[Retros] rights & ocassions / Tom, are you there?

[Guus Rol]

This is a recurring discussion. There is a FIDE ruling - though I can't
give you a precise reference - and there is a theoretical argument pointing
in the same direction of "static" interpretation of rights.

1. FIDE ruling. Shortly after a game between Fisher and Najdorf where
Fisher avoided the draw that might occur after Nd5-c7+ Ke8-e7 Nd5+ Ke8 Nc7+
Ke7 Nd5+ a FIDE congress or committee decided that a sequence such as as
this one would not result in a draw even if the black castling rights were
necessarily squashed by the first move Nc7+. Fisher raised the issue
himself since he considered gaining valuable time by inserting the second
repetition. Uncertain of the rules, he backed off after the first one.

2. "Undecidability". Dynamic interpetations lead to undecidable situations.
Take the original example in duplo (white to move):

White: Ke1, Rh1, Ph6
Black: Ke8, Rh8, Ph2

Note that both sides may have "castling rights" from the past. And note
that in the future of this position either Black or White may castle but
not both. Now play: Ke2, Ke7, Ke1, Ke8, Ke2, Ke7, Ke1, Ke8. Is this a draw?
Was it a draw before the last move? Though its is clear that one side could
never "have castled" in the future and therefore one King position must
have repeated into an automatic draw, it is impossible to state which one.
In an ordinary retro strategy problem one can always rely on finding a
proof game that will validate a possible or impossiible line of play. Here
however one compares 2 alternate future lines which are never part of the
same proof game. To be precise, after the first moves Ke2 and Ke7, we
already landed in games where both castlings are impossible. You can never
hope to find a timeline again connecting to either alternative when moving
from this point onward.

The static interpretation of castling rights in this example stays clear of
any difficulties. With 2 valid castlings rights in the diagram, the move
sequence completes without a draw and without questions. Even in a position
with mutually exclusive rights in the past, the overriding demand to have a
proof game always resolves repetition issues.

Or to put the result into a "meta rule": Avoid game rules based on (future)
game play. It gets you into complexity and ambiguity. Another example is
"ohne schach". Innocent as it seems, it is said to have caused at least 2
probable suicides matching Godels incompleteness theorem.

By the way, I can't see why e.p. and the full range of fairy conditions
should be treated differently. Do not look in the future, only in the past.

Guus Rol.

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:31 AM, "Bernd Gräfrath" <retromode at web.de> wrote:


>  Dear retro-friends,

>

> some time ago, Noam Elkies recommended a meta-rule for chess problem

> composition (and I agree with him): We should understand our rules in a way

> which allows interesting composing!

> For example, in the current community of Losing Chess players, castling is

> no longer allowed. But in composing Losing Chess retros, we would loose a

> lot of interesting composing possibilities if we could no longer have

> stipulations like "Is White allowed to castle?", and so we are free to

> presuppose an understanding of Losing Chess which allows castling.

> Perhaps we should have a similar freedom regarding the FIDE-rules, when we

> determine our rules for the composition of orthodox problems.

> Apart from that, it is of course interesting to find a correct

> understanding of the current FIDE-rules.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Bernd

>

>

> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 04. Mai 2014 um 23:54 Uhr

> *Von:* raosorio at fibertel.com.ar

> *An:* retros at janko.at

> *Betreff:* [Retros] rights & ocassions / Tom, are you there?

>  Hi friends,

>

> Joost wrote,

>

> *******************************************************************************************

> To avoid a lot of repetition of arguments pro and con: See also MatPlus:

>

>

> http://matplus.net/start.php?px=1399234974&app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=1235

>

> *******************************************************************************************

>

> Thanks Joost for this useful indication.

>

> Many viewpoints can be found there, and this indeed avoid repetitions.

> But let's say there is nothing conclusive. Viewpoints.

>

> The challenge here is if we succeed in finding something new, creative or,

> at least, interesting.

>

> I'm not in fact interested in the FIDE rules as such. There is an

> argentine guy, Sergio Orce,

> who is a deep thinker, well trained in any type of systemic set of rules

> or similar.

> An old guy, very well educated in System Analysis from the 60's. He worked

> many years for

> the Organization of American States. He's living in Paris, and misteriosly

> / eventually in

> Buenos Aires from time to time. I never know when.

>

> We composed from time to time some "monstering" problems based on

> provocative borders of

> the rules. We do like to do this.

>

> He used to say that the guys who wrote the Laws of Chess were a group of

> friends that went

> to a good restaurant, had a beatiful lunch plenty of red wine and, after

> that said,

> "Hey friends!, let's write the Laws of Chess!

>

> Joking about the many unconsistencies and ambiguities included in the laws

> (some years ago).

> Some of these have been solved, but it is clear that we are imbedded in

> the "landscape syntom"':

> no matter how much we walk, it is always the same far away.

>

> I am in fact interested in finding the holes, which provide the

> opportunities for provocative schemes.

>

> I am convinced that, from the compositional point of view, "the richest

> the best" (if something is not

> clear, use its most interesting interpretation).

>

> Wouldn't this what a lawyer do defending a case?

>

> I remeber a Tom Volet's message, many years ago, stating something similar.

>

> Tom, where are you? you would be very wellcome inserting here some

> "anarchist" paragraph.

>

> Best,

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20140505/c32392a5/attachment-0001.htm>