[Retros] 50-moves rule and mate

[pastmaker at aol.com]

I really don't want to bring this up again, but I simply cannot understand the notion that a problem that was sound when published can be rendered unsound by a subsequent change in rules, at least not if "unsound" has the pejorative connotation that I take it to have.  
 
If it was lawful for you to cross in the middle of the street in 2006, and you did so, then a law going into effect in 2007 that says you can't cross in the middle of the street does not make your 2006 behavior unlawful.  I find it difficult to think differently about the soundness of a chess problem.
 
A mate in 2 from the era in which bishops moved a maximum of two squares at a time should be solved by application of the rules applicable to the problem when it was promulgated.  I don't have much sympathy for the view that it is too administratively difficult (as a lawyer might argue) to keep track of such changes, particularly when balanced against the composer's legitimate interest in avoiding the pejorative label of unsoundness.  
 
 
 
Tom Volet
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: andrew at anselan.com
To: retros at janko.at
Sent: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 1:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Retros] 50-moves rule and mate


Guus, Tom,

I am inspired by your dialogue. Creativity, civilization & sanity are all
built on a healthy balance between Law, Chaos & Humour.

If I was able to change *one* thing in the Codex, I would add an article to
support Change. At the moment, the Codex is two versions out of date in
terms of the Chess Laws that it addresses, and this reflects the fundamental
fudge going on. The document is more or less frozen. It's not keeping pace
with the (very slow & minor) changes in the chess world, nor is the Codex
itself moving forward from what was a decent first draft to something which
is robust enough to build proper tricky problems on.

A fundamental sticking point I suppose is "Yes, but if we change it then
what happens to a few old problems we are attached to which are thereby
rendered unsound (fairy, joke...)."

But we *have* to be able to move on.

I suggest:

- The Conventions be periodically updated, at least as often as new versions
of the Laws appear (only every 5 years, so this is no big deal).
- The Conventions be released no later than a year after the new version of
the Laws.
- By default, the new version of the Convention will apply to all
compositions.
- Common exceptional classes (e.g. retrograde problems handling of 50 move
rule) must be specified in the Codex. There are some other classes I can
think of too. But need careful definitions. E.g. what is a retrograde
problem?
- Anything else is simply understood to require an old version of the
conventions, but if republished anywhere would probably be given an
annotation.

Comments welcome,
Andrew.

-----Original Message-----
From: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] On Behalf Of
Rol, Guus
Sent: 11 January 2007 17:03
To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Retros] 50-moves rule and mate

Good points! I always respect a difference in style and character. Coming
from a more or less mathematical background I take as my example Hibert's
work in redesigning the Euclidian axioms. What I have learned from it is
that a "good" axiom/rule system has enormous generative power and awakens
the creative potential of the individuals using it. I wil hope to
demonstrate that in my future presentation of retro-strategy concepts. There
is one meta-rule in chess composition that sets it apart from all other
concrete rule sets in all other games and fields and that is the (implied)
"game-master rule": any composer can take ownership of the rule system and
amend it privately to apply to his compositions of choice. That is a
brilliant meta-rule which effectively converts every game in the world to
chess. Besides taking over the world, it will also satisfy the wildest dream
of any anarchist. World domination and anarchism in one sweep, can you
believe it?!
 
Best regards, Guus Rol.
 

    -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
    Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] Namens
pastmaker at aol.com
    Verzonden: woensdag 10 januari 2007 20:46
    Aan: retros at janko.at
    Onderwerp: Re: [Retros] 50-moves rule and mate
    
    
     
    Please don't think that I intended any complaint or misgivings about
any publications or awards. Not at all!  As I mentioned, I was writing only
about forward play.
     
    In fact, as to codices and the like as they purport to apply to
chess composition, I am more or less an anarchist.  The history of
retroanalysis shows what I consider an unfortunate sense of constraint among
early composers to produce positions that could incorporate conventional
stipulations (e.g., "Mate in 2.").  Imagine what Hundsdorfer might have
given us had he been comfortable with "Resolve the position"?  (In fact, a
creditable argument can be made that any other stipulation in an orthodox
retro unfairly includes the stipulation as part of the composition....)
     
    My apologies to those who labor on the rules.  Perhaps my viewpoint
is colored by having practiced law for over 30 years.  This is supposed to
be fun!
     
    Best regards to all.
     
    Tom Volet
     
     
    


_______________________________________________
Retros mailing list
Retros at janko.at
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20070112/328356d0/attachment.htm>