[Retros] On the Jumanji convention

[Alexander George]

For some other thoughts about Article 16 and Werner Keym's discussion  
of it, you might be interested in my recent post in ChessProblem.net:

http://chessproblem.net/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=290

Regards,

Alexander George



On Dec 30, 2008, at 6:00 AM, Rol, Guus wrote:


>

>

> The new article 16 in the Codex - section (3) of which I baptized  

> tongue

> in cheek as "the Jumanji convention" - offers loads of material for

> discussion. Werner Keym's clarification in the Retro Corner provides  

> the

> necessary background for its correct application. Careful reading

> reveals that it provides not just one but two new meta-rules

> (meta-conventions if you like), a fancy term for describing "rules  

> about

> rules". The first one says that "depending on rights analysis one must

> apply either the RS or the PRA approach to solving the problem", the

> second one that "in some of these cases the choice for RS or PRA  

> further

> depends on which one provides the most technically correct and content

> rich solution to the problem". For the sake of simplicity one wonders

> why not just one these meta-rules would suffice to achieve the  

> objective

> of article 16 section (3). The author explains that choosing between  

> the

> RS and PRA approach in mutually exclusive castling situations has  

> proven

> to be self-evident, but he omits claiming why this is not true for the

> other right combinations. Actually, I am pretty sure the choice is  

> just

> as easy there and there is always the escape route in the RS/PRA

> addition to the stipulation. Example IV (Ceriani) shows "2 mutually

> exclusive castlings (black and white) and one e.p". Is this so  

> different

> from showing "1 white castling mutually exlusive with either of the

> black castlings" or "2 mutually exclusive white castlings and an e.p.

> move" that it warrants treatment by a different meta-rule? No, it is

> not, and anyone new to this field would immediately agree to that.  

> Which

> points us to the political source of the distinction. In retro chess

> history "mutually exclusive castling", like Excalibur after many

> battles, has become the pre-eminent mythical retro-object, apparently

> deserving of a deus ex machina convention all of its own. This is even

> stranger when you consider that article 16, section (1) just by itself

> generates the mutually exclusive castling phenomenon without the

> slightest need to ever identify such a relationship. The new article  

> 16,

> with its historical ballast, will only contaminate the logical  

> character

> of the retro-space by inserting an arbitrary distinction and this may

> deter potential participants in composing and solving retro-problems.

>

> Article 16, section (3) has been named "the PRA convention", probably

> since it reintroduced the obsoleted PRA term. I will not discuss the

> rationale behind the renovated terminolgy at this point, but it should

> be noted that section (3) is mainly dedicated to "the separation of RS

> and PRA logics". The pendulum has swung from the mundane mind (the  

> what

> you can get away with RS-logic) to the scientific mind (the  

> conditional

> truth PRA/RV-logic). In doing so, once again the opportunity has been

> missed for a principle based generic approach to the logics. PRA has

> been specifically restricted to handle the castling and e.p. cases  

> only,

> ignoring the potential of repetition and 50M rules/conventions. More

> importanly, it does not consider the scalability of retro-logics into

> fairy-areas. Look e.g. at the implications of evaluating  "castling

> rights" in Circe in conjunction with the resurrection of rooks! Not

> mentioning "variable pieces" or "fuddled men" etc which will totally

> take your head off. Isn't it funny that most of the chess rules are

> comfortably replicated across the fairy-domain, but when it comes to

> transforming the retro-logics, the required toolkit seems to be

> completely missing?

>

>

> Guus Rol.

>

>

>

>

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----

> Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] Namens

> Otto Janko

> Verzonden: vrijdag 26 december 2008 18:00

> Aan: Retros

> Onderwerp: [Retros] Update if the Retro Corner

>

> Dear Retro Friend,

>

> The Retro Corner has been updated today:

>

> . Stuttgarter Zeitung, Christmas Contest, 2008

>

> . "Partial Retrograde Analysis" and "Retro Strategy" in the modified

> Codex (by Werner Keym, Meisenheim)

>

> More updates will follow in the next few days.

>

> Best Regards,

>

> - Otto Janko [mailto:otto at janko.at] [http://www.janko.at]

> -- Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,

> - will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. [Benjamin Franklin]

>

> _______________________________________________

> Retros mailing list

> Retros at janko.at

> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

> _______________________________________________

> Retros mailing list

> Retros at janko.at

> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros