Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
22:51 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Capture-Bound -- a new goal? |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | | (41) Posted by Cornel Pacurar [Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 05:06] |
Why not going back to the Medieval problems?! As you know, the modern series-mover has its roots in the Medieval conditional problems,and, for instance, the Civis Bononiae No. 230 has the following stipulation: "Mate in 5. Black only plays when checked" (with no checks during the intended solution, actually)! "Zigzags" ideas abound in those manuscripts, and the stipulation/conditions were even more 'fairy' than one might think - i.e. MS. Cotton No. 8 - "White only plays if checked or if one of his men are taken. Black mates in 5". Back then, in both Muslim and European manuscripts, "orthodox" had a different meaning! :-) Still, one might wonder why in "The Serieshelpmate" by John M.Rice and Anthony Dickins, the two parts are titled: "Orthodox Serieshelpmates" (with orthodox boards and men, that is) and, respectively, "Non-Orthodox Serieshelpmates"!
| | | (42) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 09:08] |
@Kevin
>> It will be treated as a fairy condition.
Surely it is unorthodox or fairy. I have no problem with that.
| | | (43) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 19:41]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-22] |
Dan,
>I'd be curious how many of these Kniest composed, and if he had any similar to recent pser-* problems.
Yes, Albert H. Kniest (not to be confused with Alfred, or Karl, or Peter) did publish a number of fairy problems, in the parry-vein.
I'd characterize his works as almost entirely Old Bohemian School (extremely elegant, very few pieces, clear ideas, ideal or model mates).
I haven't finished searching, but one problem employs other fairy elements:
A.H.Kniest
Feenschach, 1978 (v)
 (= 2+1 )
h#7 (2+1) C+
White obliged to give check
circe
) Berolina Pawn
It looks like a selfmate scheme, where circe is, unfortunately, little used (until the end).
Frankly, he sometimes strives too much for the Old Bohemian model, and his occasional over-reliance on fairy-elements shows here.
Of course, this certainly doesn't reduce to a parry problem, as it is now.
But, it's definitely in the parry-vein -- this could easily be transformed in pser-form (perhaps improved along the way).
| | | (44) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Thursday, Jul 22, 2010 23:56] |
@Kevin
>>If you really think Cap-bound is a valid aim, just list white's legal moves here:
>>How can h7+ not be legal in the game of chess?
It is certainly a legal move. Only as a chess problem with the stipulation ~Xn, it has no solution as white will get mated. Remove WPh6, white it stalemated. Remove BRf8 also and white is 'capture-bound'!!
"Capture-bound" problems are of course unorthodox or Fairy. I have no disputes with your view in this respect. But as part of a stipulation it is an AIM or GOAL. The definition of 'capture-bound' only describes the final position. It is not a fairy condition like Madrasi or Circe as it does not alter the move of the pieces. By contrast Parry-series is a fairy condition (though its inventor may feel otherwise) as it alters the normal move order, like every other series-mover problem.
It seems that your reluctance to accept this stems from the unfounded fear that such acceptance (ie. accepting "capture-bound" as a Goal) would make it orthodox.
| | | (45) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Jul 23, 2010 07:56]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-23] |
@Kalyanasundram
>"...as part of a stipulation [Cap-Bound] is an AIM or GOAL."
I do not accept it as such, and I've made a very simple case why others will not be inclined to accept this as an aim:
1) it subverts the theory of duals in help-self problems,
2) it restricts this subversion to only non-capturing finales,
3) it inhibits otherwise legal movements (specifically, checks are verboten on the final move),
4) it would require a vast number of aims -- highly unfriendly to solving tools, databases, journals (esp online), solvers, etc,
5) it goes against precedent (see MAFF and OWU -- which are accepted fairy conditions, not aims),, and
6) this is not an orthodox event, which would be recorded in a legal chess game.
If you have a case for this being an aim, you haven't made it.
You haven't even addressed the softball stuff I've thrown at this...
What are you going to do when the programmers object -- they're the folks you really need to convince (without them, it's over)!
Why should database programmers accept dozens of new aims which can already be modeled with existing fairy conditions?
Convince them that dozens of new aims is better than a single, blanket fairy condition (no check finale).
Because it doesn't stop at ~#, and ~= -- there's also ~promotion, ~ep, ~#/= (mate or stalemate-bound), ~x/+ (capture or check bound), etc etc etc.
