# [Retros] Solidarity Chess (=SC)

Kevin Begley kevinjbegley at gmail.com
Fri Dec 21 02:09:42 EST 2012

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:01 PM, afretro <afretro at yandex.ua> wrote:

> Naturally, in orthodox chess there can be only three outcomes: White wins;

> Black wins; drawn. But in fairy chess – why not have a fourth, fifth, etc,

> type of outcome?

Theoretically, fairy chess should easily allow for the construction of new
goals, based upon logically combinations of existing aims...

For example,
h#\=2 : help [checkmate-or-stalemate] in 2.
(This is Win Chloe Notation, the popeye equivalent is: h#=2.
I prefer something akin to Win Chloe's logical notation here -- seems more
logical to use, | for OR, & for AND -- but, Win Chloe's notation is not
always consistent.
The inconsistency across software is also troubling. In Win Chloe, h#=2
signifies: help [checkmate-or-possibility to capture of the enemy King] in
2.)

h+(3)#2 : help [triple-check-and-mate] in 2.
(Again, Win Chloe notation, I find no popeye equivalent -- and, I'd prefer
"+(3)&#")

It is, of course, also possible to invent new aims; but, this requires
delicate consideration.

Things get fuzzy when you introduce alternate strategies of play, such as
reflexmates, and semi-reflexmates.
There are powerful arguments, made by some, that these are actually fairy
conditions (which restrict the opponent's movement, forcing the play of a
checkmate in 1, whenever possible).

In the latter case, I do not agree.
I prefer to view stipulations as recursive, which typically (and by
default) wind all the way down to completion of the ultimate aim (in this
case, white King stands mated).
[aside: it should also be possible to notate a halt in the recursion.]

I don't look at a semi-reflexmate as a fairy condition, but as a modified
goal, which is intended to be solved recursively (by default, down to the
ultimate aim).
The difference is, white's goal is not a traditional aim -- like mate "#",
or like capture "x" -- nor is white's goal a logically combinatorial aim --
like "#\=", or "+(3)#" (discussed above).
Instead, the goal is a layered stipulation unto itself.
In essence, no fairy condition is needed to describe the "semi-r#n" --
white is simply in pursuit of forcing a position in which black can satisfy
a "#1" stipulation, while black is simply resisting the goal (realization
of the layered stipulation).

However, the same can not be said of the full reflexmate.
Here, there is no denying that a simplistic recursive model fails to
describe the strategy; and, it becomes difficult to argue with those who
would characterize this stipulation as merely a selfmate, under some
implicit fairy condition (with a reflexive #1 property).

The truth is, a reflexive fairy condition does a poor job of describing
what is really intended to be a description of a considerably more complex
motivation (for both players).

And, this does pertain to your consideration of the possibility of a

Consider the case that neither you, nor I, can force selfmate upon the
another.
If that were the intended objective of our game, we might consider this a
draw.
Or, as you have eluded, we might sub-parse the outcome, based upon a more
complex algorithm.
For example, we might define a weighted set of possible outcomes...
s#1 : 1 full point,
ideal stalemate : 0.875 points,
stalemate : 0.75 points,
none of the above: 0.5 points.

In such cases, the play may become extremely complex -- and the strategy
may become exceedingly subtle (to the point of mystifying)!
Sometimes, you may be able to jockey threats of a higher outcome, to secure
the best outcome. Other times, you may need to settle for the direct route
(in which case, it may beg the question: why define a complicated array of
weighted outcomes?).

The complexity of playing for weighted stipulation, I dare say, might (at
times) rival even that of the 3D chessboard!
A game for the mentats.

Beyond that, it requires some complicated notation, to describe the
objective.

If you really want to consider such possibilities, I would recommend trying
to first establish some highly logical weighted set of outcomes.
Maybe based upon varying types of mates (ideal, model, just mate, draw).
I'd give it some careful thought.
Once this is well established, try to stick with reuse of the known
algorithm (for simplicity).

I'd be very interested to see where this goes!

Kevin.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20121220/8c462945/attachment.htm>