[Retros] reward for stalemate

Wed Jun 18 10:19:07 EDT 2014

Thanks for that clarification, Andrey.
On this topic, I'm actually rather proud to have been anticipated by you,
while simultaneously a tad ashamed that I did not already better know your
position on the matter. :)

Furthermore, I completely concur with your sentiments of consistency -- by
whatever logic we decide to base our conventions, it is important that they
span the full basis of problem chess.

To this end, I'm eager to learn what suggestions Guus might put in play.

Best,
  Kevin.

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:03 PM, afretro <afretro at yandex.ua> wrote:

> Dear Kevin,
>
> I agree with you.
>
> In fact our whole world may be nothing but an illusion.
>
> As to the similarity between a helpmate and a shortest proof game I
> mentioned it back in 1991, in the book on SPGs written by me and Gerd Wilts.
>
> Recently, Thomas Brand remarked in *feenschach* that it was inconsistent
> to refer to A>B problems as a non-retro variety while assigning SPGs to the
> retro category.
>
> As to the possibility to interpret backward play as forward play I also
> wrote about it, in an article on retrostalemate published in *feenschach*:
>
> “*By the way, while pondering on retro ambiguities and approaches to
> explaining them, the author was suddenly struck by the thought that
> retroanalysis could be presented as … a fairy chess type.*
>
> *Retroanalysis: a fairy chess form in which the ultimate goal of
> cooperative play is to reach the initial game array. In orthodox
> retroanalysis, the number of moves needed to attain the IGA is not
> indicated. Retros in which this number is indicated are known as SPGs.*
>
> *Direct play in retroanalysis, as a fairy form, is performed according to
> the following rules.*
>
> *White and black make moves in turn. In retroanalysis, a move (“forward
> move”) is “a mirror reflection” of a move by the same piece in standard OTB
> chess. When making a move, a piece can “revive” a piece of the other color
> on the square it is leaving, or turn into a pawn on the 2nd(7th) rank in
> appropriate cases, etc.”*
>
> Then I learned that similar thoughts had also been expressed by others.
>
> A retro problem with “backward” play can be seen as “forward play,” yes.
>
> But it is hard for me to see the backward plus forward span of the
> solution of e.g. a threemover with retro implications as a single “forward”
> span. I have to admit though that this can be done, too.
>
> The diagram position is a sort of “great divide” anyway; for a problem in
> which the stipulation is formulated in a “retro” way, like “Last N single
> moves?” or “Position after White’s Xth move; how did the game go?”, no
> conventions are needed to dismiss any possible line of retro play “for
> formal reasons”; moreover, in a retro problem with no additional conditions
> affecting retro play (like “Sb1 did not move”) a line of play other than
> the one intended by the author would always mean a cook; we must not
> dismiss such a cook on the basis of some formal convention. But as soon as
> a “forward stipulation” is added to a retro problem we have to immediately
> dismiss a lot of possibilities like triple repetition or 49 full moves
> occurring without pawn move and capture immediately before the position on
> the diagram has been reached. Indeed, there may be different “shortest
> mates” in a position depending on how many “pawnless plus captureless”
> moves have just been played consecutively – 46, 47, or 48. But we dismiss
> all these possibilities, while in a “release-the-position” retro we do not
> ever dismiss anything. This “dismissal convention” can be seen as a certain
> weakness, albeit perhaps an inevitable one.
>
> Yours,
>
> Andrey
>
> 18.06.2014, 09:20, "Kevin Begley" <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>:
>
> I don't fully agree, Andrey -- particularly as it pertains to proofgames.
> Attempt to differentiate between forward and backward play are always
> based upon an illusion.
> In fact, in terms of entropy, all chess problems can be shown to flow in
> the same direction.
>
> First, the proofgame is nothing more than helpgame. In fact, the proofgame
> reduces to a help A->B problem, in which A must equate to the game's
> arbitrary starting position.
> Now, compare this solving process to that of the standard helpmate, and
> you'll find that the only difference is that the helpmate solver must guess
> from among many possible end positions -- once the correct final position