In fact, you're allowing the aim to prefix a fairy condition upon any aim, such that it never stops growing...
The result, ~~x (capture-bound-bound), then, becomes a valid aim.
Let that churn a little.
Think very carefully before you accept something unorthodox as a valid aim.
Otherwise, you have a very difficult case yet to make!
>"The definition of 'capture-bound' only describes the final position. It is not a fairy condition like Madrasi or Circe as it does not alter the move of the pieces."
As I've already detailed in this thread, the very same might be said of both MAFF & OWU.
Both also describe only the final position (in fact, they do nothing but redefine the aim of checkmate).
As such, you would claim these are aims...
But this reasoning doesn't hold -- these are fairy conditions.
Don't just take it from me:
* see Juraj Lorinc's excellent site (a respected fairy expert calls them "vivacious fairy conditions.")
http://jurajlorinc.tripod.com/chess/niifc_01.htm
* see Win Chloe's treatment of MAFF & OWU (they appear as conditions, not aims).
* see popeye's treatment of MAFF & OWU (again, both are listed as fairy conditions).
I could go on and on, if you require more evidence.
You think it's just a fairy condition because the inventor liked that term (as if these classifications have no real meaning)?
You think the inventor, fairy experts, and programmers are simply wrong about their classification of MAFF & OWU?
Take another crack at this one -- before you throw the "aim" classification at Capture-Bound.
Maximummer is also unlike circe/madrasi.
But, that doesn't make much of a case for maximmumer being an aim, now does it?
You would say that Maximummer is obviously a restricting condition -- it prevents all moves except the geometrically longest.
Thus, this is a fairy condition -- correct?
But, I have you there!
Capture-Bound prevents checking moves on the player's last move.
A valid aim does NOT restrict any legal move -- only a fairy condition can do this.
Get it?
The fallacy you're making is to compare this, side by side, with a stalemate definition.
Remember, stalemate is not only an aim, it is an orthodox event.
Whereas it looks to you that stalemate also inhibits checks in the final move, this is an entirely different kind of event.
We do not accept as aims any fairy events which alter, expand, or inhibit legal movement -- these must be fairy conditions.
>"By contrast Parry-series is a fairy condition (though its inventor may feel otherwise) as it alters the normal move order, like every other series-mover problem."
This is a non-issue -- parry-series is so obviously a fairy condition, that the inventor can only dodge the issue.
His only argument was to claim that it's "no more fairy [condition] than series-movers [which are a fairy condition]"
He also implied that StrateGems considers series-movers orthodox, but has refused to provide any evidence (or details) of this.
Quite frankly, I'd be happy to accept parries as orthodox, providing all circe forms are accepted first. :)
>It seems that your reluctance to accept this stems from the unfounded fear that such acceptance (ie. accepting "capture-bound" as a Goal) would make it orthodox.
Fear -- what?
I am here to protect orthodox chess problems from a fairy condition?
haha -- you really missed the dartboard there!!
Your target here would enjoy the exact opposite -- to completely remove the partition between orthodox and fairy.
I have no such "reluctance," by the way.
I made a very easy case for why Capture-Bound will be considered a fairy condition, and not an aim.
Give the matter deeper consideration, and I think you'll understand why capture-bound should be classified under fairy condition, not aim.
Otherwise, please make a better case -- you can depend on me to hear you fairly.
I can be impartial, because I don't have to program dozens of new aims.
I'll not claim (nor presume) that you have an "unfounded fear" of the truth -- let's not be so ridiculous.
I'll only ask you to provide some support for your claims.
| | | (46) Posted by Dan Meinking [Friday, Jul 23, 2010 08:20] |
Nice quote by (A.) Kniest. I'd like to see more.
"Capture-Bound prevents checking moves on the player's last move.
A valid aim does NOT restrict any legal move -- only a fairy condition can do this."
Capture-Bound does not make a final-move check ILLEGAL. A check on the final-move cannot solve the problem, like any stalemate goal.
| | | (47) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Jul 23, 2010 08:31]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-23] |
@Dan,
>"Capture-Bound does not make a final-move check ILLEGAL. A check on the final-move cannot solve the problem, like any stalemate goal."
Incorrect -- capture-bound does make it illegal to achieve a valid aim (self-capture), by using a legal move (check).
This is already settled -- see MAFF & OWU (fairy conditions, not aims).
