[Retros] rights & ocassions / not answering Andrew anymore

[Guus Rol]

Hi Joost,

This is a good semantic point which I noticed before creating my problems
and my theory.

I think I do know why the convention states "is considered as a draw"
instead of "is a draw" but that is fully in the psychological domain to be
discussed at another occasion. Here I will analyze the convention in a
formal sense.

In chess, chess problems and retro problems are 2 type of choices (a)
player choices (b) system choices. The  player choices are well known but
examples of system choices are (1) who starts when solving a problem -
usually it is determined by the stipulation but sometimes by retro
analysis; if you can prove that white did the last move, then black starts
(2) in a pRA problem, the variants to be solved are determined by evalution
of the different rights and mutual exclusions in a particular position.

Note that neither player decides these issues. Not the solver either, since
failing to identify the correct decisions results in failure to solve the
problem. To say that the rules make these decisions misses the point. In a
game the players implement most of the rules in their moves, but who
implements the rules given above? Well, I named that abstract authority
"the system" and it plays an important part in my retro theory.

When you carefully read the 3R convention, it is clear that the players are
no longer involved. No player claims, no player decides, and so it is a
convention decided by the "system". Whatever you may expect of a "system
decesion", it will not be based on personal or external factors like "it is
raining today and so we will continue the game for a while" or "white
definitely has the best chances and so I think they should continue", or
"lets ask the players what they want". No, the system will only decide on
the 3R information available and the convention text. And the decision will
always be the same under the same conditions: if 3R is confirmed then the
position is either always a draw (which is natural), or it will always
allow the players to continue. Since the latter choice would imply that the
convention is completely meaningless in all cases, only the first choice is
available.

The conclusion is unavoidable that the convention always draws however
careful is may be worded.

Best wishes, Guus Rol.

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Joost de Heer <joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl>
wrote:

> On Wed, May 28, 2014 16:16, Olli Heimo wrote:
> > Hi Joost-
> > I can't decide if I agree or disagree. The Codex says: "Article 18 -
> > Repetition of Position
> > A position is considered as a draw if it can be proved that an identical
> > position [21] has occured three times in the proof game combined with the
> > solution".
>
> Semantics, but "is considered as a draw" isn't the same as "is a draw".
> IMO the wording of the article doesn't imply an automatic end of the game.
>
> Joost
> _______________________________________________
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://one.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20140604/51969846/attachment.html>