Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
23:30 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General What if... |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 | | (41) Posted by Joost de Heer [Thursday, Feb 6, 2025 11:08] |
QUOTE
If the rules were clear from the outset, if we had provided clear and unambiguous definitions for our fundamental terms, we might have avoided this branching.
On the other hand, if the rules were clear from the outset, you probably would never have composed the AP composition.
Murkiness has its own beauty.
| | | (42) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Feb 7, 2025 11:08] |
@Joost,
QUOTE
On the other hand, if the rules were clear from the outset, you probably would never have composed the AP composition.
Murkiness has its own beauty.
If you took away my possibility to compose this AP problem, I might have composed two problems of greater value, based upon a logical, unambiguous, consistent set of rules.
We can't say for certain.
We have no honest way to quantify any benefit/drawback (for me, or others).
I default to the assumption that the primary determinant of problem's value is the skill of the composer(s) and the time they invested (assuming motivation and effort are unchanged).
Luck, in my experience, is also a crucial factor, but this leads back to the same dilemma: since we can't honestly quantify how responsible the composers might be in generating their own luck, it's a fair simplification to pretend luck is entirely a skill.
I can say for certain that an intelligent rule set would save ALL composers (and -- MORE IMPORTANTLY -- ALL potential enthusiasts) time.
Not only would we save the time spent learning intricacies of special case rule differences, we would also save time (and frustrations) from arguing for/against a remedy to the current state of chaos.
It's reasonable to assume that a substantial amount of that time savings would directly transfer to composing efforts.
Generally, the more time you work on a composition, the better the result.
Beyond that, we can expect more eloquent rules will yield a substantial improvement in our appeal to new enthusiasts.
Note: if you poll enthusiasts of orthodox chess who dislike fairies, I expect their primary turnoff, by far, is the time/effort/difficulty to achieve proficiency with complex, unreliable fairy rules.
If we appeal to more newcomers, we should generate more composers, and the artform should expect a SUBSTANTIAL increase in the man-hours spent composing problems.
If we invest the time to remedy our failures, our artform can expect a substantial increase in composing man hours (which should snowball over the long run).
While individual results may vary, the artform itself should expect to see more problems of higher quality -- perhaps substantially more.
And, we'd see more competition, which is the best way to encourage more problems of higher quality (read: motivation and effort are not a flat line -- they are influenced by competition).
More enthusiasts should yield more composers, which should yield better problems, which should yield more enthusiasts.
And the greater competition generated by this positive feedback cycle should yield more motivation/effort, which should yield better problems...
It's also safe to assume that more consistent rules would have greater potential for twinning based upon fairy condition.
I believe there are several more considerations which would BY FAR favor my position, but the detail of that discussion would take us into the weeds of a deep rabbit hole (the benefits for software developers would provide a far greater positive feedback than any of my analysis shared here).
Besides, the outline I have sketched here should already be more than persuasive.
I would also refer readers to Julia's original mission statement -- which was highly persuasive in rallying volunteers to fix (once and for all) the carless infrastructure which has yielded uncertainty, unreliability, incoherence, and inconsistencies.
Julia motivated what nobody else could (I know, because I have tried for decades).
That project had an opportunity to provide a revolutionary restructuring for our entire problem framework, which was key the future success of fairy chess; disappointingly, instead it primarily provided a review of our past failures.
The primary mission is the same (it hasn't changed), and the cost/benefit analysis clearly favors an investment in revolutionizing/streamlining a consistent framework for fairy rules.
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net Forum General What if... |
|
|
|
ISC 2025
