[Retros] Puzzlers Cup

[Andrew Buchanan]

Hi Kevin,

 

If you want more info, I suggest that you contact Mr Coakley directly - he's
a very pleasant chap. He did clarify for me that (a) problems must be
originals (b) joint submissions are ok.

 

The main guideline I might suggest is to read some of his prior columns.
It's deliberately pitched at an introductory level. Consequently, highly
sophisticated problems (e.g. Retractor Typ Proca) might fall flat.

 

I agree with your assessment of the dolorous state of problem term
definitions.

 

All the best,

Andrew.

 

From: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] On Behalf Of
Kevin Begley
Sent: 11 March 2013 04:57
To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Retros] Puzzlers Cup

 

Hi Andrew, 

 

The page doesn't exactly provide a clear description of what this tourney
will accept -- is there more info somewhere? 

 

No fairy units, but fairy conditions? 

I presume retros are OK, but somebody may want to ask for some clarity... 

 

Also, what about fairy conditions? 

Are they looking for only puzzles which conform to the rules of standard
chess, but with a changed stipulation/objective. 

 

Note: If that's the case, it's not clear whether they will prevent composers
from sneaking problems with fairy elements (read: anything which defies the
rules of "orthodox chess," as defined by the FIDE rule book) through our old
"back door": false aims/stipulation (anything with an objective that changes
the rules of the game: e.g., full-reflex-mates, series-movers, parry-movers,
etc). 

If they allow this, anyone can invent their own fairy
element/piece/condition, in the form of a stipulation. 

 

Ironically, it may require a chess player website to teach a number of
talented problemists what the real meaning of fundamental terms
(l"stipulation" and "fairy") really mean;  and why a clear distinction is
necessary. 

 

Not to go too far off-track from retros, but it's interesting to note that
there was a push-poll "survey" on Mat Plus, a few months back, asking
whether series-movers are "stipulations"  or fairy conditions...  Not only
did it have to force answers from people who can define neither term, it
also had to force an answer upon them (equating fairy condition to "like
madrasi," but ignoring fairyr conditions like "black idles if unable to
check").  

 

It was comical how many talented problemists have an opinion, on a subject
where they can't begin to define their terms. 

Not a single one could provided any definition, nor could they explain the
need for a distinction. 

 

It would be rather comical if chess players have to teach us about the
failures of our own fundamental terminology. 

Maybe karma for the holes that problemists punched in their FIDE rule book. 



On Saturday, March 9, 2013, Andrew Buchanan wrote:

Hi,

Jeff Coakley's column in the website Chess Cafe has a competition for chess
puzzles. A lot of his puzzles do have a retro aspect. Details are at:

http://www.chesscafe.com/puzzling/puzzlerscup.htm.

Perhaps someone could add this to the list of upcoming retro composing
tournaments, please?

Which brings up the question: where *is* the best list of retro composing
tournaments?

Thanks & all the best,
Andrew

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20130311/57f7cff1/attachment.htm>