[Retros] rights & ocassions / not answering Andrew anymore
per.olin at luukku.com
Fri May 23 15:10:01 EDT 2014
Probably not mentioned in the discussion here, but thematic!, a question concerning your proof game from Probleemblad 2003, nr 1011937 in PDB. The repetition maneuver has impressed me very much. How on earth have you been able to compose such a problem? Will it be dealt with in your future book? Or perhaps we can have the story here in Retro Corner? Certainly a problem that deserves more attention than just being in a data base. Copied below without diagram.
R222 Probleemblad 12/2003
Die Stellung ist Remis. BP in 41,5
1. h4 g5 2. hxg5 d5 3. Th6 d4 4. Tg6 Lh6 5. Tg7 d3 6. g6 dxc2 7. d4 Dd5 8. Lg5 Dxg2 9. Kd2 Dd5 10. e4 Dxa2 11. Df3 De6 12. d5 Sf6 13. dxe6 Sd5 14. Df6 Sc6 15. f3 Sd8 16. Lb5+ c6 17. Se2 Tg8 18. Txg8+ Lf8 19. Df4 Sf6 20. Th8 Sg8 21. Lf6 Lh6 22. Lg7 Lg5 23. Lf8 Sf6 24. Tg8 Sd7 25. Lg7+ Sf8 26. Lf6 Lh6 27. Tg7 Sd7 28. Lg5 Sb6 29. Df6 Sd5 30. Tg8+ Lf8 31. Df4 Sf6 32. Th8 Sg8 33. Lf6 Lh6 34. Lg7 Lg5 35. Lf8 Sf6 36. Tg8 Sd7 37. Lg7+ Sf8 38. Lf6 Lh6 39. Tg7 Sd7 40. Lg5 Sb6 41. Df6 Sd5 42. Tg8+ remis
Kevin Begley kirjoitti 23.05.2014 kello 21:30:
> Thanks Guus,
> I certainly look forward to that publication, and continued reading,
> Best Regards,
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 3:15 AM, Guus Rol <grol33 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Kevin,
> > Thank you for your kind words!
> > Actually these posts are preparations for writing the book I conceived
> > years ago. I am a bit lazy and posting is a good way to build up content
> > bit by bit. Also gives me the opportunity to correct all the nasty little
> > errors in my posts. The aim of my book will not be to dramatically
> > change current pratices but to generalize the case based conventions and
> > logics enabling expansion into new areas and fairy types. There are still
> > retroists who believe that retro-strategy just means "mutually exclusive
> > castling rights".
> > My original intent was to write a book on "a posteriori" logic, the
> > fuzziest of logical species, but I soon found there is no point writing
> > about the mountain top while there is no route to climb it. Now I do hope
> > to deliver all the required equipment, including a Sherpa guide - if not
> > strike.
> > I'd still appreciate some more critical comments from the community
> > though. There is always choice in basic premises and there are lots of
> > outposts yet unvisited. One of the nicest challenges is not to apply
> > retro-theory to existing fairy types but to invent new fairy types fertile
> > for retro composition (I know of one created for this purpose but forgot
> > its name). These types need not deviate much from orthodox chess, small
> > changes to castling or e.p. rules already open up new vistas. Andrew has
> > shown what can be done with the inclusion of DR (dead reckoning) which is
> > still orthodox. Nobody noticed, but one of my prize winning retros
> > (involving 3R) is incorrect under the DR directive. Roberto's MDR (minimum
> > deviation of the rules) is in need of updates after the last amendments in
> > FIDE laws, but it can also profit immensely by the application of the
> > standard retro-strategy and retro-variant logics - instead of its internal
> > substitutes. And then there is the interesting task of rewriting Turnbulls
> > "abominable problems" article into a 21st century version with workable
> > conventions and logics. The author sins against his own conventions which
> > is always a sign that something is not straight there. These are just a
> > examples of things to investigate and discuss and I predict this will
> > generate intriguing new issues. Hopefully one day we can leave the
> > returning discussions on "castling rights" and "repetitions" behind us
> > (fascinating as they are).
> > Best wishes, Guus Rol.
> > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Kevin Begley
> <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>wrote:
> >> Guus,
> >> Thank you very much for a fascinating read!
> >> I certainly did not appreciate the complexity of the matter, and I really
> >> appreciate your taking the time to detail these issues.
