crucial aim of my post, either you did not really try or you just have no talent to see what is crucial. It is meaningless to speak to you if you do not or can not listen.

I certainly don't intend to proclaim definitions, rules or laws. I try to find a critical point for any serious thinking and discussion. A clear critical point was missing and therefore the discussion was hopeless.

One crucial critical point is a clear and obvious distinction between "ordinary/natural" and "fairy/supernatural". I tried to illustrate it, not to define what is chess. We may proclaim any variant of chess as the "natural" chess, but when we agree once what is "natural chess", we will know what is "supernatural" chess. It only seems pretty convenient to accept chess such as millions know it.

You are extremely keen to discuss irrelevant points, no wonder you miss the essential ones. Define the universe of chess with its fundamental laws, then talk if you must!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9724
(60) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Feb 5, 2013 03:17]

@Nikola,

I listened very carefully to your comments -- enough to know this: if problem chess were in need of a coherent distinction between "ordinary/natural" and "fairy/supernatural", you certainly have not yet managed to provide it.
Thankfully, these terms come out of some subjective fantasy world -- which has no scientifically discernible impact on the real world.

Personally, I find your perceptions (for a variety of fairy conditions) highly interesting, and worthy of deeper exploration -- I always want to hear more from friends with a ghost story suggesting some psychic abilities.
But, no intelligent categorization of problems can fall into accord with the perceptions you obtain from your own "super-natural" divining-rod.

To put this in your own terms: a scientist need not consider testimonials from parties with perceptions contrary to circumsolar orbit theory (all talk of the supernatural notwithstanding).

"Stick to the path, beware of the moon."
- An American Werewolf in London.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9725

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5

MatPlus.Net Forum General obtrusive force: what say you?