MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

17:23 UTC
ISC 2022
 
  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-Jan-2023

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General Mates in Selfmates: Two Fallacies
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
(21) Posted by Hans Gruber [Saturday, Jun 16, 2007 13:14]

Hi all,

there seems to be a common understanding -- but: no voice heard from those who view it differently? Unless Petko and others do not take part in the discussion, it remains an insider conversation, and the disagreement that arose last years remains unresolved.

Hans Gruber
 
   
(Read Only)pid=893
(22) Posted by Hartmut Laue [Saturday, Jun 16, 2007 22:40]

@ Hans: To me, the main point is the following: Unlike in cases where taste matters, this is a question which may be decided purely by logical reasoning. Having done so, the thing is finished. There exist only very few cases where in discussions about chess problems the category of "opinion" does not play a role. But this is one of them.

After having proved a mathematical proposition (like "the sum of the degrees of the angles of a triangle is 180"), it does not make sense to invite people to discuss their possible doubts about it, unless the logical deduction contains an error (and this is the object of discussion). Certainly, the area of chess problems is not the same as mathematics. But when there are clear definitions and nothing else involved, the same strictness applies of course.

To repeat it: Nobody would exclude the possibility that a judge might dislike multiple mates in a specific selfmate, for reasons which depend on individual properties of the problem in question. - On the other hand, for logical reasons (not for debatable reasons resting on opinions!) there is simply no room to accept any position which dogmatically excludes a selfmate with multiple mates as formally defective. Such a position would in fact need a wilful addition to the existing notions of "selfmate" and/or "dual", extraneous to their original contents. A judge who formally excludes contributions on these grounds applies despotic arbitrariness in this point, possibly unconsciously though.

This is not a lack of tolerance but rational necessity.


 
   
(Read Only)pid=904
(23) Posted by Uri Avner [Saturday, Jun 16, 2007 23:26]

@ Hans:
What you see is the wide-ranging reaction to exactly the same issue you are talking about: the one-sided opinion expressed by very few problemists in a great number of magazines. For a long time this was the only voice heard. Of course, the forum is open for anybody and different opinions are welcome...
 
 
(Read Only)pid=906
(24) Posted by Hans Gruber [Sunday, Jun 17, 2007 01:33]

Hi Hartmut and Uri,

certainly it is not a matter of logic, if I like to keep in contact with Petko, even if I would know that in some respect I cannot agree with him. I even would listen to him when he would try to convince me that the sum of angles in a triangle is 250 degrees. The logic of personal relations and appreciation do not depend on the quality of the logic in one particular argument.

Hans Gruber
 
   
(Read Only)pid=914
(25) Posted by Uri Avner [Sunday, Jun 17, 2007 02:18]; edited by Uri Avner [07-06-17]

Dear Hans,
Does your reply relate in any way to my last note?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=915
(26) Posted by Hartmut Laue [Sunday, Jun 17, 2007 21:27]

Dear Hans,

I fully agree with your last post which - at least to me - made it clear in which sense your foregoing post had to be read.

The whole discussion of one detail is on a completely different level than everybody's highest esteem of a gigantic composer of our times, let alone the privilege to enjoy his friendship. In this respect, it would certainly be desirable and a benefit to learn more about his views.

Cordially, Hartmut
 
 
(Read Only)pid=921

No more posts
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2

MatPlus.Net Forum General Mates in Selfmates: Two Fallacies