Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
0:29 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Very silly condition combination |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Apr 25, 2025 12:01] | Very silly condition combination
If I have Maximummer AND Minimummer for the same side, what happens (except Olive
waving the white flag)? Consequent logic dictates this side is stalemated as soon
their set of moves does not contain only moves of same length. For example:
Ka8,Sh2. White can play but all moves instantly self=. (Could make an interesting problem:
Position, avoid = as long a possible.)
| | | (2) Posted by Joost de Heer [Friday, Apr 25, 2025 15:19] |
Some combinations are not meant to work together, e.g. Pacific retractor with BlackMustCapture.
Popeye will bug out with 'Nonsensical combination of conditions' for several of these I think.
| | | (3) Posted by Bojan Basic [Friday, Apr 25, 2025 15:40] |
QUOTE
Consequent logic dictates this side is stalemated as soon their set of moves does not contain only moves of same length.
This is not so clear. Maximummer and Minimummer do not have the power to change the result of a given position; in other words, a side is never stalemated unless it is stalemated in the orthodox sense. Therefore, claiming that their combination introduces such "fairy stalemates" is debatable.
| | | (4) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Apr 27, 2025 10:03] |
Of course it's debatable, we are here for debate (Kevin?! :-)
My argument is that conditions DO change the evaluation of a position.
They also change the set of allowed moves. And if this set happens
to be {} (Pacific+MustCapture) since conditions clash, the result
is stalemate since {} is the whole definition of stalemate. YMMV.
| | | (5) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 28, 2025 02:15] |
Was that the de-BAT-e signal?
You probably shouldn't have called me into this debate.
My philosophy: all is fair if 1) the rules are clear, or 2) unclarity in the rules is not your responsibility.
When it comes to problem chess, I don't believe there exists an inherently silly combination of fairy chess rules -- so long as all cases are clearly defined.
I once made a proofgame which used both Circe Equipollent and Anticirce Equipollent (*1).
If you understand those two conditions, you'll quickly appreciate that the two conditions do not combine well (in fact, they can't work together, unless the composer/inventor explains how to resolve rebirth priorities).
I explained how to resolve rebirth priorities, and I left a clear hint about the one special case where both conditions do work together.
If a combination of conditions can work, there's nothing inherently "silly" about conjoining the conditions, providing the composer (read: the default inventor of this combination) provides a clear and unambiguous resolution for any strange cases which might arise.
On this point, we can agree: failure to resolve special cases is definitely "silly."
The composer is responsible for providing clarity here, unless a problem journal editor saw fit to publish such a problem (in which case, that editor assumes responsibility to explain the rules).
*1) note: I only self-published that problem in this forum, in 2010 (not in a problem journal), to be certain I had room to explain the combination.
In fact, I thought the combination of conditions should be called "Super Equipollent Circe", despite the high likelihood these conditions will never be conjoined again.
This combination achieved a very fast Vallado Task + Ceriani-Frolkin Theme, doubled.
Is this sufficient justification for the strange combination?
That's for the audience to decide. In general, I'd learn towards NO (at first, I wasn't entirely happy with achieving this by this strange combination of conditions), but there's something I liked about the problem (and the strange combination); with hindsight, I am increasingly inclined to view its publication as a wise (not a silly) decision.
| | | (6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 28, 2025 04:35] |
Upon further reflection, I'd say there are two options:
1) the first condition stated takes precedent (this is the standard default rule) when you can't apply both conditions simultaneously, or
2) the result is stalemate (presumably a failure to achieve the aim) when you can't apply both conditions simultaneously.
There may be other interpretations (which I have failed to consider here), but these two options are the first I'd consider possible.
If the aim is stalemate (or double-stalemate), deciding the correct (intended) resolution becomes more difficult (unless it's somehow obvious to guess, I suppose).
If the aim is not stalemate (or double-stalemate), I might guess the solver's task is to guarantee that the problem doesn't end (in stalemate) prior to achieving the aim.
But, what if the solver can achieve the aim using the first interpretation (assuming precedent of conditions applies when they encounter a position which prohibits both conditions simultaneously)?
Since the author/editor failed to explicitly state how to treat any position which doesn't allow both conditions (simultaneously), I'd guess the problem should be considered busted (by the failure to state the rules governing this combination of conditions) IFF (if, and only if) it can be busted with an alternative interpretation.
That's the risk for composers/editors who fail to clearly state special case rules governing a custom combination of fairy conditions which may be incompatible in some cases.
And they -- the inventors of this combination, not the solvers! -- should pay for such failures.
| | | (7) Posted by Bojan Basic [Wednesday, Apr 30, 2025 12:13] |
QUOTE
Consequent logic dictates this side is stalemated as soon their set of moves does not contain only moves of same length.
