[Retros] rights & ocassions / not answering Andrew anymore

Tue May 27 04:49:20 EDT 2014

Dear Per,

I haven't looked it up in PDB, but I know that Probleemblad gave the number
of moves 41.5 plus the status "drawn". I think that is the correct way to
do it. "Remis" instead of "remisiert" is confusing in my opinion.

In simple mating problems the stipulation is always #2 or #6 while it could
have been just #n, n being the minimum required. It is natural to clearly
state the goal that is to be achieved instead of letting the solver find
out parts of it. This is not an absolute. A problem may be composed to
direct you to a non-optimum goal as a try. Not giving the goal away then
becomes a thematic part of the composition.

Premature repetition is a try where one, on the way to a targeted position,
repeats another position twice resulting in an automatic draw. Quite often
this happens the move just before reaching the goal. Some will argue that
repetitions before the diagram need not necessarily draw but I believe the
related convention makes it mandatory. In that respect the 3R convention is
different from the 50M convention which does leave room for elongated
no-progress series before the diagram. I think that, in view of recent
changes in FIDE regulations, these retro-conventions need a makeover.

Best wishes, Guus Rol.

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 9:20 PM, per olin <per.olin at luukku.com> wrote:

> Dear Guus,
>
> Many thanks for the recollection of your problem!   Some observations:
>
> - The stipulation is interesting, can it be stated as short as 'Drawn'?
>  The PDB gives 'Die Stellung ist remis.  BP in 41.5'  Somehow I think that
> the number of moves must be given or alternatively required Shortest
> (proof)game.
>
> - The repetition phase of 12 moves is, as far as I know,  the record.   I
> will certainly,  probably not take any challenge to try for a longer one or
> one with a better ratio repetition versus non-repetition moves.  Life is
> too short for that!
>
> - As the problem got 2nd Prize Probleemblad 2003, it means that PDB has
> not been updated with that information (certainly not the only one with
> missing distinctions).
>
> - Premature repetition  -  is this a try where the repetition cycle is too
> short in the try compared to the stipulation and in the solution there is a
> longer one?
>
> - Little bug!?  I don't think it has anything to do with how the
> stipulation is expressed.  That is more a technical matter.   Now the whole
> Retro community has something to think about,  suggestions have already
> been given.   I interpret it not to be serious as giving it away would
> spoil some fun.
>
> Looking forward to you future book!
>
> Best wishes
> Per
>
>
>
>
>
> Guus Rol kirjoitti 26.05.2014 kello 20:03:
>  > Dear Per,
> >
> > The 2003 SPG problem is "correct" under the stipulation it was published
> > under, which was "drawn", or "remisiert" in german. This is much better
> > than "draw" which is commonly perceived as an instruction to "play and
> > draw". As a fait accompli,  "drawn" clearly delivers extra
> >  information to
> > the solver needed to make the solution unambiguous. One of the
> >  hidden retro
> > conventions is that players cannot surrender and cannot agree to a
> >  draw. An
> > automat of some kind is required to do the job.
> >
> > Is it computer-checked? The first 18 moves were already
> >  computer-checked in
> > 2003, the rep-cycle was too complicated then and apparently still is
> >  today.
> > I am sure though Michel Caillaud checked it out before he withdrew
> >  his own
> > version on the same theme. We were working on the same material in that
> > time. Fortunately, I had a head start on Michel of about one year. You
> > can't expect to beat him in a an even contest!
> >
> > How I composed it? The way one expects from retro composers, back to
> >  front.
> > First I designed the long repetition cycle in several stages. As
> >  there was
> > still lots of freedom and material unused, I then attempted to setup
> >  an SPG
> > around it. I ended up with 3 versions one of which was refuted by the
> > computer. I chose the cleanest one remainng to put all emphasis on
> >  the rep
> > cycle. If I am not mistaken, this is now also the SPG with the highest