Neither of them need make standard-checkmate illegal -- they could pretend, as you do, that standard-checkmate simply fails to solve.
However, everybody agrees these are not aims, but fairy conditions.
Get it now?
Don't just take my word for it:
* try entering in popeye (stip MAFF / cond MAFF) see which one works!
* try finding MAFF in the win chloe list of aims / fairy conditions.
* check how StrateGems defines MAFF.
A valid aim cannot alter, inhibit, or expand the legal rules of movement (on any move, including the player's last).
Only a fairy condition can do this.
Why would anybody want to program dozens of aims, when one blanket fairy condition does the job?
Why would anybody want to sift through dozens of poorly crafted "aims," when one fairy condition should have been used?
The only possible answer would be to subvert the theory of duals in help-self-capture problems.
But, you continue to fail to explain why this should be only the case for help-self-captures with non-checking finales.
Your idea wasn't well thought out, and you're too dead-set against fairy conditions (even when pser is 100% fairy condition) to fix this.
Frankly, it would be quite interesting to see if you (and others) wind up cooked in the databases.
More likely, they'd probably prefer to just exclude these problems -- and avoid any liability (from misrepresenting them).
But, it doesn't prevent them from entering you, as cooked, when that liability is passed.
| | | (48) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Friday, Jul 23, 2010 09:00] |
QUOTE
Capture-Bound does not make a final-move check ILLEGAL. A check on the final-move cannot solve the problem
Isn't it basically the same thing as saying that Maximummer does not make shorter moves illegal, it is just that sequences that include shorter moves cannot solve the problem?
| | | (49) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Jul 23, 2010 09:08]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-23] |
@Dmitri,
>"Isn't it basically the same thing as saying that Maximummer does not make shorter moves illegal, it is just that sequences that include shorter moves cannot solve the problem?"
Not exactly.
Dan is essentially attempting to redefine an aim (like checkmate, or stalemate), rather than define constraints on movements.
It is not fair to define an aim based upon all previous moves leading up to the end, nor to compare that with what Dan attempted.
In a slightly different way, MAFF does the same thing (it simply redefines checkmate, by requiring exactly one flight square).
But, MAFF is a fairy condition, not an aim -- and it is classified this way for good reason.
What Dan doesn't want to accept is that fairy events should not be accepted as aims, especially if they alter, expand, or inhibit legal movement in any way.
He also doesn't want to explain why programmers should accept dozens of XYZ-bound aims, rather than a single fairy condition.
[edit: this goes for problem databases, solving tools, online journals, etc.]
He doesn't want to address the matter of subverted dual theory with respect to help-self-capture problems.
He sure doesn't want to touch the question of why duals should be subverted only with non-checking finales.
Unfortunately, there are some bad precedents -- like h##n, where ## is taken to be an aim.
While ## is unfortunate, it is at least easy to program this way -- there are not a few dozen versions of it (as it would be w/ XYZ-Bound), and it may be easier recognized as an aim (whereas ~x reads like "random-capture").
MAFF is a better precedent -- and here, again, only one (reasonably popular) instance -- it's not a fairy prefix to attach to any valid aim.
To be quite frank, I'll tell you exactly what is going on here.
The list of fairy conditions is quite lengthy.
The list of stipulation-types and aims are much shorter.
If you invent a fairy condition, would you want to put it in the list of fairy conditions?
No, you'd want it in the short-lists... where it gets noticed.
Exactly the place programmers, editors, composers and solvers -- anybody with an interest in keeping these short-lists simple and honest -- do not want to see it.
One blanket fairy condition (no check finale), would replace dozens of XYZ-Bound aims which might spin-off from ~x.
Why should we want these spin-offs jamming the list of aims?
These are no more aims than MAFF is an aim (and MAFF is a fairy condition, not an aim).
| | | (50) Posted by Dan Meinking [Friday, Jul 23, 2010 11:23] |
"Incorrect -- capture-bound does make it illegal to achieve a valid aim (self-capture), by using a legal move (check)."
The aim is 'self-capture by zugzwang'. Perhaps Capture-Zug (or Cap-Zug) is a better name? But I digress...
A final-move check is not "illegal", it simply doesn't meet the goal.
| | | (51) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Friday, Jul 23, 2010 13:47]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [10-07-23] |
@ Kevin
>> Capture-Bound prevents checking moves on the player's last move.
