[Retros] Ch5: Place of the Retro Logics

[Kevin Begley]

>" They came to understand through reflection and experimentation that new
players are critical to the game, and now ensure that barriers to entry and
retention are as low as possible. In particular, they have taken a lot of
care to craft their rules very thoroughly, and put in place a smooth
learning curve with no bumps."

Andrew,

On this point, we might agree...
MtG has done some things well -- particularly in how they have worked to
establish a clear and logical set of base rules (orthodoxy) upon which all
variants of the game might easily depend.

Moreover, they have targeted this material specifically at an audience of
complete beginners.
By developing an intelligent classification system, they have significantly
reduced the study required, to achieve a practical expertise in
understanding the rules of their game.

On these fronts, I wish Problem Chess could say the same... we would be
wise to make analogous improvements.

WFCC has reserved authority, by charter, to establish an independent
orthodoxy, and to promote this, with a complete (and independent) Codex;
 by ownership of this document, WFCC derives authority to sanction those
fairy elements which are well defined, and properly classified (read: they
may encourage elements which promote the integrity of their orthodoxy, and
of our art form).
The only trouble is getting WFCC delegates to admit that the rules for
problems are necessarily unique, with respect to the FIDE game rules. It is
not easy to assuage their fears that our ship will drift away, if not
anchored to FIDE... that titles will still be there for those who favor the
FIDE Chess canvas, even after all the unfair bias recedes.

If you want to draw analogies to MtG.... consider this:
The card manufacturers are the default governing body for MtG (like our
WFCC, except they are elected by dollar votes).
They are required to oversee that the cards manufactured serve the interest
of preserving game integrity (in accord with the healthy set of base-rules,
which they have labored to produce).
They have plenty of resources, and plenty of motivation to perform this
function (they net more than $800M in annual revenues, from North America
alone).

By comparison, our WFCC has been completely negligent in addressing the
manufacture of elements, by individuals, within the problem chess "game."
 Any cowboy can create a new fairy condition (or a new fairy unit, or a new
stipulation,  a new aim, etc), without any regard to preserving the
integrity of the base-rules (or the "game").
Imagine if you could print your own MtG cards... imagine if you were
required to license the base rules from an organization with a unique
charter, which had no interest in your need to preserve consistency, in
order to maintain the integrity of your game...

In fact, by default, WFCC has no base rule -- our orthodoxy has been at the
mercy of a game federation's rules, beyond our influence -- the best we can
do is whine when GM Short suggests that the game might improve if stalemate
were an equivalent result to checkmate. Furthermore, we have no logical
classification system to sort the types of new cards produced, and nobody
can produce a clear definition for the sub-divisions within our own FIDE
Album (the very sub-divisions which we pin, as ribbons, upon every Judge's
badge, carry absolutely no legal meaning... and our Judges aren't even
observant enough to notice).

Absolutely, we problem enthusiasts could substantially benefit from the
engineering of a stable framework, similar to that built by MtG -- from an
unambiguous set of base-rules, which every beginner can quickly understand
...
Though our resources to achieve this are far more limited, there is no
reason we can not begin the process...

But, in the midst of this struggle, comes your suggestion...
You say we should attach "timestamps" to our base rules, as a means to
stipulate FIDE's evolving set of game rules.
The FIDE game is NOT an orthodox base, by any means, regardless how
frequently people confuse the two concepts.
There is a reason that the WFCC charter spells out its proper authority to
create an independent set of base rules.

What you have suggested is exactly the wrong policy -- it would bring only
unnecessary chaos to Problem Chess.

You and I both well know that your timestamps would actually serve only as
a hidden set of rules.  For what foul purpose would you want to
deliberately hide the rules of a problem, in a timestamp?
And, by what delusional motivation should we desire to burden ourselves
with supporting rules for chess problems, according to the time of day, at
publication?
Think hard... the only answer you can possibly offer to these questions:
 we would burden ourselves with changes in the FIDE rule book, in order to
facilitate the illusion that Problem Chess is in complete agreement with
the game.

