MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

17:25 UTC
ISC 2020
 
  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

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Apr-2020

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General Take&Make and its Antiform
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
(21) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Saturday, Aug 31, 2013 01:27]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-08-31]

@Kevin,

The more I think about T&M and what you have written about it, the more I am convinced that you have an overactive imagination! In particular, your supposed connection between (Anti)Circe and T&M (and its variants) is purely chimerical. The key attribute of Circe is REBIRTH. In T&M **THERE IS NO REBIRTH**, because the alleged rebirth square is already occupied by the capturer. Instead, T&M's defining characteristic is the post-capture (extra) move. This to my mind completely exonerates T&M's inventor from any sort of plagiarism in regard to Anticirce - this claim being bolstered by the fact that your "Circe T&M" is not historically precedent.

Regarding "Circe T&M", that name is somewhat misleading: it insinuates, rather, that X takes Y and a reborn Y - a la Circe - then moves **from Y's game-array square** (if vacant). Perhaps you should consider renaming your variant.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10852
(22) Posted by Diyan Kostadinov [Saturday, Aug 31, 2013 09:41]; edited by Diyan Kostadinov [13-08-31]

Wooww, an old story in topic again... This kind of discusions with repeating of looong comments year after year looks unneeded in my point of view. I repeat - THE MOST IMPORTANT IS NOT THE NAME, THE MOST IMPORTANT IS THE CONTENT AND POSSIBILITIES OF THE CONDITION. Take & Make is a great fairy condition and we just SHOULD BE THANKFUL to its inventor Harmut Laue!!!

The definition of condition is good explained, the rules are clear, composers use it and like it as it is. So Kevin, why you want to confuse all and change some rules, definition and name of it?? I didn't see the reason. Really!

About the Anti Take & Make - as I explain in my first reply - I invent it as a theme for the 3rd Bulgarian Wine Tourney in WCCC Japan 2012. I select this variant from possible Take & Make anti-forms, because Christian Poasson wrote me that he can program it in WinChloe in time for the congress. In the same period I saw in the MatPlus forum that Kevin was post a note about the another possible anti-form so thats why I contact with him with the idea to make a join article with presentation of the possible Take & Make anti-forms. He refuse, so I do not publish such an article and focused only on my initial idea (which I named Anti Take & Make with the following reasons - it was easy for understanding and remembering name, it was good name to attract an attention, it was logical name in many aspects).

Actually probably we (with Kevin) are not the first or the only composers which thought about T&M anti-forms. Probably other composers also had similar ideas, who knows... But it is different just to thought about something, to note about it in forum or to present it, define and popularize it. It is not so easy job to invent a condition till to its complete form and to make it world-wide popularity. Of course the main is that it should be interesting fairy conditions with good possibilities to be accepted from our community.

So Kevin, why you only chat in the forum about T&M and not start define, compose some examples, explain and popularize your noted variant of Take & Make antiform? It is interesting form and will be good if some day can by programmed. You can name it as you want (some kind of Circe I guess - even that it is not Circe...).

And about - is it Circe (Anti-Circe) form... No, it is not! I will not speak about T&M now, just will note again that in T&M and AT&M there are MOVEMENTS, not REBORNS and this lead to some specific effects (which Kevin, you will never seen if you not see on T&M and AT&M as a condition which is not a kind of Circe even that they are very close in a lot of aspects.

Here are two examples with Anti Take & Make as illustration:

(= 1+3 )

H#1 Anti Take & Make C+ WinChloe
h3: Chameleon Bishop

1.Kxh3(cBf1=cR) cRh1=cQ#

So, as you see being captured the white chameleon DO NOT REBORN after capture (as it is in Circe type conditions), but make a MOVEMENT and change its chameleon phase!

Here is one more example:

Diyan Kostadinov
JuliasFairies 2012
(= 2+2 )

H#2 2 sol. (2+2) C+ WinChloe
Take & Make, Anti Take & Make
b7: Chameleon Bishop

1.cBe4=cR Kg6 2.cRe6=cQ+ Sxe6(cQg8=cS, Sf7)#
1.cBc6=cR+ Sxc6(cRc5=cQ, Sc8) 2.cQe7=cS Sxe7(cSg8=cB, Sg6) #

Agan you can see the MOVEMENTS (not reborns!) of the black chameleon when he is captured.

I can give a lot of other schemes with specific fairy effects which present the difference between the T&M, AT&M from any Circe/AntiCirce type because of movements of the captured (capturing) piece, but believe that this is enough to stop this discussion is it kind of Circe or not...
 
 
(Read Only)pid=10853
(23) Posted by Neal Turner [Saturday, Aug 31, 2013 09:42]

@Ian

I was thinking along similar lines - you TAKE a piece then MAKE a move - which is not the same as being reborn.
The idea of this problem would hardly be possible in any form of Circe - and no, I'm not worried about being disturbed by the clamour of the AntiSuperCirce specialists shreiking in disagreement.