A valid aim does NOT restrict any legal move -- only a fairy condition can do this.
Get it?
>> As I've already detailed in this thread, the very same might be said of both MAFF & OWU.
Both also describe only the final position (in fact, they do nothing but redefine the aim of checkmate).
Thank u Kevin. It was interesting and educative reading your posts. These are important arguments. I leave it to the experts.
| | | (52) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Jul 23, 2010 22:46]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-23] |
>"A final-move check is not illegal, it simply doesn't meet the goal."
It doesn't work like you think it does, Dan.
I tried to explain why, but it only falls on deaf ears.
If you can not even admit that parry is a fairy condition (a fact, everybody knows), there is no hope discussing the term's deeper meaning.
You needn't take my word for it -- check how MAFF & OWU are defined by popeye, StrateGems, Win Chloe, the inventor, fairy experts...
These two fairy conditions obscure no subversion of dual theory in help-self problems.
There are not dozens of spin-off aims, which could have been eliminated with a single, blanket fairy condition (no check finale).
There are no questions as to the logic of subverting duals in only problems with non-checking finales.
There is no need to explain why dual theory deserves two interpretations.
Nevertheless, MAFF & OWU are classified as fairy conditions.
Capture-Bound is, by comparison, significantly less valid as an aim.
Just let that churn.
Try to get beyond your illusions that this is the wild west, and all things are classified according to inventor "PREFERENCE."
You thought the same was true with Parry-Movers, but already they have been reclassified, in at least one problem database.
And, the form of at least one solution has been altered.
More will follow -- whether you accept that this is a fairy condition, or not!
When capture-bound is similarly reclassified (drawing out the fairy condition), duals will become apparent in the final moves.
How can you ask for "takers" while continually refusing to address the likelihood that you will cause them to be cooked (in databases)?
Only a fairy condition may alter, expand, or inhibit the rules of movement, in any way.
This is applied not only to the moves leading up to the aim, but also in the method of achieving it.
Orthodox chess events, such as checkmate and stalemate, are exempt.
The zugzwang requirement, which is required to achieve this aim, has certainly inhibited an otherwise legal movement.
Thus, this fairy aim is properly classified as a fairy condition.
You can not define circe-checkmate as an aim (anything which would be checkmate in the circe fairy condition).
You simply could not pretend that the fairy condition did not alter the rules of movement.
It doesn't work like that.
Some rare exceptions are tolerated -- like ## -- but there are too many reasons to believe capture-zug will not be.
In the interest of fairness, double-checkmate should also be properly reclassified... but I'm not holding my breath.
| | | (53) Posted by Geoff Foster [Saturday, Jul 24, 2010 00:21] |
"Parry-Movers ... have been reclassified, in at least one problem database."
Parry-movers have not been reclassified in WinChloe. WinChloe does not yet support parry-movers, so the person who entered some parry-movers into WinChloe chose to use a fairy condition. If I had entered the problems then I would have done it differently. I would have entered them as standard series-movers but put the words "parry series" into the box next to the stipulation.
| | | (54) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Jul 24, 2010 03:44]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-07-24] |
"It doesn't work like you think it does, Dan."
By your analysis, every aim can be broken down into conditions:
Checkmate:
(1) other side has no legal moves
(2) other side is in check
Stalemate:
(1) other side has no legal moves
(2) other side is not in check
Cap-Zug: [I like this name better than Capture-Bound!]
(1) other side has only legal captures (self-capture)
(2) other side is not in check
You keep mentioning "duals" in final positions for Cap-Zugs. Let's take this #1 for example:
 (= 2+1 )
After 1.Rd8, the aim (checkmate) is met. We do not consider 1...Ka7 2.Kxa7; 1...Kb7 2.Kxb7; 1...Kb8 2.Rxb8 to be 'duals'. Even if programs spit out such 'duals' after a Cap-Zug aim is met, let's hope we humans are smart enough to know the difference.
Finally, I've never stated that ser-/pser- are not fairy. I said that *I* do not view them that way. I am entitled to that opinion whether they are technically "fairy" or not.
You should try spending less time lecturing others on how they are so wrong and how you are so right. Let THAT sink in.
| | | (55) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Jul 24, 2010 09:36] |
@Dan,
>You should try spending less time lecturing others on how they are so wrong and how you are so right. Let THAT sink in.