We do not have the resources to support a constant rewrite of the
definitions for all fairy elements (which are sure to be destructively
impacted, every time the game federation improves their rule book, for the
purpose of their own unique charter).

This is exactly what MtG has worked to avoid -- the card manufacturers have
labored to produce a consistent framework (read: a set of unambiguous,
orthodox base rules), in order to avoid the torture they might suffer if
individual manufacturers were allowed to play shell games with new cards.

Intellectual Property is what grants them sanctioning authority, to stay
true to the consistent framework they have labored to produce.
You may devise and print new cards, to your heart's content, but until they
are sanctioned (read: until it is determined that they preserve the
integrity of the base rules, and the game), they will essentially
constitute a separate game.

WFCC has the responsibility to oversee a similarly consistent framework,
and the potential to exercise an identical sanctioning authority.
What they lack is sufficient resources, or financial motivation, to invest
in producing such material.
...and they apparently also lack the foresight to ask for help.

The key difference, which you can not deny, is that Problem Chess has no
profit motivation.
We do not sell fairy elements, and thus we profit nothing in laboring to
support an artificial expiration regimen.
We do not have the resources to support a constant upheaval in the
definition of our fairy elements -- which is exactly what would occur, if
we adopt your suggestion to declare rules according to a timestamp placed
on our base rules.

The position you are actually advocating is that we allow constant
expiration of our base rules, in order to create the illusion of parity
with one federation's game rules.

FIDE has only authority to sanction the framework of their variant of the
chess game.
Problem Chess has an independent orthodoxy, which predates FIDE by several
centuries, from which we can always leverage to represent the varying FIDE
rule books.

Best,
 Kevin.

ps: Boredom comes from within (same place from whence your MtG analogies
spring).





On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Andrew Buchanan <andrew at anselan.com> wrote:

