[Retros] The paradigmic divide on (retro) Rules and Conventions
kevinjbegley at gmail.com
Mon Jun 16 19:24:39 EDT 2014
*ps: If I anyone is to believe that you believe in your own sentence, then
it has to read like this: *
"Had ['the scribes'] done their job, the *'selection rules'* would have
never been inappropriately named 'conventions.'
*Not like this: *
"Had ['the scribes'] done their job, the conventions would have never been
named 'conventions' but probably something more appropriate like 'selection
*See the difference? You don't explicitly tell a reader that "a kettle"
should not be called "a kettle," and then blame it on **leprechauns. *
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>
> This is beginning to read like a deliberately bad parody.
> *"Had ['the scribes'] done their job, the conventions would have never
> been named 'conventions' but probably something more appropriate like
> 'selection rules'." *
> Let's break that down...
> 1) The function of "the scribes" *was *to copy, read amend, explain, and
> protect the law.
> 2) Because they did not perform their function, your disfavored jargon
> ("retro conventions") gained the upper hand over your preferred jargon
> ("retro selection rules"). and
> 3) The reader is given absolutely zero cause to care about either term.
> In fact, the reader has probably lost all reason to care, because this
> author has been carelessly inventing terminology (e.g., the Digital Boards
> Theory, where the word "digital" reads like the worst assault on logic ever
> performed, in the interest of obtaining a meaningless acronym).
> You keep describing the bread, in terms that no reader need care, as if to
> avoid discussing what's between the slices.
> Forget the scribes, and worry about your function: explain what is the
> significant difference in your approach, and persuade readers why they
> should want to consider it.
> Lovecraft managed to describe Cthulhu, without any need to waste time
> developing an aimless jargon. Steinbeck would not have lamented so long
> about the hard row that the tumbleweeds of his own jargon must hoe.
> If your approach might actually constitute an improvement, why have you
> deliberately hidden it away in useless jargon? I can endure the fog only
> for a purpose, and you have yet to show any product.
> Let's cut to the quick...
> 1) pour what you have into a shot glass.
> 2) let the reader sample it, and
> 3) only then, will anyone care to read about your distillation process.
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Guus Rol <grol33 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear retro-friends,
>> You will have noticed that there exist no uniform agreement on the
>> understanding of the relationship between Rules (Laws) and Conventions in
>> the retro-field. I will give my view on where the schism originates and
>> what it entails primarily. On this level of abstraction I do not expect to
>> deliver irrefutable proof or conceptual superiority. I only invite you to
>> evalute both approaches on the basis of their effectiveness and expansive
>> The "other" paradigm is based on a common understanding of the concept
>> "Convention". An appropriate definition may be (Mirriam Websters): *A
>> custom or a way of acting or doing things that is widely accepted and
>> followed. *May be a similar description will be found somewhere in the
>> rule books and explanations by FIDE and WFCC. In such an environment, the
>> conventions will obviously give way to everything published under the more
>> formal headings of approved "Laws", "Rules" and "Regulations". It is also
>> predictable that such a starting point would generate the ideas that
>> are currently prevalent in the retro community.
>> "My paradigm" is fundamentally different. It didn't come from reading
>> every bit of law and jurisprudence to be found but from studying the
>> subject of retro-analysis and more in particular of retro-activity (retro
>> uncertainties) through its architecture. I found that - without the
>> conventions - the subject lacked an essential command & control structure
>> necessary to bridge the gap between retro-problem and "FIDE law". I
>> concluded that a rigid formal decisioning system was needed, operating not
>> in contention with "FIDE law" but performing a distinct reduction task all
>> of its own. Strange enough, the commands in this control system were more
>> or less the same as could be found in what regulatory bodies had
>> baptized "Conventions". *This left me with no other option than
>> to redress the underprivileged conventions to their mandatory role
>> of "controllers of the retro-active universe"*. In my view, this is
>> what should have been done by the scribes of the these conventions in the
>> first place from a true understanding of the nature of the retro-field. Had
>> they done their job, the conventions would have never been named
>> "conventions" but probably something more appropriate like "selection
>> rules". And may be they would have written some conventions alongside of
>> them on subjects that truly begged for "widely accepted customs"..
>> There is much more to say about this paradigmic schism as the gap gets
>> wider when the application scope gets larger. If you read my first post
>> on "the basics of the relationship between rules and conventions" (actually
>> the 2nd one by that name) you can find the difference on the chess board
>> already on the first page. It is up to you to chose. And you can always
>> change your mind, of course.
>> Best wishes, Guus Rol.
>> Retros mailing list
>> Retros at janko.at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Retros