Pierre Tritten
The Problemist May 2013
(= 6+4 )
h#2 2 solutions
T&M
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10854
(24) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 2, 2013 03:22]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-09-02]

@ Ian,

T&M is a form of Anticirce, which is based entirely upon rebirth.
The method of rebirth does not excuse the plagiarism -- any more than Parrain Circe's rebirth, by grandfather move, would excuse it from being a circe form.

I rejected your proposal.
The name stands; and, the credibility of your arguments is rapidly diminishing -- into what I now consider total intellectual dishonesty.

To recap:
1) you stated that we are "stuck" with the name T&M.
I then demonstrated to you that there is clear precedent for renaming fairy conditions which fail to properly acknowledge precedent (PWC to Platzwechsel Circe).
You provided no counter argument.

Furthermore, I (technically the inventor of the antiform) explained that this argument leaves you no credible hope to persuade me to change my name.
Again, no counter argument.

2) you then changed your line of attack, insisting that my antiform was inconsistent to a unique interpretation of T&M.
I completely refuted the claim that there is a unique interpretation of T&M; and, I provide a consistent interpretation, which proves that "Circe T&M" is, indeed, a clearly consistent antiform.
Again, no counter argument -- you don't even acknowledge your own mistaken presumption -- which is beyond telling!

3) Now, you are willing to disavow your own previous statements, and claim that T&M is not a form of anticirce.

Recall what you said (to me), in this very thread, ""Whilst T&M is indeed cognate to AntiCirce, as you point out, that has no bearing whatsoever on naming variants or on the definition of antiform."

As pointed out above, that statement is false -- the form does have every bearing on the classification (read: naming) of fairy variants.
This is the most important aspect of our inherited classification system -- it is something we should fight to preserve.

But, what do you do instead?

SURPRISE SURPRISE! Suddenly, you no longer recognize T&M as a legitimate anticirce form.
Every time the facts go against you, your argument is quickly reborn (into less credible forms).

This latest attempt is an intellectually dishonest venture, based entirely upon twisted logic (which is intended to serve an outcome, rather than the facts).

I need not argue the point any further -- I can see what this has degraded into.
I am NOT persuaded to change the name of "Circe T&M", nor its rules, nor its defaults (to standard acirce rules), by this shameless attempt.
In fact, quite the contrary.

You have stated that you have no authority to alter my name -- so, in your own words, you are stuck with my antiform.
And, we have nothing more to discuss.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=10865
(25) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 2, 2013 03:58]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-09-02]

@ Neal,

There are many forms of circe which do not rely upon the "modalities of circe" (read: initial piece arrangement).
For example: Circe Exchange, Circe Parrain, Circe Equipollents, etc.
Note: all of these predate the anticirce form which was intended to be called "Take & Make."

None of this is enough to dismiss the fact that they have borrowed the key idea (rebirth by some mechanism), from the circe/acirce form.

Further, there are many forms of circe which do not provide an exclusive square for rebirth (but afford the rebirthing player an option of rebirth squares).
For example: Super Circe, Circe Antipode (on boards of larger sizes), Circe Cage, etc.

Note: several of these, too, will predate T&M.
Even "optimal replacement" is widely considered to be a form of circe (though it remains improperly named).


You said: "...you TAKE a piece then MAKE a move - which is not the same as being reborn."
FALSE -- you do NOT MAKE a second move, on one turn.
Gheez, what a bunch of nonsense!!!

You take a unit, and then the capturing unit vanishes from that square, and may reappear, according to some set rules.
This is EXACTLY what happens in rebirth, in ALL anticirce forms.

What you are saying is akin to the intellectually dishonest claim made by the inventor of PWC, when he claimed that a captured unit was not reborn (as in circe), but was shifted onto the square of the capturing unit.

You must really be desperate to cover up Hartmut's failure, if you are going to argue that the slight alteration of the rebirthing mechanism is enough to ignore the rebirth.
To claim it's an additional move is a misunderstanding of epic proportion.

THINK: if this were a move, it would have move implications (which would radically alter Hartmut's invention).


As for Hartmut... it is clear that he has known about the circe form since (at least) 1972 -- over 4 decades!
I am quite confident he knew about ancirce form, too.
Why he failed to properly credit this form, remains a mystery (I encourage you to ask him to explain this oversight).
And, while your at it, ask the publisher to do the same.

I suspect he (and the publisher) made an honest mistake -- had they noticed this, they would have immediately discovered the antiform.
I don't know why it's now become so difficult to admit this mistake.
I don't know why people (like Ian) tend to presuppose that the name must now be considered beyond all repair.
It is beyond logic to explain why he (and perhaps others) are so eager to retain a misclassified name, that will consider altering their (formerly correct) view of the anticirce form.

It is certainly not my intent to make this admission a more difficult process for any inventor.
I want only to encourage inventors of new fairy elements to adhere to the logic of the well designed classification system, which we all have inherited.
Sadly, debates in this wonderful forum typically degrade into a silly contest of egos (completely divorced from the cogent facts).

Lately, fairy elements are being invented by individuals who are less active in the fairy arena (especially those who seem to want to feign some false tether to orthodoxy).
It is not surprising that the increasing popularity of fairy chess, might negatively impact its own growth (same thing happens in cities, the world over).
What is surprising is how we, as a problem community, have failed to recognize the importance of our well established architecture (which is intended to manage intelligent growth).