I never claim to be right -- I only claim to be interested in getting to the truth.
I may challenge you to support your claims, but there's only Hagel to blame for my dialectic method.
There are fascinating issues here...
I find it quite troubling, in all honesty, that problem databases might misrepresent anybody's composed problem.
On the other hand, I recognize their interest in preserving database consistency, and genre integrity.
I do enjoy stumbling around in such a fog -- that's where my time goes (to study -- I prepare no lectures).
I worry that cavalier fairy inventions, with inappropriate classifications, or inconsistent violations of precedent, might be potentially harmful to the genre.
For example:
* The GICS version of Atomic Chess poorly attempts to redefine check (contrary to all other fairy forms).
* The inventor of PWC (aka Platzwechsel circe, aka exchange circe) refused to accept that his invention was a form of circe.
* There are at least 3 different sets of rules for pawns reborn onto the 1st rank (Parrain Circe, PWC, Einstein, perhaps others)...
* many others...
>After 1.Rd8, the aim (checkmate) is met. We do not consider 1...Ka7 2.Kxa7; 1...Kb7 2.Kxb7; 1...Kb8 2.Rxb8 to be 'duals'.
Yes, Dmitri made this point, earlier in this thread... and, it was an excellent observation.
We all agree to truncate such duals (after checkmate/stalemate), mainly because these moves do, by definition, end the game.
So, you want to define a compelled capture, without check, as an alternative method of ending the game... well understood.
I considered the implications of viewing this as an aim, versus a fairy condition...
I discovered that the key difference in using several "bound-aims" (~x, ~#, ~=, etc), versus a single, blanket fairy condition (no check finale) is that the aims would subvert dual-theory (by such truncation).
Otherwise, the aim (h~xn) is exactly equivalent to an already valid aim + new fairy condition ("hsxm + "no check finale").
As I've already stated, this subversion is not necessarily a "bad" thing -- it merits discussion.
I also warned about the dangers of composing with fairy aims, which might not be accepted (especially by database programmers).
And, I showed that this already occurs, if only to lesser degree, in some parry-movers (based on A.H.Kniest's "partial" anticipation).
This might not be merely a matter of waiting for Win Chloe to "enter" your stips/aims -- as Geoff suggests...
It could well be a matter of programmers considering your stips/aims to be fairy conditions + already existing (valid) aims.
Or, they might consider that your stips/aims are better expressed in an alternative form.
Databases are, after all, invested in consistency (following precedent becomes a reflex).
Composers deserve a fair warning about the possibility of being recorded as C- (for what was computer tested with truncated duals).
Isn't it incumbent upon you (the inventor) to address these implications, and make a case for an alternate interpretation of dual-theory?
If you have a good case for aims, after all, it must be based upon this key difference -- and not upon your own "preference."
Shouldn't you also explain why this alternative interpretation of duals is restricted (to strictly non-checking finales)?
Don't you have some obligation to justify the possibility of several spin-off fairy aims (~#, ~=, ~ep, etc) to programmers (who might prefer a single fairy condition)?
And, what about current precedent (are fairy conditions, MAFF & OWU, which similarly define an alternative path to end the game, aims)?
That's what I have asked for here -- make a good case for this being an aim, rather than a fairy condition.
I've already made the obvious case against.
>"Finally, I've never stated that ser-/pser- are not fairy. I said that *I* do not view them that way. I am entitled to that opinion whether they are technically "fairy" or not."
Yes, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
If you do not view ser-/pser- as fairy conditions, no worries -- the viewpoint is yours to keep.
Just as Petko was entitled to the opposite viewpoint.
You responeded to Petko's view, but never made explicit why you chose to view these as anything other than fairy conditions.
I have only challenged you to support your claims.
I question your implication -- that StrateGems editors share your viewpoint, based upon placement of parries in the S&S section.
I also gave supporting evidence that series-movers are widely considered to be fairy conditions (even in introductions to fairy chess).
And, I provided you with my own working definition for what is a "fairy condition" (which I am prepared to support, if necessary).
Perhaps you would kindly provide your working definition for what is a "fairy condition."
>Even if programs spit out such 'duals' after a Cap-Zug aim is met, let's hope we humans are smart enough to know the difference.
I think we're all smart enough to know the difference.
That's not the problem.
We might not agree that Cap-Zug is a valid aim -- we might consider it to be a fairy condition.
