[Retros] The paradigmic divide on (retro) Rules and Conventions

Tue Jun 17 16:20:24 EDT 2014

Guus,

Fair points... I'm still along for the ride, and keeping an open mind.
I just wanted to share some growing impatience for the way in which you
have organized your material -- I'm anxious to see where it is that we may
be heading, and you seem to continually bury your lead story).

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Buchanan <andrew at anselan.com>
wrote:

> Hi Guus,
>
>
>
> Since 5-May there have been at least 120 mails, many of them very long, on
> this subject in the Retro Analysis Mailing List. I am still trying to catch
> up, following my business trip to USA when this dialogue opened. Would it
> be possible for you to identify the ones that properly make all the points
> you summarize below? Or pull together the key paragraphs into a single note
> right away?
>
>
>
> In particular, what was this e.p. mate that I apparently made which is
> causing me so much pain & trouble now?
>
>
>
> I did read one email “The basics of the relationship between Laws and
> Conventions”, which began in the right way, by saying that the we start
> with the game, and look at how to adapt it to compositions. But your model
> seemed to be missing the concept of position as a first class object,
> although you mentioned it in an aside. You are just dealing with piles of
> billions of partial games. It may be more abstract, but it’s messy and
> inefficient.
>
>
>
> You and I really have different aesthetics, it is becoming increasingly
> clear:
>
> (1)    I **like** what you term the “classical indeterminacies” under RS.
> They are really neat. They are the logical consequence of dealing with a
> composition defined for a diagram rather than a game. That’s the way the
> world is, and it’s beautiful.
>
> (2)    And conversely, it is wrong that a convention should cause an open
> position to become a stalemate, or some other pathological interaction with
> the Laws. It’s no longer chess.
>
> (3)    I don’t want to “marginalize” conventions, but in my perspective
> they are the big guns, to be used sparingly. I want chess retro analysis to
> proceed as far as I can until we need the convention for the critical final
> steps in reasoning.
>
> (4)    I agree that there has been a dearth of hard logical reasoning and
> sensible abstraction applied to the rules/convention space over the
> decades. I do not see evidence that your own approach is the only way to do
> it cleanly. I’ve started to do some mathematical modelling, but I am at
> least 80 emails behind you.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew.
>
>
>
> *From:* Retros [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] *On Behalf Of *Guus Rol
> *Sent:* 18 June 2014 01:25
> *To:* The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [Retros] The paradigmic divide on (retro) Rules and
> Conventions
>
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
>
>
> I am glad you understood the message I tried to get across even when you
> consider it badly constructed. Some (but not most) of my language is
> lighthearted and not designed to withstand semantic disection. As I do not
> hold the work of the Codex committee in great esteem, I set out to describe
> it as produced by  "scribes". Why I consider "selection rules" more
> appropriate than "conventions" you can read in my first article on the
> Rules and Conventions. Since the retro conventions are really about
> "selecting games" rather than about "permitting moves" in my paradigm there
> is nothing arbitrary about the choice of this term. But alternative
> suggestions are always welcome. None of my terminology is designed to be
> definitive, it only serves to separate distinct ideas and operations. But
> there will be many rewrites before all this is in my book..
>
>
>
> You have not noticed what my first 3 articles have delivered but it is
> really quite a lot. All that is seen are the straight lines from cause to
> effect but the collateral damage caused to crooked competing theories
> is easily overlooked. To name just a few:
>
>
>
> 1. It makes an end to all attempts to marginalize the retro-conventions in
> relation to laws and rules.
>
> 2. It states that the conventions are not "sweets for the kids" but a
> mandatory requirement in every form of chess supporting the retro-field
> both orthodox and fairy. If you read discussions e.g. on "disparate chess"
> you can see them all rendered futile under this dictate. Just add the
> required conventions to any fairy type as was done to orthodox chess.
>
> 3. By reordering the time-relation between conventions and laws -
> conventions before the laws instead of after - all classical
> indeterminicies are gone. Famously, Andrews example with a "possible" e.p.
> move plus mate is resolved instantly, and with it many similar situations.
>
> 4. These principles delivered a step by step approach to the status of
> 3R (conventional) automation and 3R claimed draws. Plus its final
> resolution. More importantly, it poses serious questions to anyone choosing
> to deny its conclusions.
>
> 5. The demand for a retro Rule Book was established and some of its
> content defined. This need not worry anyone as a theory claiming the power
> to handle fairies, could be expected to easily manage a few amendments to
> orthodox chess laws.
>
> 6. Anybody with a mathematical mind can see the portential of an approach
> that replaces case based static conventions by generic and dynamic first
> order logic. It eradicates the influence of uncomputable opinion and
> authority based "expertise". Finally there is a window towards transparent
> and provable conclusions.
>
>
>
> You may not agree to all this but I suggest that these few points
> already comprise bigger changes to the retro field than ever proposed
> before. You complain that I always promise to write more later and such is
> true. But I also leave no post without setting a little concrete step
> forward. That it may take some time to reach my destination is all due to
> Albert Einstein: *"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but
> no simpler".*
>
>
>
> Best wishes, Guus Rol.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Guus,
>
>
>
> 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
> capability.
>
>
>
> 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
> 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/20140617/2ebe8b3e/attachment-0001.html>