There are many issues surrounding this failure, but the failure to address them only burdens future problemists to sort out the mess we leave behind.
And, the longer we wait, the stronger this attitude of hopelessness grows -- Ian is certainly not alone in pretending that we are now stuck with these failures.
This drumbeat of powerlessness becomes a constantly overused theme, infecting all of probleme chess (but especially damaging fairies).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10866
(26) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 2, 2013 06:45]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-09-02]

Any would-be problemists would do well to consider the intellectual dishonesty exemplified in this thread.
If this is not enough to make you consider a more honest pursuit, just wait until you discover what a repeating theme this is, in problem chess!!

Yes, Hartmut Laue invented a fairy condition in which the capturing unit is REBORN (removed from its capture square, and REBORN -- not actually moved, only reborn according to some movement rules! -- on another square of the diagram), according to a specific set of (new and original) rules.
In fact, he was not the first to mandate that capture is impossible, in the event that rebirth is illegal.

This is present in ALL anticirce forms (spanning a wide variety of rebirthing mechanisms).

He was NOT the first to invent such a mechanism -- the Circe/Acirce form has been with us for decades, and constitutes the MOST POPULAR fairy form (nothing else comes close).
Countless others have created a new rule for rebirth, and they all correctly credited the Acirce form, and properly classified their invention according to a set naming convention.

With few exceptions (read: one or two known failures), all others who invented a new and original interpretation of this basic rebirthing mechanism, have credited the proper precedent (the ANTI-CIRCE form); and, they have properly classified their new rebirthing mechanism, according to a well established naming convention (e.g., Anticirce Antipode, Anticirce Diagram, etc).
There are numerous options for the rebirthing mechanism (read: rules of rebirth), which fall under the circe/acrice umbrella.

Credit for precedent is essential for every problemist -- deliberate violations are widely considered plagiarism (despite the fact that no problem has ever been successfully copyrighted, this is a well established principle, which affords credit for those who endeavor to create artistic problems).

But, here in this thread, you will find several problemists operating under an entirely new set of rules (a paradigm shift which is completely anti-thema to the most principled precedent in all of problem chess).
This intellectual dishonesty violates the very spirit upon which problem chess is built (which is essential to prevent intellectual theft of problems, and inventions).

To fully understand the scope of the matter, just consider that not only did this honorable practice exemplify the best practice of problemists, it also helped to classify a much larger set of inventions.
In theory, it was supposed to help provide default rules -- making it easier for all (especially new enthusiasts) to learn/retain the rules.
In fact, beyond that, it helps prevent inventors from concocting new strange defaults in new circe forms (tailored to serve their own problem ideas).
More than that -- this proper naming convention provided an intelligent classification system, which enabled enthusiasts to locate all expressions of the circe/acirce forms under one giant umbrella -- nobody would be taxed to search through a vast (and growing!) list of fairy conditions, hoping to avoid reinvention of the wheel.

I submit that the advocacy in this threat is breaking (not just bending) their own rules -- in fact, their most fundamental rules, upon which the citation of an original author squarely depends.
If these rules can be violated for fairy inventions, so too can original work be improperly cited.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=10867
(27) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 2, 2013 08:12]

@ Diyan,

Please recall that you emailed me, some time back, petitioning for a joint composing using my invention ("Circe T&M").

For the record, I replied as follows:

"I'd be honored to collaborate with you on an anti-form of Take & Make. However, I do think we have to begin with an honest discussion of this condition's [precedent]
And, I would suggest opening the discussion to Harmut Laue, Nicolas Dupont, Christian Poisson, Popeye Programmers, and perhaps some editors (particularly Fairies editors which are regularly publishing problems in this [T&M] condition)."


I have no record of any further reply from you.
You never even bothered to inform me that Mat Plus was having such a discussion (in my absence), about the condition I invented.
And, in my absence you enjoin in this intellectually dishonest argument, which pretends that T&M is not a form of anticirce -- without even raising any of the points I have raised, in previous discussions, surrounding this issue.

I have clearly demonstrated that T&M conforms exactly the anticirce form (with NO significant diffences from numerous other anticirce variants).
1) a capturing unit is displaced according to some rules of rebirth,
2) the capture is considered illegal, UNLESS rebirth is possible.

Not only have you completely ignored that, in your discussion here, not only have you failed to include me in your discussion about my own invention, you did not even bother to mention who invented this!


Jan 28, 2012 -- you said:
"In the attached file are some examples and explanations of Anti Take & Make and some possible variations - Anti Take & Make non strict and Anti Take & Make Reverse (which if I understood correct was your idea in the Mat Plus forum)."

Yes, clearly you understood correctly that I had invented this, but you tried (and failed) to change the proper name I gave to the condition.
The correct name, as I explained then, and will repeat now, is Circe T&M (and, as I already stated then, it observes all default circe rules -- unless otherwise altered by additional condition).

Please get that correct -- I already corrected you, on this point, in my reply.
I will consider any attempt to alter that name to be both intellectually dishonest, and a form of deliberate plagiarism.

