[Retros] "sound"

[Thomas Volet]

In a message dated 9/8/02 3:02:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
DoubleExclam at comcast.net writes: << If the rule changes to 60 moves, a
solver could correctly contend that the problem is unsound, because white
has a perfectly valid #2 even after the retro-analysis is considered. >> 
Only lf the solver wishes to use the word "unsound" in an uninformative way,
failing to distinguish between something correct when fashioned and
something incorrrect when fashioned.   
In legal matters, the necessity of knowing the prevailing law at the time an
act occurs is required in evaluating the legality of the act. If the act was
"legal" at the time it occurred, then that act, when committed, remains
"legal", even if the act would be illegal if committed now.  
Would one who thinks that a rule change can make a problem retroactively
unsound welcome the notion that something he did last year that was then
entirely legal could subject him to prosecution because subsequent law has
made the act illegal if committed today?  This kind of thing arises
regularly in everyday life (e.g., something as simple as smoking a cigarette
in a particular area in which smoking has since been prohibited), and we
rely on the persistence of the legality of the act in the past. 
Of course, problemists are free to reject the conclusions of, or analogy to,
contemporary jurisprudence, and to use "unsound" to denote compositions both
(i) flawed when composed and (ii) correct when composed but subject to a
change in rules.  
To such a problemist I would ask a small question:  How can one who holds
such a view ever call a problem "sound"?  After all, tomorrow's rule change
may render it "unsound".  (On the other hand, by the same reasoning, today's
flawed composition may become correct by virtue of a fortuitous rule change
tomorrow, which means that a problemist holding that view should take care
in declaring a problem "unsound" as well.)
Then again, one can say "sound given the current rules and conventions", or
"unsound given current rules and conventions".  But that is exactly what I
mean when I use the shorter formula "sound" or "unsound".   
Tom



Thomas Volet

Moses & Singer LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Direct Dial: 212-554-7824
Fax: 212-554-7700



************NOTE************ 
This message is being sent from a Law Firm and may contain CONFIDENTIAL or 
PRIVILEGED information.  If you are not the intended recipient, do not
printout, copy or 
distribute this message or any attachments.  Advise the sender immediately
by reply e-mail, 
and delete this message and attachments without retaining a copy.