> is guessed, the very same technique may be required to reach that position.
>
> Therefore, if there exists any "backward play" (or retroanalysis) in a
> proofgame, it must also exist, to some comparable degree, in every standard
> helpmate.
> Entropy flows in the same direction (always forward, toward the
> achievement of a final position).
> The primary difference is that the proofgame solver is given the final
> position, and this information constitutes an inherent cook-avoidance
> mechanism (the achievement of the one stipulated diagram is necessary, and
> by avoiding alternative mating scenarios, the composer is able to devise a
> more complex task).
> There is no element of "backward play" which inherently distinguishes a
> help-diagram (or help-game) from a help-mate.
>
> Furthermore, the entire notion of "backwards play," in any given retro,
> can be treated as the "forward play" of a fairy condition, running the
> opposite direction. For any problem, entropy runs in the same direction
> (from the chaotic circumstance of a diagram, toward the order of satisfying
> the stipulation).
> Therefore, this whole notion of "purity" in the retro domain is, well,
> purely an illusion.
>
> Best,
>  Kevin.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:34 PM, afretro <afretro at yandex.ua> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> If an OTB player comes across this debate and reads it and tries to fathom
> on its basis what retroanalysis actually is, he/she may think that
> retroanalysis is all about e.p. captures and castling rights as well as 3R,
> 50 move remis rule and DR. These things, however, pertain to a smaller part
> of retro problems. They are only related to retros with a stipulation
> focusing on forward play. And mind you, *forward play is not
> retroanalysis*; retroanalysis is actually *backward play!*
>
> Are there any uncertainties involving e.p. capture, castling rights, etc,
> when one is to solve a retro with a stipulation like “Last N single moves?”
> or “Where was the black light-squared bishop captured?” or a shortest proof
> game in X moves? No; all the information that a solver needs to solve
> such a problem is “embedded” in the diagram. *No conventions are needed
> for “pure” retros that are devoid of any forward-play implications.*
>
> When one deals with a pure retro, *no legal proof game that may have led
> to the diagram position is discarded *on the basis of any conventions.
> The retro stipulation – “Release the position” or “Last N single moves?” –
> simply indicates – either in “a general form” or strictly – what fact(s)
> about the move(s) that may have been played to produce the diagram position
> the solver is to reveal. In doing so, the solver does not have to dismiss
> on the basis of a convention any of the possible legal games. For example,
> when the stipulation focuses on the last X single moves, these moves are
> usually unique (unless there are two or more solutions); the moves that may
> have been played before that are not “dismissed” but “neglected” on account
> of being unessential. But when a forward stipulation is added, like “Mate
> in 3 moves,” and when it involves e.p. capture or castling legality, then a
> convention “brutally” dictates the solver to disregard a multitude of games
> that may have led to the diagram position and select some line of play in
> line with the requirements of this convention.
>
> Please note that this in fact amounts to “retroanalysis under pressure”
> versus “pure retroanalysis.”
>
> Yours,
>
> Andrey
>
> 18.06.2014, 00:37, "Joost de Heer" <joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl>:
>
> On 06/17/2014 10:28 PM, Kevin Begley wrote:
>
>  Whether or not you agree with GM Short's solution, is of no consolation,
>  here.
>  The point is:  FIDE (a game federation) owns the FIDE rule book, and
>  they may do what they like with it, for the purposes of serving their
>  own unique charter.
>
>  They have no cause to be concerned how it affects a chess problem
>  community.
>  Chess problems predate their game, and should never have been impacted
>  by it.
>
> Indeed. I keep finding it bizarre that several fairy retractors use the
> game rule '3 fold repetition' for a genre that has absolutely nothing to
> do with game play.
>
> Joost
>
> _______________________________________________
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
>
> ,
>
> _______________________________________________
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140618/a0b6b175/attachment.html>