> >> I hope this is not a dumb question, but I'll ask anyway:
> >> Have you ever written a book on Retros? Because, I think I'd really love
> >> to read it -- especially if you help lead readers through the more
> >> issues.
> >> Best,
> >> Kevin.
> >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Guus Rol <grol33 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi Kevin,
> >>> I agree, the "static" metarule should apply to all rights evaluations,
> >>> including e.p., castling and all the attributes we don't know about yet
> >>> the fairy types that are yet to be invented.
> >>> 3R is the most complex of retro-active properties in the Orthodox field,
> >>> since an enormous amount of information bits may be required to record
> >>> the possible diagrams + plus their counters which may be relevant
> >>> for future play. 50M is much easier, one counter tells all there is to
> >>> Fortunately, this is where the retro-logics come into play. The
> >>> (chosen) logic allows us to make simplified assumptions about the "real
> >>> world" (an imagined real world) . Nobody uses the "consequent
> >>> retro-variants" from one of my previous posts since handling all
> >>> is practically undoable..In fact, almost all diagrams have a history
> >>> the diagram position is an automatic draw. Zero options left to reach a
> >>> goal. There is however nothing wrong with the basic path splitter
> >>> of prA-logic - only maximized combinations of preferred retro-active
> >>> conditions - when solving retro-problems. With regard to 50M and 3R it
> >>> means we preferably assume the last move was a capture or Pawn move.
> >>> we do not run the risk of colliding into these rules by surprise. If
> >>> an assumptions is not legal we minimize as close to this assumption as
> >>> possible.
> >>> For the 3R case things can remain complicated as one or more full
> >>> diagrams may still need to be included in the "positional information".
> >>> actual retro-problems the situation simplifies further since we can
> >>> eliminate all but one past(s) for which the problem solution is the
> >>> Only when a particular past collides with a particular solution, one is
> >>> required to generate a second branch and a second solution. This is how
> >>> arrive at the partial retro-variants. You can e.g. see how this works
> in my
> >>> own problem R309 in Probleemblad (I think 2007). Though it is not to be
> >>> solved by retro-vartiants, the solution shows how and why this could
> >>> been a prA-type diagram with relevant 3R attributes. The reason I
> object to
> >>> prA is not for its principles but because prA in de Codex was reduced to
> >>> handling cases instead of giving it status as a generic logic.
> >>> Justification. Why is it justified to reduce the history tree a priori
> >>> in prA/retro-variant type problems? Well, mainly because it is in line
> >>> basic convention pholosiophy. By allowing you a license to castle, it
> >>> you need not solve the diagram history without castling rights. So why
> >>> require it without necessity when 2 or more retro-active attributes are
> >>> involved? The second point is the concept that retro-variants are not
> >>> merely created to reflect different histories, but to demonstrate
> >>> forward solutions. Every solution corresponds with a whole class of
> >>> histories, there is no point in listing them individually. In some cases
> >>> the sharing of solutions between different histories will be considered
> >>> defect but such judgement is on a higher level than discussed here.
> >>> Best wishes, Guus Rol.
> >>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Kevin Begley
> <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>> Thanks Guus,
> >>>> I agree that units awaiting rebirth should be treated as a "static" and
> >>>> independent feature of the position (read: as bits of information
> >>>> to characterize a position), regardless whether those rebirths can be
> >>>> executed.
> >>>> But, the same should be said of castling rights (or licenses) --
> >>>> regardless whether castling can be executed.
> >>>> I also agree that you can derive the minimal set of information
> >>>> (required to characterize any position) from a simulated branching
> >>>> of all possible games, but once established, no part of that
> >>>> "static" information can be excluded from the comparison, in
> >>>> 3R.
> >>>> You can not do branch-analysis on the fly, from any diagram position,
> >>>> to create a new minimal set of information criteria (the minimal set of
> >>>> information must be capable of describing every possible position).
> >>>> In this informational approach, repetition implies nothing more than
> >>>> an exact match, spanning every single bit of information, from this
> >>>> set necessary to describe any position.
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> Kevin.
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
Luukku Plus -paketilla pääset eroon tila- ja turvallisuusongelmista.
Hanki Luukku Plus ja helpotat elämääsi. http://www.mtv3.fi/luukku
More information about the Retros