[Retros] Andrew answering

[Kevin Begley]

Touché Andrew.  :)


On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Andrew Buchanan <andrew at anselan.com> wrote:

> Haha! Fairy chess has numerous whimsical creatures too, who yearn to live
> free within a coherent framework of problem conventions. Basilisk, Kraken,
> Squirrel & Unicorn are all both fairy chess pieces & magic creature types.
>
>
>
> *From:* Retros [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] *On Behalf Of *Kevin
> Begley
> *Sent:* 28 May 2014 04:06
>
> *To:* The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: [Retros] Andrew answering
>
>
>
> When the ancient board game of Chess must look to "Magic: the Gathering"
> for lessons in how to make logical rules, we can be certain that something
> has gone terribly wrong.
> No offense to MtG enthusiasts, but rules governing chessmen should be
> capable of less ambiguity than those describing fantasy creatures (Wizards,
> Dragons, Zombies, Werewolves, etc).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Kevin.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Andrew Buchanan <andrew at anselan.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Joost,
>
> I agree with you, but what others are saying is that under the current
> conventions, you can't ignore 3-fold repetition at all.
>
> But in fact even with the current convention, the problem is still sound.
> There is a crucial principle (unwritten, like most of the important stuff
> apparently) which says that you should apply all the rules (including all
> reasoning) exhaustively, and *then* use conventions as a last step to
> resolve any residual uncertainty. So we should apply A1.3, which says yes,
> this game is alive, indeed the last move prior to the diagram is the key
> move in a direct #3. And then we look at how conventions apply. So I never
> had any doubt this problem is sound.
>
> If my impatience with the conventions seems strange, it's because I know
> that our stupid situation is unavoidable. We are living in something like
> the dark days of Magic the Gathering *before* they properly sorted the
> rules
> out (around 1998, with the release of 6th edition rules). It was horrible.
> And since Wizards of the Coast invented the stack, layering system,
> templates, and all the other beautiful rules concepts which underlie modern
> Magic, they've been going from strength to strength. Magic is *far* more
> complicated than chess rules+conventions, but the rules are so solid they
> don't even need judges for online matches. Check out
> http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Article.aspx?x=magic/rules: both the
> Basic
> Rulebook and the Comprehensive Rules.
>
> What MtG has is a *corporation*, who can just define the rules and say
> "that's that". We just have, bless us, a bunch of meandering nice people.
> The only way out for us, I think, is if one (1) respected elder statesman
> with time on his hands assembles a set of conventions properly founded in
> logic. And then the rest of us will moan and complain when he proposes
> these, but except for a few edits, what he will say will be accepted,
> because it will be such a big step forward in common sense. That's the only
> way we can grow our little hobby.
>
> Magic has millions of players today - bigger even than when it started as a
> fad in 1993. Why shouldn't retrograde chess problems have a few more
> thousand serious enthusiasts than it does today, if we take away the
> biggest
> barrier to entry & retention?
>
> "Vote for Guus!" say I. :)
>
> All the best,
> Andrew.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Retros [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] On Behalf Of Retros
> Probleemblad
> Sent: 27 May 2014 22:52
> To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Retros] rights & ocassions / not answering Andrew anymore
>
> On 05/27/2014 11:57 AM, Guus Rol wrote:
> > Hi Olli,
> > Yes, you got the idea! I am not sure about the precise position and
> > timing but basically DR cooks it if you aim for the position after Bf8.
>
> I don't think so. DR uses article 5.1b ("The game is drawn when a position
> has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent's king with
> any series of legal moves."). Since ignoring the 3-fold repetition is
> legal,
> there's a legal continuation in which any colour can checkmate.
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://one.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20140527/4711713b/attachment-0001.html>