Note my reply, on Jan 29, 2012 -- which was entirely consistent with what I have said here:
"...the essence of Hartmut Laue's condition is derived from the family of Anti-Circe forms.
A capturing unit is reborn into the diagram -- the only difference is, his specific rules for rebirth are new.
I believe the need for this alternative interpretation is bolstered by a Nicolas Dupont's Proofgame, where all 8 black pawns are reborn onto the 8th rank (which is contrary to Hartmut's rules, but entirely consistent with an Anti-Circe interpretation of his condition).
We must consider precedent, and can not ignore the precedent of the Anti-Circe Family."



Note: already we required an alternative form of T&M, to accommodate Nicolas' prize-winning proofgame (which borrowed from a thematic idea that I probably pioneered, with Kostas Prentos, and I have repeatedly shown: 8 pawns reborn onto the first rank).

Furthermore, you might want to take note that even the judgments/comments surrounding T&M are apt to describe this displacement as a rebirth.
So, you're not exactly fooling anybody by continually pretending this is not an anticirce form.


Continuing from my reply, I stated:
"But, it's not too late to admit that Hartmut's idea is not entirely original. His idea is born entirely -- even if subconsciously! -- from the Circe & AntiCirce Family, which universally provide for rebirths of captured/capturing units."


I invented you to have an open conversation about this matter, on Mat Plus (I was actually eager to sort this out); and, instead, just observe what kind of discussion you had here (in my absence)!

And what do I find -- numerous false claims tossed about (e.g., read my replies to Ian's comments) -- which I have to refute myself.
I didn't see you refuting a single one!

What can I say?
Your campaign, in this thread, seems a completely dishonest and disgraceful attempt at piracy, from the outset!

If you want to create an anti-form for T&M, you'll just have to do so using an association of proper additional conditions, attached to my "Circe T&M."
The name I have given my invention is correct, and I stand by it.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=10869
(28) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 2, 2013 08:26]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-09-02]

@Diyan,

"When I searching some new theme for the 3rd Bulgarian Wine Tourney I started to thinking about all of them and the possibilities which they can present. Then I saw that in MatPlus forum Kevin Begley was wrote about the one of these variations. I sent him an email that I planning to present these anti-forms of Take & Make and it will be correct to invite him as a co-inventor, because he already wrote about one of them and we can write an article about these possible anti-forms and to popularize them during the WCCC in Japan as a theme for the 3rd Bulgarian Wine Tourney."


Diyan, if you were emailing me to invite me to be "co-inventor" of my own invention, I am sorry to inform you that your English is exceptionally poor.

I was under the distinct impression that you were inviting me to co-author an article about my published invention, which would rely upon some joint work.
But, now that I have read this, let me officially reply to that invitation, here...

By the time you had come around to thinking about this, I had already published my invention, and I see no reason (whatsoever) to credit you as my co-inventor.
Furthermore, I reject your proposal to improperly rename (and falsely reclassify) what is my condition.

If you have some compelling reason that I should consider you to be a co-inventor, then you had better make your case.
And, in so doing, I would encourage you to find a better translator!

If you published an article using my antiform, then you are obliged to correct it, accordingly (and properly credit the inventor).
Mistakes I can tolerate, but piracy I will not abide.

"Actually probably we (with Kevin) are not the first or the only composers which thought about T&M anti-forms. Probably other composers also had similar ideas, who knows... But it is different just to thought about something, to note about it in forum or to present it, define and popularize it. "

No, Diyan, it is not enough for you to have THOUGHT about it.
Nor is it enough for you to claim to have "popularized" my invention (that does not confer you any credit).

I did not just "note" this in this forum, Diyan.
I discovered this antiform, I defined it clearly, and I was FIRST TO PUBLISH.
Nothing else matters -- I am entitled to sole credit for the invention.

You published NOTHING about this, until after you emailed me.

Read your own email carefully:

January 28, 2012 (over a year after I had invented this)...

" Dear Kevin,
In the attached file are some examples and explanations of Anti Take & Make and some possible variations - Anti Take & Make non strict and Anti Take & Make Reverse (which if I understood correct was your idea in the Mat Plus forum). "


Your own email betrays your claim, Diyan.
If you took any credit for this, or altered the name I gave to this condition, then we're talking about something far worse than intellectual dishonesty -- we're talking about intellectual piracy.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10870
(29) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 2, 2013 09:03]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-09-02]

Finally, for the record, let me clearly state...

It is not in my interest to take credit, even for "Circe T&M" (nor to force a given name).
I only take credit for this antiform in order to provide it some intellectual protection.
I want only to help assure that it is properly classified.

If Hartmut Laue would simply acknowledge that T&M is a form of anticirce, which should default to the rules under anticirce (any necessary attachments -- including what seems his own very interesting circe attachment, rendering any move illegal which rebirths a pawn on the first rank -- should be attached as extra circe options, or additional conditions), then I would (very happily!) extend him full credit for all the antiforms, too.

I did not invent this in search of credit for a new fairy idea (anybody who reads my original thread, from September 2010, will see that I was only struggling to correctly classify this invention, when I settled on defining "Circe T&M").

