[Retros] I'll say it again...cooked!

[Kevin Begley]

Suppose you are one stolen-base shy of the all-time baseball record. There are two outs and a runner is at first base in what is likely to be your last at bat, in a meaningless last game of the season, in what is certain to be your last season of the game. You knock the ball into the outfield, and it bounces over the home run wall, resulting in an "over-the-wall double" (you are entitled to second base, the runner can advance to third). The thing is, you'll likely never get a chance to steal from second, whereas at first base, you have a very good shot at the record. So, what if you want to stay at first?  And, if you are forced to second base, can you, from there, steal first base?

It is very likely that baseball's inventor did not foresee such a strange event, where first base is more appealing than second. In the 1950s, an inspired major-league player managed to steal first base from second. If memory serves, though the umpires could find nothing in the rule book which prohibited him from doing this, they decided to force him back to second base.

The rule book was later modified, forcing players to run only in a counter-clockwise motion.

Inspired problemists have "stolen first base" on numerous occasions, which often have resulted in changes to the wording of the rules, sometimes more.

The FIDE rulebook did not prevent Extended-Castling in chess (e.g., wKe1 castles with promoted wRe8), for example. Another crafty problemist exploited FIDE's definition of check (an attack on the king by "one or two hostile units"), by moving his king into three (or more) attacks (not exactly moving into check!). And we've all seen problems involving pawns promoting to hostile units.

Of course, these "jokes" are based mainly on the wording of rules, and in a game so heavily played, were never expected to prevail as adopted rules. But, in problemland, it is sometimes more harmonious to adopt the new rule, and correct whatever problems are damaged by it. 

I believe that the 2 additional castling possibilities have been widely accepted as an adopted rule of vertical-cylinder, but it would be nice if there were an ultimate umpire (with an eye to HARMONIZING rules, not preserving old interpretations) actively ruling on such matters. 

I suggest having (annually) an international joke-problem tourney, where the "jokes" all have some truth to them. Let 3 judges decide whether an adopted change to the rules of play is needed, or a change of wording to prohibit this "reasonable interpretation", or simply rule that the new interpretation is not reasonable. Base the awards not only on construction & thematic content, but also on the merit of the new interpretations offered.


Kevin Begley
kevin_begley at hotmail.com


ps: If I were the ultimate umpire in baseball, I would have allowed a player on second to steal first. It does no damage to the game (stealing home from first would do damage). It only makes for a more interesting game.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20020905/038ccd9f/attachment.htm>