I am hopeful your definition of "fairy condition" might help resolve the matter.
It may only be a question of semantics.
| | | (56) Posted by Joost de Heer [Saturday, Jul 24, 2010 09:37] |
QUOTE
You keep mentioning "duals" in final positions for Cap-Zugs.
Black moves are variations, not duals.
| | | (57) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Jul 24, 2010 10:28]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-24] |
@Joost,
>You keep mentioning "duals" in final positions for Cap-Zugs.
>Black moves are variations, not duals.
At the end a selfmate, if black has 2 moves which checkmate white, it is considered (by many experts) to be a dual.
However, I'm speaking, more specifically, about help-selfmates (where it's virtually unanimous to consider this to be the case).
Consider Dan's Example 3:
Dan Meinking (original)
 (= 3+6 )
h~x3½ (3+4) C+
1...Sa3! 2.Rh2 Sc2 3.Rg1 Se1 4.Bh1 Sg2~x
I claim that this might be viewed as hsx4 + "no check finale" (help-self-capture + Dan's implicit fairy condition).
However, in this context, the duals are not truncated away.
That is, there are actually 5 solutions (1.1.1.1.1.1.1.5):
1.Sa3 Rh2 2.Sc2 Rg1 3.Se1 Bh1 4.Sg2 4...Kxg2/4...Rgxg2/4...Rhxg2/4...Bxg2/4...hxg2.
These would be considered duals (or cooks) in a help-self problem -- agreed?
Therefore, I assert that the only value in calling this an aim, rather than using a single, blanket fairy condition (which would cover numerous aims, such as ~#, ~=, ~ep, ~OO, ~+, ~#/=, etc), is precisely this subversion of duals (by truncation).
I have asked the inventor for some justification for subverting duals in this manner.
I also asked for clarification as to why duals should only be subverted for non-checking finales.
Finally, I asked for some acknowledgment of the costs in expressing this as an aim:
* numerous independent aims might be required (instead of a single fairy condition + some generic method to subvert dual theory),
* treats unorthodox aims, which inhibit a legal move (last move cannot be check), as if they were valid, orthodox aims,
* clearly violates some precedent (MAFF & OWU, which also redefine checkmate, are fairy conditions, not aims),
* etc.
| | | (58) Posted by Joost de Heer [Saturday, Jul 24, 2010 11:06] |
IMO, the solution stops after 4. Sg2. At this moment, the goal is reached.
The 'black moves are variations' vs 'black moves are duals' discussion is quite old. I am with the variations team: multiple black moves are variations, multiple white moves are duals (unless explicitly stated that there are more solutions of course).
| | | (59) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Jul 24, 2010 11:14]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-07-24] |
Joost,
>"'black moves are variations' vs 'black moves are duals' discussion is quite old."
This is not the discussion -- the question is whether this is a valid aim, or a fairy condition disguised as an aim.
Perhaps we need a table of valid aims, with combinatorial logic, to reach new aims?
+-----+---+---+---+---+----+----+
| aim | # | = | x | + | ep | OO |
+-----+---+---+---+---+----+----+
| #/= |1/0|0/1| ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ |
+-----+---+---+---+---+----+----+
| #x | 1 | ~ | 1 | ~ | ~ | ~ |
+-----+---+---+---+---+----+----+
| ~x | ~ | ~ | s | ! | ~ | ~ |
+-----+---+---+---+---+----+----+
| ~# | s | ~ | ~ | ! | ~ | ~ |
+-----+---+---+---+---+----+----+
| ~= | ~ | s | ~ | ! | ~ | ~ |
+-----+---+---+---+---+----+----+
[font doesn't do me justice here]
Aren't these expressed, more simply, with fairy conditions?
Instead of hundreds of possible aim combinations, you need only 2 fairy conditions per valid aim (e.g., No Check Finale / Must Check Finale).
Just one key difference: the truncation of duals. :-)
| | | (60) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Jul 24, 2010 15:45] |
"Therefore, I assert that the only value in calling this an aim, rather than using a single, blanket fairy condition (which would cover numerous aims, such as ~#, ~=, ~ep, ~OO, ~+, ~#/=, etc), is precisely this subversion of duals (by truncation)."
Yes, subversion was my plan all along. And it nearly worked!!
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
MatPlus.Net Forum General Capture-Bound -- a new goal? |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