I claim credit only to assure that the antiform is intellectually protected, from piracy.

So, if anybody reading this has contact with Hartmut Laue, please make the case to him (why he is obliged to reconsider sharing proper credit for his invention, which is an anticirce form); and, inform him of my offer to hand over all the antiforms.

If he admits this is Anticirce, then I lose any legitimate claim to the circe form.
Otherwise, my Circe form persists, and any convoluted antiform of T&M must be derived from my "Circe T&M."

I will bargain, but only with Hartmut Laue.
Nobody else in this thread has any credible claim to be entitled to any consideration in such a negotiation.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10871
(30) Posted by Diyan Kostadinov [Monday, Sep 2, 2013 13:49]; edited by Diyan Kostadinov [13-09-02]

Dear Kevin,
I never try or wanted to (re)named your proposed anti-form of T&M. In my email which I sent to you I call it "Take & Make Reverse", because before to see your suggestion in MatPlus forum I was almost ready with an article about the possible "anti-forms" of T&M. Even I was contact with Christian Poisson and he confirm that will include A-T&M in WinChloe. I contacted also with some other fairy composers about the idea. Actually I can not remember some of them told me or me myself saw the discussion about T&M in MatPlus forum, where you suggested the possible antiform where "when X capturing Y, Y move (you preffering reborn) like X" [your post was: Circe T&M - captured units are reborn according to a choice of some legal move from the capturing unit. The capturing side would have the option to decide. Pawns reborn onto their 8th ranks are instantly promoted.] Thats why I contact with you with offer to present together the possible T&M anti-forms:

- YOUR: when X capturing Y, Y move (you preffering "reborn") like X (which I was named "Take & Make Reverse" in the planning article, before to see your post in the forum, where you named it "Circe Take & Make")
- and MINE: when X capturing Y, Y move like Y (which I was named "Anti Take & Make")

You answered that for you is important to prove that T&M is part of Anti-Circe etc. and your answer (from 29.01.2012) finishing with: "I am not interested in creating an Anti-T&M, unless it comports to Circe/Anti-Circe (which is precisely where the anti-form idea comes from)."

Well when you was "not interested in creating an Anti-T&M, unless it comports to Circe/Anti-Circe", I was not interested to continue this unneeded discussion about "T&M / Anti-Circe", because its look that our opinions differ. So I stopped the conversation and focused only to "Anti-Take & Make" without to continue to look on your supposed anti-T&M version (which you named Circe-T&M).
So I never spoke about your fairy condition and never tryed to re-named etc. It is still free, so you are free to popularize it and named it as you want. But please don't speak about "Anti Take & Make" invented by me as a theme for the 3rd Bulgarian Wine Tourney that its part of Circe - just because it is not (you can see two examples in my post n.22 above and will see the difference between "movement" and "reborn" of the captured piece!) Take & Make and Anti-Take & Make are not part of Anti-Circe and Circe because of "movements" instead of "reborns" - which have its specific fairy efects in case of castling, an passant, capture of chameleons etc...

If you want - your suggested fairy condition "Circe T&M" (where the captured piece move/REBORN using the nature of the CAPTURING piece) can be part of Circe family because there you want the thematic pieces to reborns - this is your right as an inventor. But it is different from my invented Anti Take & Make (where the captured piece MOVES as its OWN nature) and I was surprized to see the changed name in Popeye 4.63 instead of A-T&M... Actually there the captured pieces are really programed as "reborned", but even that the program is very useful for testing problems of this kind.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10876
(31) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Monday, Sep 2, 2013 19:59]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-09-02]

The only "intellectual dishonesty" I see in this thread is all coming from one direction. I'll leave it to others to discern what direction that is. All I'll add is this:

1. Yes, initially I declared T&M to be cognate to AntiCirce. I then said that after further reflection I realized that taxonomy was a mistake, and openly admitted as much: T&M is in no way connected to AntiCirce.

2. A certain person still doesn't understand that for a well-defined grundform like T&M, it has one and only one, unique, antiform. So-called - misnamed - "Circe T&M" is NOT *the* antiform of T&M.

3. Neal said: "...you TAKE a piece then MAKE a move - which is not the same as being reborn." Kevin retorts:
"FALSE -- you do NOT MAKE a second move, on one turn. Gheez, what a bunch of nonsense!!!"

The only nonsense here is the dismissal of Neal's stated truth. A. T&M by its very rules DEMANDS a second MOVE (or "displacement" if you prefer). B. Given this, if there were a rebirth, it would have to be ON THE ARRIVAL SQUARE OF THE CAPTURER, whereby two units would occupy a single square! This is ridiculous, showing there is NO REBIRTH.

I hope you enjoy tilting at windmills and vilifying others alone on your high horse, Mr Begley.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=10881
(32) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 2, 2013 20:36]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-09-02]

Diyan,

>I never try or wanted to (re)named your proposed anti-form of T&M.

No, you just falsely claim to have invented the same thing, under your own changed name, using alternate rules!

Never did you inform me that you were intent upon claiming credit for having invented an anti-form of T&M.
You never once asked me to credit you for co-authorship of an antiform.
When you emailed me (over a year after I had already published a proper antiform), you clearly knew that I had already published a proper antiform (Circe T&M).