So, I still do not agree with this. The definition of Maximummer says that a side is compelled to choose among geometrically longest legal moves, where the legality is determined with respect to the orthodox sense or any other fairy condition(s) present. Therefore, if both Maximummer and Minimummer are given, the algorithm is as follows: ignore Maximummer for a moment, make a list of legal moves for what remains (which is, in this case, just Minimummer), and then you are forced to make one of the longest moves from such a list. (And here in particular, the list will consist of all the shortest orthodox moves, and thus, by this procedure, the conclusion is that you can make any of them.)
However, the Minimummer has analogous definition, and if we now try to apply the same algorithm but focusing on Minimummer, we end up with (possibly different) list of available moves. But the point is, if those lists indeed differ, what we are looking for is not their intersection. If two (or more) fairy conditions have conflicting effects, the solution often depends on the order of applying them (as Kevin also says, and I agree). There are actually some interesting problems where twins are builded by reversing the priority of the featured fairy conditions—but I do not really recall some problems where the intended interpretation is that only moves that belong to the intersection of both lists are allowed. For example: wPa6, bPb7, Circe + Anticirce (type Calvet). The move axb7(wPb2,bPb7) is possible only if first the Anticirce rebirth is resolved, and then the Circe rebirth. On the other hand, the move axb7(wPb2) (without the rebirth of the bPb7) is possible only in the opposite case. In my opinion, both interpretations are fine (as long as it is known which of them is in effect), but I would find it really strange to claim that both these moves are forbidden because they do not satisfy both interpretations simultaneously.
This discussion reminds me of the following problem: https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/search.jsp?expression=PROBID=%27P0008520%27, which has, in my opinion, completely unacceptable logic. In that problem, it is claimed that Black is checkmated in a particular position, although it is certain that he has some defensive moves! The thing that, in that case, the solving convention does not pinpoint exactly which of those moves are possible and which are not (since they depend on the retroanalytical past of the position) cannot overpower the notorious fact that a position in which Black has defensive moves is not mate! I do not say that our case here is completely the same (to be honest, it is indeed more gray zone, while the problem just presented is, in my opinion, absolutely insupportable)—but I find a parallel in introducing some (stale)mates out of nowhere when we are not sure what to do.
| | | (8) Posted by Frank Richter [Wednesday, Apr 30, 2025 13:05] |
Small unthematic remark: For linking, the number of a problem in PDB can simply be appended to the general url - https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P0008520 works fine.
| | | (9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Apr 30, 2025 21:24] |
If a composer declares that a player is stalemated -- in the combination of Maximummer and Minimummer -- when ALL available moves are not of the same length, and that composer manages to achieve a long helpmate (not a helpstalemate, but a helpmate) in this condition, I'd consider that something of an achievement.
At any given position, yes, it's certainly true that the player on the move may select from all legal moves (the same as they could if there was no condition present).
However, the conditional combination still serves an important function in the problem (it's a MacGuffin condition -- the strategy is entirely dictated by conditional stalemate avoidance).
Under orthodox rules, that same helpmate may be solved in fewer moves (because both players would not be constrained to assure their counterpart obtains a position where all legal move have the same length).
Constraining conditions risk appearing to function only as cookstoppers for orthodox problems, but we've all seen talented composers achieve amazing results with constraining conditions (where the constraints appear to produce strategies totally foreign to orthodox chess logic).
There's always a risk with constraining conditions, but it's foolish to prejudge the combination inherently silly without investing time researching what remarkable ideas might be achieved.
Maybe this conditional combination leads to some interesting results (I'd be curious to know: what's the longest helpmate achievable in this condition?).
Constraining conditions are a risky venture for composers. If you manage to achieve a reasonably challenging solve, with even a slightly interesting thematic result, from such a time investment, it can already feel like a major victory.
Personally, I'm not inclined toward constraining conditions (for the same reason I'm not inclined to investigate orthodox problems with stalemate aims: I find such problems require too much effort to discover paradoxical possibilities slightly above abosolute banality), but I'm always amazed when a talented composer proves to me that watching paint dry can be a delightful experience. Amazing artistry can emerge from conditions which require enormous risk and devotion, if you are willing to endure prolonged periods of writer's block.
Easier to capture Spring with Picasso's palette than find a mildly interesting chess paradox (I'm not talking about some nominal thematic paradox that's lost in the alphabet soup -- I mean something the solver genuinely considers paradoxical) using a stalemate aim and some constraining fairy conditions.
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Very silly condition combination |
|
|
|
ISC 2025
