[Retros] ch 6: Retro Strategy and "Quantum entanglement"
grol33 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 24 14:17:08 EDT 2014
When it comes to the question of what is liked or disliked in the
retrograde field, there is quite a strong correlation with the choice of
retro-logic. Almost everyone in the field bows to pure retro-analytics and
is "grown up" with it. pRA has many fans as well, though it raises
questions on how the splitting criteria are set. Past that stage, all
assignments solve like transparent orthodox chess problems. Quite a lot
more resistance is encountered with RS-stipulations where uncertainty
becomes a beast on a tiny leash. And finally, A.P-logic sets the mind
floating. No analysis seems to explain or justify it properly beyond a thin
coating of superficial human language.
This situation is not dissimilar to the Goal-logics in orthodox chess. Many
chess players will like the challenge of a direct #3 but disconnect once
you present them with a helpmate. That's not chess! Paradoxically,two
traditionally opposing human attributes coincide here: "logic equals
emotion". This is one reason why I don't like the current Codex mixing them
up. Why confront solvers who hate Retro-Strategy with the instruction to
co-apply it with pRA-logic to retro-diagrams?
To gain popularity for the RS and AP types, a necessary step is to enhance
the "feeling connection" by potential composers and solvers. Ways in which
that can be done is to make them more *real *and present proper *justification
scenarios. *This post focusses on the reality aspect
The world in which we are living is, as of the 20th century, no longer a
simple detemrministic one. Uncertainty has entered on the atomic and
subatomic levels. It struck me some years ago that there is a great
similarity between the phenomenon of "Quantum entanglement" and Retro
Strategy. I do believe it is not purely incidental and there is probably an
underlying information principle. If so, may be Retro Strategy is much more
like the real world than pRA would like us to believe. By the way, Albert
Einstein believed that "Quantum entanglement" was so strange that exposing
it would finally topple Quantum Physics (which he opposed) but it never
did. On the contrary, its findings and predictions were confirmed and the
theory stands as tall as ever.
"Quantum entanglement" is about particles which have certain
characteristics that can be described for the pair (or more particles) but
not for individual particles, e.g. position, momentum or spin. Measurements
done on one particle also seem to affect the state of the second particle
as if it knows about the measurement.on its twin. This creates the
potential to bypass the famous "Heisenberg uncertainty principle". By
measuring - and destroying - the state (position and momentum) of one
particle, the state of the twin particle can be exactly determined.
Retro-Strategy displays the same phenomena. Going back to the classic case
(though there are many others) - mutually exclusive castling - we
recognize two entangled castling rights. You know they are entangled but
you can only determine any right by seeing it destroyed first - as with the
quantum measurements. The second you know that Black has castling right, it
is already gone. On the other hand, you now do know the state of the twin
castling right, being that it is not there! Which is OK, since all you want
to achieve is to know about it, not play it. This is how states in
Retro-Strategy become revealed without being destroyed, and this is what
makes RS interesting.
Your natural criticism will be that we did not really "measure" castling
right in RS but we acted it out (played it).The answer to that brings us to
another aspect of the RS-justification which I will address in a separate
post. The general outline is that we - in the absence of actual physical
laws and actual chess games - perform a role play where we are sometimes
"the law" and sometimes "the observer". Or "witness" as some logics will
I doubt that RS is much more real to you after the preceding paragraphs,
but probaby Quantum Mechanics wasn't very real to you either. You may
however be willing to consider that, if Quantum Mechanics is widely
accepted as a model of reality on the (sub)atomic level, there is something
to be said for accepting a similar logic system to approach Retro-Strategy
which must deal with comparable uncertainties.
Finally, I have some good news. You probably worried about having to
follow courses in Nuclear Physics before continuing your retro work. The
reverse is happening. UCLA just announced that admission fees for
Mathematics and Physics courses hae been halved for accomplished retroists.
They are expected to fly through their studies and bring pride and fame to
this respected College. ;-)
Best wishes, Guus Rol.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Retros