You made a poor effort to claim that the name should be changed, and I clearly rejected that.
I explained to you why T&M is a form of anticirce, and I explained that I had no interest in an improperly cast antiform (which failed to acknowledge the proper precedent, or adhere to a proper classification).
I clearly explained to you that a discussion was necessary, with Hartmut Laue, to resolve this matter.

You never once asked me to consider your bogus claim for partial credit of an antiform -- if you had done so, I would have immediately rejected you proposal.
I have no reason to credit you for my discovery -- you had absolutely no basis for taking such credit.
For you to claim such credit now, constitutes an intellectual piracy.

The only thing you said to me -- in that ONE email you sent, over a year after I had already published a proper anti-form (Circe T&M) -- is that you were interested in co-authorship of an ARTICLE, concerning what you clearly understood to be my invention (in the Mat Plus Forum)!
That's it.

You suggested some alternative name, and I rejected your proposal.
I clearly indicated to you that T&M was wrongly classified outside the anticirce form, and that the proper antiform must be Circe T&M.

If you published anything claiming credit for yourself, you have an obligation to correct those publications!
The antiform was NEVER your invention -- you played no part in the development of this.

I discovered the antiform for Hartmut's invention -- not you.
I discovered that T&M was actually an anticirce form -- not you.
And, I properly published that antiform (Circe T&M) -- not you.
In my reply, I clearly informed you that I had no interest in creating an alternative antiform, specific to the improperly cast T&M.
You seem to have misunderstood that reply completely -- I clearly indicated that I was opposed to ignoring decades of precedent established by the circe/anticirce form (which Hartmut had failed to appreciate).



>In my email which I sent to you I call it "Take & Make Reverse", because before to see your suggestion in MatPlus forum I was almost ready with an article about the possible "anti-forms" of T&M.

Any invention you think you made, was clearly anticipated, Diyan.
For you to completely ignore this fact, and claim to have invented the antiform, constitutes nothing less than plagiarism.
I was well over a year ahead of you.
And, if you took credit, you are now obligated to make remedy for your false claim.


>Even I was contact with Christian Poisson and he confirm that will include A-T&M in WinChloe.

I suggest you recontact him, and remedy what has proven to be a false attribution.

>I contacted also with some other fairy composers about the idea.
>Actually I can not remember some of them told me or me myself saw the discussion about T&M in MatPlus forum, where you suggested the possible antiform ...
>Thats why I contact with you with offer to present together the possible T&M anti-forms:

When you were informed of the anticipation, you lost all claim to this antiform.
You never notified me of any of this.
You only suggested co-authoring an article about the idea I had already published.

>You answered that for you is important to prove that T&M is part of Anti-Circe etc.
>and your answer (from 29.01.2012) finishing with: "I am not interested in creating an Anti-T&M, unless it comports to Circe/Anti-Circe (which is precisely where the anti-form idea comes from)."

Again, no, I explained that proper classification is necessary, and I had no interest in publishing any article which failed to attribute credit for the circe/acirce form.
In fact, I would much prefer to hand this all off to Hartmut; but, I can not do this until he acknowledges the proper form (which has decades of established precedent, spanning dozens of rebirthing options).

>Well when you was "not interested in creating an Anti-T&M, unless it comports to Circe/Anti-Circe", I was not interested to continue this unneeded discussion about "T&M / Anti-Circe", because its look that our opinions differ.
>So I stopped the conversation and focused only to "Anti-Take & Make" without to continue to look on your supposed anti-T&M version (which you named Circe-T&M).

You are still stammering about what you did.
You were notified of an anticipation for what you had thought to be your idea.
Without explaining this to me, you offer co-authorship of an article.
I insist the name you propose for this article is incorrect -- this invention must be properly classified.
Then, you discontinue the conversation, and completely ignore the anticipation.
You never notified me of your plans to pursue this.
You never asked for permission to take partial-credit for my idea.
And, you never informed me of the piracy which ensued.

You never informed Christian Poisson of the fact that I had already invented the antiform (or the proper name I had given it).
Furthermore, you failed to inform me about the discussion in Mat Plus Forum (which I thought was still down).
And, you tried to wrestle away credit for the antiform -- after it was noted that I was first to invent this condition.

That's what you call discontinuing a conversation?
My friend, you are not being fully honest.
I expect you to remedy this.

It is baseless for you to pretend that a slight difference in rules are sufficient to merit you a claim to originality, in discovering an antiform.
You were well aware of the antiform (it now explains why you came to me, proposing to co-author an article).
When you didn't like my insistence about maintaining the long established naming convention for rebirth forms, you decided to completely ignore the original invention, and pursue your own version (you just erased my anticipation entirely, without ever having mentioned it to me).

You trespassed against the intellectual honesty that I would expect from any problemist colleague.
And, you are deliberately being very coy here, about what you actually did.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10882
(33) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Monday, Sep 2, 2013 23:25]

children? let's put our toys away now....
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10883
(34) Posted by Diyan Kostadinov [Tuesday, Sep 3, 2013 02:01]; edited by Diyan Kostadinov [13-09-18]

Yeah, this "my", "your", "circe", "no circe" discussion is unneeded as I say in the beginning and (as expecting) becoming completely out of topic...

