[Retros] Actualization of Retro-active states

[Guus Rol]

Thank you, Kevin! I do have the feeling that some of my recent stuff makes
boring reading even though it covers essential subjects. In my book I
will nsert ample concrete examples but I havn't got them print-ready yet at
this stage. No good story beats real compositions. I think its is also time
to insert a message on my "vocabulary". Since it evolves chapter by
chapter. one easily loses track of the relationships between the concepts
and terms presented. It is strange that a subject that is so clear in my
head, requires so many concepts and terms to communicate.

Best wishes, Guus Rol.

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com> wrote:

> Very good chapter, Guus.
>
>
>
>  On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Guus Rol <grol33 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Dear retro friends,
>>
>> The most important aspect of the retro-active field - from the viewpoint
>> of composer and solver - is the manifestation or actualization of
>> retro-active states. At such a time an uncenrtainty regarding a
>> retro-active state converts to a certainty. Example, the uncertainty of
>> having "no castling rights" converts to the certainty of "having no
>> castling rights". If you read the Codex plus its explications you would get
>> the idea there is only one way in which a retro-active condition becomes an
>> actual state in play and that is by executing the corresponding action
>> move, i.e. castling or en passant. On closer inspection this appears quite
>> a long way from the truth on actualizations.
>>
>> The Codex has a small vocubulary to support its view which centers around
>> "permissions". The term "permission" is highly suitable to describe the
>> basic conventions, like the "permission to castle" or "no permission to
>> play e.p.", or even "no permission to draw on 3R unless proven". In
>> their native forms, these "permissions" or "no permissions" take on a
>> permanent and untouchable status in relation to certain isolated events on
>> a chess board. The Codex has attempted to extend that idea of permanence in
>> "permissions" to the "Retro Logics" but such hides the true nature of
>> retro-active states once they become entangled. And so the Codex reads on
>> mutually exclusive castling in RS (retro-strategy) "*whichever castling
>> is executed first is deemed to be permissible". *So I ask you, what was,
>> according to the Codex, the *state* of the "castling variable" before
>> the castling move was executed? Its authors would probably answer: such
>> doesn't matter a bit until the question of the castling action is raised.
>> That is like saying: the law on gravity doen't matter until you drop a
>> stone in a gravity field! There is and always was an enormous emphasis in
>> the Codex on the *visible actions* and little attention for the
>> invisible *states*, either "rights" or "no rights" alike. Not zero
>> attention since even with the current Codex some state analysis is required
>> for pRA variants.
>>
>> As I have argued in a previous chapter, the true nature of retro-active
>> states is that they are variable, uncertain or even "superpositioned". The
>> latter term is taken from quantum mechanics where several possible states
>> are often considered to exist simultaneously. The state we experience only
>> "actualizes" once measured and may be destroyed when measured directly. And
>> therefore rather than going by the Codex term *"permissions"* which
>> radiates an aura of permanence, I introduced the term *"license"* as an
>> uncertain right revokable at any time of measurement. The license is a
>> "state descriptor" which says (1) that a state is uncertain (2) what will
>> happen to the state when one attempts to measure it directly. Example.
>> where there is a license to castle then the state of the "castling
>> variable" can go either way but will for an instance change to "castling
>> right" when one attempts to castle.
>>
>> The focus on states and low visibility brings many more options for
>> actualization in view than existing in the current Codex, even in or near
>> Orthodox chess. Some of my favorite actualizations come from AP-logic.
>> Rather than going with the move-oriented approach of the Codex - e.p. move
>> justified by castling move - one can go one level up to the state oriented
>> approach - e.p. actualization justified by castling actualization. Did you
>> know one can construct this even in orthodox chess without ever playing an
>> e.p. move or playing a castling move? Or you can mix them up in 4 different
>> combinations of moves and indirect state changes. That result is only to be
>> expected. Would not the law of gravity be more powerful than the action of
>> a stone falling through it? Examples will be given when AP-logic is treated
>> later.
>>
>> In the common RS field there are also pretty obvious examples of state
>> actualizations with a low profile. Andrew at one time stated that one need
>> not care about the state of an e.p. move since it could not be executed
>> anyway (unless 100% certain). However in a reflex mate problem, not playing
>> e.p. on the first move (which would have mated) results in a certainty of
>> the state of "no e.p. right". The state actualization of "no e.p. right"
>> may lead in turn to a further state actualization of an entangled "no
>> castling right" which affects the remaining part of the solution. Another
>> example is "temporary e.p. rights elevation" (better term than "rights
>> promotion" which I used previously). If denying all e.p. rights in a
>> diagram would result in "no proof game", then at least one e.p. move must
>> be allowed. Actually, for lack of preference rules, all possible e.p. moves
>> must be permitted at that point. An example on castling actualization
>> without castling move:is by twice repeating a position with King and Rook
>> on home squares, e.g. Ke1-e2,x,Ke1,-x,Ke2,x,Ke1,-x. Even though a castling
>> right is destroyed, this sequence also proves a former state of "castling
>> right". By  inference another castling right may have been lost with impact
>> on the solution.
>>
>> These are not all the examples in orthodox chess and certainly not in
>> fairy chess. The intent of this message is to indicate that there is a more
>> generic way of strategically employing state actualizations than suggested
>> by the "move permission" angle of the Codex. This will pave the way for
>> understanding the Retro-logics in the fairy domain which could not never be
>> captured by superficial case (by case) laws.
>>
>> Best wishes, Guus Rol.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://one.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20140709/41f84837/attachment.html>