> Kevin,
>
>
>
> You are still missing my intended point completely, despite the numerous
> emails you have sent back on the subject today.
>
>
>
> I am not interested in assessing whether Chess (game or problem world) is
> “superior” to Magic. I am not interested in judging the moral rectitude of
> companies who manufacture Magic, Harry Potter, or for that matter World or
> Warcraft or League of Legends.
>
>
>
> So let me restate my point for clarity. It’s about the challenge presented
> by the maturing of the chess problemist population. We might learn from
> another commercial organization dealing with a recreational artefact of
> comparable complexity to chess problems. After a decade of decline, they
> have reaped new success in the last 4-5 years. They came to understand
> through reflection and experimentation that new players are critical to the
> game, and now ensure that barriers to entry and retention are as low as
> possible. In particular, they have taken a lot of care to craft their rules
> very thoroughly, and put in place a smooth learning curve with no bumps.
>
>
>
> Enough already with this particular rabbit-hole - it’s getting boring.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew.
>
>
>
> *From:* Retros [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] *On Behalf Of *Kevin
> Begley
> *Sent:* 21 June 2014 16:40
>
> *To:* The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [Retros] Ch5: Place of the Retro Logics
>
>
>
> final point:
>
>
>
> The Phenix of mythology is a story that was freely shared, for
> generations, for some mutually beneficial (generally moral) purpose.
>
> The fantasy creature contained in the volumes of Harry Potter is something
> that was sold to you, repeatedly, for profit.
>
>
>
> If you don't already know which of these must continue to endure, at least
> one card in your deck must have expired.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Speaking of timestamps... do you know why MtG cards expire, Andrew?
>
> I think you'll discover the reason, if you read carefully the information
> contained in the link I suggested -- but, you really needn't read that, to
> know...
>
> The answer is plainly obvious: the only expire because those who
> manufacturer cards (and sell licenses) want players to keep purchasing
> cards... even in vast excess of their needs, for the game!
>
>
>
> No such analogy exists with Problem Chess.
>
> Fairy units do not expire, and nobody wants to profit selling you a new
> fairy element.
>
> We have not profit motivation to timestamp our rules.
>
>
>
> So please, think more carefully before you suggest we take a MtG approach
> to problem chess.
>
>
>
> I actually do value your opinions about problem chess, Andrew, and it
> pains me to see you frequently offering suggestions from MtG, without
> understanding the damage they would do to problem chess.
>
>
>
> There are profound differences.
>
> I think it would do your analogies some good if you learn to see MtG from
> the "Intellectual Property" perspective -- I assure you, this is how it is
> seen by the folks who sold you every card you paid to add to your deck...
> and every card you paid to remove.
>
>
>
> MtG players never want to admit to having been commercially exploited...
> and pretty soon, the fish loses all sight of its own bowl... suddenly,
> their choices begin to be influenced by a need to obscure reality... they
> believe that the expiration rules of MtG are natural, for any game... why
> not put a timestamp on Dawson's grasshoppers, too?
>
>
>
> No license is required to enjoy problems in the Circe form.
>
> And, until you can claim the same about MtG, you should look carefully in
> the place you dare not look, and see the capitalists staring back from your
> every analogy.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I will say this...
>
>
>
> I wish Problem Chess had the same focus for creating a basic orthodoxy (a
> clear set of fundamental rules, which govern all types of variants, unless
> expressly altered).
>
> Hmm, if only WFCC could find a way to profit by peddling a fairy codex to
> children...
>
> Maybe WFCC should put a dragon on the cover...
>
>
>
> Regardless, you would expect that even the MtG pushers would know better
> than to litter their own cards with a profoundly absurd timestamp
> rule-mechanism.
>
> It should be self-evident that the rules governing an object (whether a
> pokemon card, a aMtG card, or even a variant chess game) should not be
> hidden in a timestamp.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> ps: in problem chess, we need not buy our pieces.
>
>
>
> Good luck selling Hasbro on the potential revenues in the MtG Problem
> market.
>
> You should read this:
> http://www.superdataresearch.com/content/uploads/2009/08/TCG2010.pdf
>
>
>
> The first thing you should note (if you don't already know): revenue was
> always the primary motivation for MtG.
>
> The second thing you should note:  the folks who have been playing MtG
> enthusiasts for suckers are actively seeking some means to draw revenue
> from solitary enthusiasts.
>
>
>
> Read that last statement carefully...
>
> The primary limitation on sales projections:  the suckers who purchase MtG
> can not find anyone to engage in active play.
>
> As a result, they discontinue the endless purchase of what are essentially
> pokemon cards.
>
>
>
> You want to know the only reason why MtG can not compete with chess
> problems?  Because Habro has found no way to make money selling takebacks!
>
>
>
> Do not make the mistake of comparing problem chess with such an absurd
> commercial endeavor, -- it only erodes your own credibility to profess to
> have been taken by their fantasy marketing pitch.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
>
>
> Magic (the Gathering) is, like FIDE chess, a game.
>
> If you want to compare the success of MtG, compare it with another game.
>
>
>
> Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLPiJHGZkJ0
>
> By comparison, MtG doesn't even have a decent parody.
>
>
>
> If you want to draw comparisons with problem chess, you must draw
> references to the problem form of MtG (which, I presume, you have yet to
> invent).  Good luck with that (I think you'll find that MtG doesn't much
> care for problems, as they do not represent an especially purchase-driven
> enterprise).
>
>
>
> I do sympathize with your enthusiasm for MtG.
>
> I will even concede that MtG may be wrongly perceived by popular culture
> (in all the same ways that Fairy Chess can be).
>
>
>
> But, the analogies you make, between MtG and Chess (or Problem Chess) are,
> well, a backfire of careless wizardry.
>
>
>
> As I understand it, the ratio of rules to cards, in MtG, is only
> compensated by a profound excess of cards.
>
> Its selling point is not even the game itself, it is in fact a
> misadventure of a game, which must masquerade as a dungeons and dragons
> fantasy, for the purpose of sales.
>
>
>
> You'll not find anybody seriously advocating for the benefits of teaching
> MtG in our schools.
>
> But, you'll find plenty of studies which suggest that there are benefits
> to chess problems.
>
>
>
> The best anyone can say about MtG:  children could be doing worse things...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140621/d94c883e/attachment-0001.html>