[Retros] fairy retros

[pastmaker at aol.com]

"I only hope that 
orthodox retros will linger on for a few more decades,"



With all due respect to my old friend, Andrey, why would we put such a short lifespan on the orthodox retro?  My own lack of verstility in this business is clear (I have never composed an SPG) - - but I worry about extrapolating from the exhaustion of the creativity of a practitioner to the exhaustion of the discipline's opportunities.  Have some confidence in the next generation!  (Take a look at Fabel's list of masterworks, and think about what has been done since that was published.  After all, that list contains no Frolkin, no Caillaud, no Wassong, no Goldsteen .... and no Baibikov!)



A couple of decades ago I recall encountering the idea that orthodox retroanalysis needed to employ more "influential" stipulations (e.g., that a certain unit took its shortest path) if anything interesting was to be accomplished.  That misguided notion was coupled with the implicit idea that only task problems have any value, the point being that the new kind of stipulation would enable a composer to show an expansion of a task desideratum.  Andrey and I have had this out before at length, but I do not see this activity as a sports event, I don't see anything good about having judgments about the virtues of problems become more objective (a frightening notion).  In fact, I have never really see much value to ranking problems in the first place - - everyone's list of favorites=2
0not only will be different, and, until we decide to become robots, absolutely should be different.  



Moreover, that notion back in the 1990s that orthodox retroanalysis was exhausted was simply wrong. Since that time many interesting problems have been composed without the use of influential stipulations.



This activity has the pleasant virtue of being amatuer in the true sense.  Who has the right to promulgate a code about what a composer can or cannot (or should or should not) do.  What happens to the composer who ignores the code?  If his or her problems are interesting will others ignore them because they are not in accordance with the code?  



I still think it should be fun.



Regards,

Tom Volet




-----Original Message-----
From: afretro <afretro at yandex.ru>
To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List <retros at janko.at>
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 3:39 am
Subject: [Retros] fairy retros




Dear Thomas,
I would like to express my absolute support for your views.
In this world, everything including chess rules tends to change in the course of 
ime. The current rules are knows to dozens of millions of people worldwide, 
hile just a few hundred or thousand individuals are aware of fairy chess. That 
s the reason for the special attitude towards standard chess, shared by many 
olleagues. If back in the late 1960s I had seen nothing but fairy retros, I 
ould not have taken an interest in retroanalysis. But on the other hand, fairy 
etros do offer a
 vast scope of inspiring opportunities. I only hope that 
rthodox retros will linger on for a few more decades, alongside of fairy 
etros, and that in the future most of the tourneys will be divided into certain 
ategories, like it is happening in the “general” fairy section. This will make 
etro tourney judgment appear to be “more objective.” Will it truly be more 
bjective? I am not sure, unless strict criteria are used, as was the case with 
everal thematic Schwalbe tourneys.
Yours sincerely,
ndrey
______________________________________________
etros mailing list
etros at janko.at
ttp://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20090911/8c33246e/attachment.htm>