But (hope) for the last time I will tell you Kevin - what "rights" you speaking about?? Our art is with small and friendly comunity, here are not something commersial etc. If someone suggest (invent) a new fairy condition, or new variant of fairy condition each composer can deside is it interesting and useful to him or not (and this is most important).

You are NEVER suggest the same anti-form of T&M which I invent for the 3rd Bulgarian Wine Tourney and named "Anti Take & Make" (or I missing something??)! You was post in the forum another possible anti-form of T&M and you called it "Circe T&M" [your post was: "Circe T&M - captured units are reborn according to a choice of some legal move from the capturing unit. The capturing side would have the option to decide."] Both conditions are different: in mine ("Anti-Take & Make") after capture the captured piece MOVES from its square with its OWN power (nature); in your suggested "Circe T&M" after capture the captured piece REBORNS (as you always repeating) using the nature of THE CAPTURING piece. Both conditions are interesting and anti-forms of T&M, so thats why I ofered you to make the article together, because I respect the "rights" that you have on your Circe-T&M (even that I am not agree that it should be "Circe"). If you still do not see the difference between your "Circe Take & Make" and my "Anti Take & Make", please see the next simple example (which is just a scheme):

(= 6+4 )

H#1
a) Circe Take & Make (invented by Kevin Begley)
b) Anti Take & Make (invented by me)

a) 1.Bxh8(wRa1) 0-0-0# (according your definition of Circe Take & Make - the white Rook REBORN on a1 using power of bB and can castling)
b) 1.Bxh8(wRh2) Rg2# (according definition of Anti Take & Make - white Rook MOVING to h2 using its OWN nature. In the final position the bK can not capture the wSh1 because of selfcheck by the moving Knight on f2,g3).

By the way - in the scheme above if the wRh8 is on a7 - there in no mate in case of Circe T&M because after 1.Bxa7(wRf2) Rg2+ 2.Kxh1(wSg1,h2)!!, but with Anti Take & Make there is mate after 1.Bxa7(wRg7) Sh2#!! (and the bK can not capture wSh2 because of selfcheck from the moving Knight), and there is no mate after 1.Bxa7(wRa1) because the wR become on a1 moving to there, not reborn in a new Rook, so the white can not castling.

I hope the difference between both conditions is clear now (or you need more examples). You can see also the difference between Moving and Reborn and why A-T&M is not type of Circe (even that they are very similar) in my examples in comment 22 above. So what "rights" you mean?? Both conditions are complete different anti-forms of T&M (and acording your wishes your variant is even more close to kind of Circe instead of T&M...).

You ask me what is my contribution to "Anti Take & Make"!? Really? I defined it and present it, I composing a lot of examples with it, I explain it in lecture during the WCCC, I popularized it with organizing, sponsoring and judging two thematic tourneys, I contact and ask the programmers to include it (and I AM SO THANKFUL for their positive answers and hard work!)... Repeated again - I speak about the condition Anti Take & Make, NOT ABOUT YOUR suggested "Circe Take & Make", which nobody says is not your. So Kevin, why we not stop this discussion and (3 years after your post here) you not start to compose some examples of your invention and to preset it in more complete form? It is interesting condition and if it programing I believe the composers will like it.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10890
(35) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Tuesday, Sep 3, 2013 02:51]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-09-03]

Another reason why T&M - and its variants - do not involve REBIRTH, hence are NOT cognates of Circe (initially I was wrong to claim otherwise!), is that if the unit "making" the T&M move is a Pawn, then it can be captured e.p. e.p.-capture occurs ONLY after a P-MOVE.

In post 21, I also pointed out a potential confusion arising from Begley's misnamed "Circe T&M". That "confusion", I wrote, insinuates a rather interesting raft of possibilities of which I claim invention and label thus:


GRUNDFORM

Circe&MakeX

Circe, with the additional condition that the reborn unit then makes a non-capturing move from its game-array square as if it were its capturer (X). As in T&M, this must be possible, otherwise the capture is illegal.

Circe&MakeY

Circe, with the additional condition that the reborn unit then makes a non-capturing move from its game-array square as itself (Y). As in T&M, this must be possible, otherwise the capture is illegal.


ANTIFORM

AntiCirce&MakeY

AntiCirce, with the additional condition that the reborn unit then makes a non-capturing move from its game-array square as if it were the captured unit (Y). As in T&M, this must be possible, otherwise the capture is illegal.

AntiCirce&MakeX

AntiCirce, with the additional condition that the reborn unit then makes a non-capturing move from its game-array square as itself (X). As in T&M, this must be possible, otherwise the capture is illegal.

Other Circe variants could be adapted similarly - e.g. VolcanicCirce&Make etc. etc.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10891
(36) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Sep 3, 2013 05:01]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-09-03]

@Eugene,

There is a deliberate deception at work here.
Despite what he claimed here, Diyan never informed me of his intent to borrow my idea.
He completely misrepresented his intent to me, concerning this idea.

