[Retros] rights & ocassions /answering Andrew

Guus Rol grol33 at gmail.com
Mon May 19 09:23:36 EDT 2014

Hi Kevin,

I have no formal knowledge of information theory but I do have an
incomplete academic education in math. Still is my unfulfilled love.

While your (last) posts are mainly aimed at representing full information
problems, my efforts were always directed towards handling the partial
information field - preferably just by diagrams. Undoubtly you know of the
interesting puzzles where questions are asked of A, B en C. After A and B
have said they don't know the answer, C suddenly shouts "but now I do
know!". This is how things happen in "retro-strategy" problems. Add-on
information is acquired not by answering questions but by the moves being
played which cause changes in states. And then suddenly there comes a
solution to the problem. If we think of every different history as a
different world (one world cannot have 2 histories), then indeed every
future choice may connect to a different possible world. In retro-chess, a
proof game represents one possible world. In retro-strategy problems you
will always meet variations which have no common proof game. The Big
question is not to find the variations, but how to justify constructing a
solution with variations that have no single game history. Can be done, but
that is a different post. Logic has an absolute output but no absolute

The primary state change is "license" to "right" or to "no right" which
tells you something about the significance of licenses. In parking terms,
having a "parking right" means there is a reserved parking spot in your
name. Having a "parking license" means you may try to park but there is no
guaranteed spot available. Quite a big difference on a crowded saturday
shopping trip.
To be contiued.

Guus Rol.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>wrote:

> ps:  Guus, I wonder if you might be conveying the following... ??
> To full convey the actual position is not a matter of information (4-bits,
> 6-bits, or otherwise), but a matter of branching (some inherently minimal
> set of possible alternatives, emerging from the vertex of a graph/tree,
> which can span both directions: forward and retrograde).
> If that's what you are saying, it is deeply fascinating -- I would never
> have believed such a statement could emerge from a discussion of chess.
> In fact, it seems almost a "many-worlds" interpretation of information
> theory.
> When my head stops spinning, I'll need some time to fathom this.
> Kevin.
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>wrote:
>> Hi Guus,
>> I appreciate your very thoughtful reply, even though, in places, I found
>> it rather vague, and difficult to follow -- at least that's my first read;
>> I plan to reread this a few times, to fully appreciate your meaning (I may
>> need to reply again, at some later point).
>>  I had the same feeling when I first read Kmoch's "Pawn Power in Chess."
>> I could sense it was imparting something significant, and could find no
>> specific fault with the presentation; yet, it was a struggle to fully
>> digest the implications.
>> For example, I don't yet appreciate the motivation for (nor the value
>> contained behind) your defined term, "license to castle."
>> I remember having the same reaction to Kmoch's many terms (e.g.,
>> dispersion, distortion, interspan, ... etc etc etc).
>> At least I did learn that I would very much like to read more from you,
>> on these matters.
>> And, I'd like to learn more.
>> Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://one.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20140519/878e0efb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Retros mailing list