> > (possible?) ratio of repetition versus non-repetition moves. There
> >  are some
> > very short SPGs with repetition cycles but I couldn't find one with
> >  better
> > statistics than mine. You can take that as a challenge if you like!
> >
> > Was the composition a success? Yes and No. It showed good content and
> > scored 2nd prize in Probleemblad. On the down side, I also intended
> >  it to
> > demonstrate a "premature repetition" try - see my other problems in that
> > period - but couldn't find an SPG to match. And then there is the little
> > bug nobody noticed and which I trust somebody will find out about
> >  some day.
>  > Why spoil the fun by giving it away now?
> >
> > Will it be in my book? Probably as an introduction to automatic
> >  draws. It
> > is a good example but without much theoretical significance. "Premature
> > repetitions" is a far more interesting and controversial subject for
> > treatment and debate. Ask Andrew about that!
> >
> > Best, wishes,
> >
> > Guus Rol.
> >
> > On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:26 AM, per olin <per.olin at luukku.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > The discussion here has centered around situations, where the
> subsequent
> > > play makes only one start of a game possible from many possibilities.
> The
> > > problem from 2003 is probably not of this type.   The move sequence up
> to
> > > 18.Txg8+ is unique (C+ Euclide);   the repetition moves are separate
> from
> > > this.  I recall some time ago testing the repetition phase with Popeye
> > > a=>b.  I am not sure did I get the whole sequence tested, could be
> that I
> > > stopped after having only the major part tested.  Perhaps somebody with
> > > better computer abilities or the author can verify the uniqueness of
> the
> > > repetitions.
> > >
> > > Best wishes
> > >
> > > Per
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nicolas Dupont kirjoitti 24.05.2014 kello 00:49:
> > >  > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > > P1011937,
> > > > > Guus Rol
> > > > > R222 Probleemblad 12/2003
> > > > >
> > > > > (13+13) C+
> > > > > Die Stellung ist Remis. BP in 41,5
> > > > > 1. h4 g5 2. hxg5 d5 3. Th6 d4 4. Tg6 Lh6 5. Tg7 d3 6. g6 dxc2 7. d4
> > > > > Dd5 8. Lg5 Dxg2 9. Kd2 Dd5 10. e4 Dxa2 11. Df3 De6 12. d5 Sf6 13.
> > > > > dxe6 Sd5 14. Df6 Sc6 15. f3 Sd8 16. Lb5+ c6 17. Se2 Tg8 18. Txg8+
> > > > > Lf8 19. Df4 Sf6 20. Th8 Sg8 21. Lf6 Lh6 22. Lg7 Lg5 23. Lf8 Sf6 24.
> > > > > Tg8 Sd7 25. Lg7+ Sf8 26. Lf6 Lh6 27. Tg7 Sd7 28. Lg5 Sb6 29. Df6
> Sd5
> > > > >  30. Tg8+ Lf8 31. Df4 Sf6 32. Th8 Sg8 33. Lf6 Lh6 34. Lg7 Lg5 35.
> > > > > Lf8  Sf6 36. Tg8 Sd7 37. Lg7+ Sf8 38. Lf6 Lh6 39. Tg7 Sd7 40. Lg5
> > > > > Sb6 41.  Df6 Sd5 42. Tg8+ remis
> > > >
> > > > If I understand, the stipulation means that there are plenty of
> > > > solutions (for example moves by the wQ are not uniquely determined),
> > > > but only one where the diagram position already occured 2 times
> during
> > > > the solution.
> > > >
> > > > It seems curious that PDB asserts it is computer tested with Natch,
> > > > although shorter games with same stipulation are not (e.g. P1003993
> in
> > > > 11.5). Is it a mistake or is there really a way to check such
> > > > problems? Looking at hand each solution to detect the only one
> > > > satisfying the hypothesis?
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Nicolas.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Retros mailing list
> > > > Retros at janko.at
> > > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
> > >
> > >
> > >  ....................................................................
> > > Luukku Plus -paketilla pääset eroon tila- ja turvallisuusongelmista.
> > > Hanki Luukku Plus ja helpotat elämääsi. http://www.mtv3.fi/luukku
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Retros mailing list
> > > Retros at janko.at
> > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
> > >
> > >
>
>
>  ....................................................................
> Luukku Plus -paketilla pääset eroon tila- ja turvallisuusongelmista.
> Hanki Luukku Plus ja helpotat elämääsi. http://www.mtv3.fi/luukku
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140527/b3216a80/attachment.html>