MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

1:28 CET
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Rating lists
01-Jul-2019

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General Determining correctness or incorrectness possibly impossible
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Per Olin [Thursday, May 29, 2014 19:18]

Determining correctness or incorrectness possibly impossible


In Retro Corner there is an interesting discussion about problem P1011937 in PDB. The critical questions center around threefold repetition and dead position. There is uncertainty weather the problem is correct or not. The pioneer of dead position composing thinks the problem is correct, while the composer is almost of a different opinion. The uncertainty is due to the hierarchy of contradicting chess rules and Codex rules.

The Codex refers to chess rules of 1996, updated several times after that (and to be updated again on July 1, 2014). The function of the Codex, among others, is to sort out all situations in relation to chess rules in order that problem chess has a solid and logical reference space. Many clarifications are good ( 50 moves rule abandoned except for retros, automatic draw after threefold repetition ), but more is clearly needed if we can not determine the correctness of a problem.

The imbalances of the Codex are well known: fairy chess is undefined and mentioned only once in a footnote, dead position is not mentioned at all, the very popular genre proof games is not mentioned etc.; on the other hand, e.g. castling and e.p.-capture get very much and detailed attention. This means, in my opinion, that important matters get scarce attention, while minor matters are central. Referring to old chess rules, that are to be found nowhere, strengthens the impression of an outdated document.

Updating the Codex is today one day closer than yesterday.
 
(Read Only)pid=12300
(2) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, May 30, 2014 06:12]

Hear, hear!
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12301
(3) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Friday, May 30, 2014 10:20]

Was that from Kevin? :)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12302
(4) Posted by Neal Turner [Friday, May 30, 2014 10:31]; edited by Neal Turner [14-05-30]

...and one day further away than tomorrow.

I had this on another thread, but it's so wonderful it deserves to be repeated:

What if the advocates of the Fairy Codex produced something - a draft, an outline, a road-map - in other words something tangible that could actually be considered, instead of just some abstract notion of 'Fairy Codex' floating around in the ether on gossamer wings.

The Codex dooesn't say anything about Proofgames?
Tell us what it is exactly that you want it to say about them!

I would change the Codex by adding this:

"Any proposed changes to this Codex must be presented as specific suggestions set out in detail and in writing to the WFCC Codex subcommittee"
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12303
(5) Posted by Per Olin [Friday, May 30, 2014 19:26]

Neal,

To your comment 'The Codex dooesn't say anything about Proofgames. Tell us what it is exactly that you want it to say about them!', my comment: There has been much discussion, e.g. in Germany, are proof games retros or not. Even big composing competitions have had the group 'Retros and Proof games', which would indicate that they are two separate groups. The Codex could and should define the status of proof games. A minor matter could be to define the status of a=>b proof games.

To your comment: I would change the Codex by adding this: "Any proposed changes to this Codex must be presented as specific suggestions set out in detail and in writing to the WFCC Codex subcommittee", my comment: If that can be introduced to the Codex, then we will act accordingly. Presently the Codex states: 'The subcommittee intends to keep the working of the codex under review and to take account of any criticism and to recommend changes from time to time if they seem necessary'. - Making specific suggestions set out in detail is not on my agenda. Imagine that somebody puts a lot of energy into formulating an updated Codex; it gets nods of approval, even a thank you, 'but we will stick to the present'. What a waste! First it must be recognized that the Codex needs an update, then presumably some working group is formed and makes a proposal (these are not one man's shows!).

The only way forward is that there is a consensus that something needs to be done. The opening post of this thread aims at increasing the knowledge of the shortcomings of our Codex. When it is claimed that nothing needs to be done, then we can only agree that we disagree.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12304
(6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, May 30, 2014 19:27]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-30]

We want the truth, Neal; the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Fundamental truths -- no more snowballing bull****.
A new Codex must be our testament to Truth.

Start with the obvious -- what is WFCC? what constitutes a chess problem? what are the elements of a chess problem? what types of chess problems are there? how can a beginner tell them apart? how will WFCC sanction the great diversity of rule books? how will WFCC establish space to govern their rules (without continuing to reference a moving target)?

Nobody ever claimed a monopoly on Truth -- we all share a thirst for it.
We are neither here to usurp the authority of WFCC, nor to fulfill all obligations neglected by their Delegates -- we are here to hold them to their charter.
They have taken the titles, let them hold to their oaths.

This is a bloodless, leaderless revolution -- if you turn it into civil war, you'd only lose the union.
Without a strong union, you would be party to an organization with little to say, and few in the audience (this serves nobody's interest).

We hold this Truth to be self-evident: our future depends upon meaningful terminology.
If you care about the future of chess problems, join us.
What is required of you is only a commitment to the Truth.

Dig not your trenches in the traditions of the past, you will have only buried yourself in a snowballing falsehood.
Cast divisions, impede definitions, and delay progress -- but, the future is certain, and in the future, Truth will out.

History will always have fingers to point, but YOU have yet the power to change what might be said.
Don't wait for the future to document itself, and announce its own arrival; history will not forgive the rot caused by good folks cowed into apathy, carelessness, hopelessness, non-cooperation, and non-participation -- justice will require that history fix its gaze precisely in the direction of those "good folks" who did nothing.

Truth has its own consequence -- what we now have is an opportunity to decide whether our community will commit to the truth (and accept that its consequences logically follow).
Ask not that your colleagues hand-deliver the future, for your personal consideration -- should it come to that, Neal, you will have already forfeited WFCC's authority, along with your own best opportunity to help us draft a better future.

We want you to be a participant in a union, which commits to establish a Codex rooted in fundamental Truths.
If this Codex in any way excludes you from honest, open, or fair participation, then (and only then) we might entertain this foolish talk about division.
I guarantee you, the winds carry all but a spark for disunity -- our banner says only "Truth" (those opposed fuel this falsehood, just to poison the air).
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12305

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum General Determining correctness or incorrectness possibly impossible