That's plagiarism, and it's completely contrary to the most fundamental principle of problem chess.
It's not being childish to inform others of this deception.

I have already repeatedly stated (from the beginning, back in 2010, and in my email to Diyan), this is NOT about what's "mine."
As a matter of fact, I had originally attributed this to Nicolas Dupont.
This was never about childish possession of some toy.
It was all about intellectual honesty.

I would prefer to take no credit -- I only sought to protect the idea from intellectual bandits (who would claim it as "theirs"), so that Hartmut could have an opportunity to credit the proper form (anticirce / circe), for which his idea was born.

But, when somebody wants to claim credit for an idea that was not theirs (e.g., falsely claiming that they merit original credit for another's idea, because they "popularized it"), it goes beyond possession of some toy.
He knew his idea was anticipated -- why else would he have contacted me, suggesting we "co-author" his article?
But, he never once informed me of his intent to claim original credit for the idea (as he has falsely claimed here).

Now, he's claiming that his idea is completely different.
If that were true, then why send me an email, in which he claims to have offered me shared credit for his (read: no, not his) idea?
How many times has the story changed?

This constitutes a violation of our most important principles, and problemists should be aware to watch out for such a scam!


@Ian,

I've already refuted several of your false claims; and, you never acknowledged this (you just changed your story, and offered a new claim).
I'm sorry, but I am not going to keep going around and around with you.
Like Diyan, you have no credible claim to name this form.

When Hartmut is ready to acknowledge the proper form (T&M is based entirely upon anticirce rebirth, and captures are entirely conditioned upon anticirce rules of rebirth), then all of the options are his to name.

If you want to make suggestions, send them his way (maybe he will entertain them).


@All,

Unless Hartmut joins this discussion, I have nothing more to say regarding this issue.
If anybody has contact with Hartmut Laue, please send him my email (kevinjbegley (at) gmail.com), and tell him I'd like to help him resolve a classification error.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10893
(37) Posted by Diyan Kostadinov [Tuesday, Sep 3, 2013 05:53]; edited by Diyan Kostadinov [13-09-04]

Kevin, please read my post n. 34. Where and who was impaired the intellectual honesty?? Nobody says that your invention "Circe Take & Make" is not yours. But you are NEVER suggest the same anti-form of T&M which I invent for the 3rd Bulgarian Wine Tourney and named "Anti Take & Make" (please read my comment n.34 where the differences between both conditions are explained with examples).

All we know that you are inventor of "Circe T&M", so you are who should do all the job to popularize it. But please do not speak about "Anti Take & Make" because your thoughts compared to "Circe" just goes to wrong direction. You even don't want to see the differences which I explained (with examples) in my comments above (n.34 and n.22)...

And in the end (I hope so) - about your last claim in the previous post about the inventor of Take & Make: "tell him I'd like to help him resolve a classification error". Wooow - you want to "help" the inventor to "resolve error" in his own invention??? Who give you right for this? Why not try to see the things from another angle - probably the inventor known his idea more deep and well than every else (even me and you)...

I really didn't see the reason to changing the well defined, interesting and well accepted fairy invention as Take & Make (and also Anti Take & Make) just because someone thing that it looks similar like another. By the way I told you that T&M looks also like "Oppo-Pass Chess", Anti T&M looks like "Oppo-Tag chess", your Circe T&M looks like "Oppo – Kick" (all presented in 1981 in the article which I sent to you year ago) but all they have their specific differences, so who cares about it? All these conditions are clear and well accepted, so let we don't confuse all with such an unnecessary paralels.
I did not continued our conversation a year ago about these fairy conditions just because I don't think it is correct or good to make such comparison and changes. Our opinions differ. I don't want to tell you how you should think - this is your right. Each composer has his own opinion.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10894
(38) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Tuesday, Sep 3, 2013 12:24]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-09-03]

@Kevin.

"I've already refuted several of your false claims ..."

No, you've just stuck doggedly to your chimerical delusions, the main one being that T&M is a variant of AntiCirce. At first, without thinking about it sufficiently, I was in agreement; but further reflection confirmed that connection to be preposterous. Circeomania much?

"... and, you never acknowledged this"

It is a waste of time refuting 'refutations' based on false premises (that T&M involves rebirths).

I have no desire to change the name of T&M, which is perfectly adequate. But I do maintain that the names of some of its variants are problematic - I gave reasons why - and should be changed. "Circe T&M" is nonsensical. Diyan is quite right to point to the 1981 "Chessics" articles on "Chess Reacions", by Chris Tylor, as the true precursor to T&M and its offshoots; (Anti)Circe is fundamentally different.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10898
(39) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, Sep 4, 2013 00:08]

Diyan

The way you use to answer Kevin does not seem fair, I am sorry.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10902
(40) Posted by Diyan Kostadinov [Wednesday, Sep 4, 2013 04:05]

Yes, this discussion became rough (which was predictable from the begining)... I am truly sorry if I hurt you somehow Kevin! Nothing personal against you - just clash of different opinions. I apologise to all who felt bad to read all these posts.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10903

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3

MatPlus.Net Forum General Take&Make and its Antiform