[Retros] Actualization of Retro-active states

Wed Jul 9 22:04:50 EDT 2014

Guus,

 I find a fresh perspective in your thoughtful writing style -- so much so,
in fact, that I fear it might be lost, should you descend into the banal
descriptions about some tangential diagram!

 If you must resort to using a diagram, please, find an equally original
way to make it purposeful.
 I easily tire of reading about all things I can plainly see on a chess
board.

 I'm finding that most chess problem authors like to ramble on and on and
on about some simple idea which can be seen in the space of two moves.  I
don't much care how difficult and challenging the authors might claim (or
image) whatever glorious achievement holds their present interest -- I only
care to read what they can manage to describe!

 The ideas commonly found in diagrams would rarely merit the expense of a
single adverb.
 No wonder most chess problem books feature nothing but diagrams and
solutions, and prizes and numbers...
 No matter how we may long for the accompaniment of some intelligent text,
like a fool's cleverness, it generally turns out for the worse!

 Sometimes, I could swear that the only good and useful chess book I've
ever read was by GM Hans Ree.
 For those who know that most excellent book, recall how few diagrams it
contains.
 I could almost say the same about "Fermat's Enigma" (which is not entirely
a mathematics book), but in that case, I genuinely did yearn for more
equations, constantly, throughout;  plus, I've been through too many
wonderful math books...

 The point is: to the extent that your story is enhanced with diagrams (or
equations), treat your audience; otherwise, my advice is to continue
developing the sauce.
 Keep to the big picture, don't get lost describing the trivial effects in
a problem.
 By far, the most common mistake is to presume that an endless stream of
clever quips, coming from an attention-seeking narrator can help the viewer
to enjoy a live comedy show.

 I sometimes wonder in amazement: how many ways can a given problem chess
author make the banquet/feast analogy, and still pretend to expect that a
reader would salivate for all the baby-food described to arrive on the next
hundred spoons?

 I think you have much more interesting things to say, Guus;  and, though I
have no clue where you are leading us, I trust that readers are in good
hands (and expect nothing more than a fresh perspective). Whatever you do,
keep that.

 Kevin.

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Guus Rol <grol33 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140709/882d803f/attachment-0001.html>