|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 |
| (41) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Wednesday, Oct 4, 2023 13:37] |
My point was that 2.5 does not logically fit into group "2. Eliminating a line or square blocker", it belongs to "3. Irrelevant capture"
I understand that in your example after 1.cxd5 Qc4+ if wPb5 is removed it would be a checkmate by doublecheck, but you cannot draw a conclusion from that that the effect of cxb5 is thus removal of a line blocker - it just means that in this particular example the removal allows to achieve the goal in a different way.
But yeah, it's all a matter of perspective, in that we agree.
|
|
| (42) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Wednesday, Oct 4, 2023 16:02] |
I could accept your point of view, but then I would have problems elsewhere. In Helpmate Analyzer, the name of the effect usually consists of two parts. One part describes the purpose (motive) of the effect, the other describes the way the effect is achieved. In some cases, one term describes both the purpose and the way at the same time (eg self-block).
According to you, "Interference / self-pin" and "self-pin by capture" are the same arrival effects. But if we simply wrote "self-pin", this would be an incomplete name according to the Helpmate Analyzer standard.
Classification is only required for captures that have effects. I think the third group is unnecessary. We just skip the captures with no effect and that's it.
|
|
| (43) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Wednesday, Oct 4, 2023 19:13] |
Funny scheme, by the way, works as h#2 with tempo-try, "Unblock by capture" and "Annihilation capture":
 (= 6+4 )
1.Bxf6 Qxf6 2.?? Qd4#
1.Bxf4+ Rg5+ 2.Be5 Qd4#
|
|
| (44) Posted by Valery Gurov [Wednesday, Oct 4, 2023 20:55] |
2...Qd3#
|
|
| (45) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Wednesday, Oct 4, 2023 21:55] |
Indeed interesting scheme.
Sometimes it's not always clear whether it's "Annihilation capture" or "Unblock by capture".
P1343494
Dmitri Turevski
Boris Shorokhov
137 KoBulChess 06/03/2013
4th Prize
 (= 3+5 )
h#5
1.Bb3 Ke4 2.Bxa4 Kd5 3.Bb3+ Kc6 4.Ke8 Ba4 5.Bf7 Kc7#
Is 2.Bxa4 "Annihilation capture" or "Unblock by capture"?
Version
 (= 3+6 )
h#4
1.Bd1 Kd5 2.Bxa4 Kc6 3.Ke8 Bxa4 4.Bf8 Kc7#
Is there a tempo move here?
|
|
| (46) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Wednesday, Oct 4, 2023 22:39] |
Well, the one and only purpose for bBh5-d1-xa4 is providing a tempo-move for White. But ungrateful White thinks: 'Instead of helping me, Black tries to ruin my mating move and now I must capture that stupid bB.'
|
|
| (47) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Thursday, Oct 5, 2023 10:31] |
@Valery
Oh, sorry, the diagram got shifted down. It works either way.
@Viktoras
QUOTE
Is 2.Bxa4 "Annihilation capture" or "Unblock by capture"?
The separation 2.1-2.4 is well defined, but also kind of arbitrary. Likewise 1.1 can be split into square and line cases because guard of the line requres movement powers and guard of the square requires capturing powers which are not the same for pawns (to say nothing about fairy pieces).
QUOTE
Is there a tempo move here?
There's no tempo move here, there's a tempo maneuvre, they are much harder to classify as they work at the level of logical plans, not at the level of individual move effects. Didn't we already have this discussion in 2016? :)
|
|
| (48) Posted by Joost de Heer [Thursday, Oct 5, 2023 14:16] |
No tempo move, since white has to capture the bishop anyway.
But with Sd1 instead of Bh5...
|
|
| (49) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Oct 5, 2023 17:44] |
AI is ungrateful and humans are tragically eager to achieve such ungratefulness.
Liberate yourself of the utterly irelevant delusive factual ghosts and there's a pure tempo-move. Sd1-b2-xa4 would have exactly the same meaning, only without the meaningless incidental effectless attack.
@Joost
No capture of an attacker, since white has to lose a tempo anyway.
|
|
| (50) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Thursday, Oct 5, 2023 18:20] |
We can look at it another way: "Black cannot provide White with a tempo move, so they change the play so that checkmate is achieved without a tempo move."
|
|
| (51) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Thursday, Oct 5, 2023 20:44] |
@Nikola
QUOTE
factual ghosts
They're not factual ghosts, they are simply facts: the bishop guards the mating square, the knight doesn't.
I fully understand your sentiment that common sense should prevail over computer analysis - both are clearly about tempo - but how come they don't both fall into a common pattern?
This is not about AI (you probably mean Machine Learning), this is about the scientific rigour.
@Viktoras
QUOTE
We can look at it another way: "Black cannot provide White with a tempo move, so they change the play so that checkmate is achieved without a tempo move."
Is there some other way to look at it?
|
|
| (52) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Oct 5, 2023 21:06] |
@Dmitri
there is the most basic and wide misconception of 'the scientific rigor'.
We analyze the facts hoping to understand their meaning in the whole system. Modern tendencies abandon and negate what's meaningful and invent and impose a meaning to the meaningless.
If White had some dumb tempo-move, by some superfluous wP, 3...Bxa4 would mean a capture of the attacker...but then bB wouldn't need to go to a4, in the first place.
The trouble is that you INTERPRET 2.Bxa4 as an obvious undeniable fact about an attack. But what you see as a fact is just an interpretation.
bB standing on a4 is a fact but the attack is a meaningless interpretation. In that system, there's just bB instead of wP, enabling wB to move there.
About: "Black cannot provide White with a tempo move, so they change the play so that checkmate is achieved without a tempo move."
If we look only at the chess-rules, there's no meaning for 'tempo-moves', there are only the (legal) chess moves. When we look at a possible next move we may interpret the effect of already played moves and notice an attack. When distinguishing a 'tempo-move' from 'just a move', we are already far beyond the level of the basic rules. Why should we suddenly forget where we are and degrade our understanding and interpretation to the first step of interpretation beyond the rules.
|
|
| (53) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Thursday, Oct 5, 2023 21:54] |
@Dmitri:
QUOTE
Is there some other way to look at it?
Several interpretations are possible.
By mentioned interpretation, there is no tempo in the actual play, but there is a virtual play (=hidden tempo try) showing the existence of hidden zugzwang.
If I understand correctly, Nikola's interpretation is as follows: "3... Bxa4 is a tempo move, since the purpose of the bB maneuver to allow wB to move".
Third possible interpretation: "There is no single tempo move here, but a cooperative play of bB and wB to avoid a zugzwang."
|
|
| (54) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Thursday, Oct 5, 2023 22:41] |
@Nikola
I'm sorry, this whole thread is about the terminology and classification system of the Helpmate Analyzer project. It has its own definition of "tempo move" (check it out, it's available online). It is ok to provide a better definition, but it is not ok to use a different definition without providing it.
@Vikoras
(1) & (3) How would you define "zugzwang"/"hidden zugzwang" in helpmate precisely?
(2) Doesn't this imply that "3... Bxa4" is a tempo move in h#4, but not a tempo move in h#1.5? In other words, does tempo/non-tempo depend on history?
|
|
| (55) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Oct 5, 2023 22:52] |
It is a very simple mistake, you stubbornly continue to impose on your own understanding a nonsensical definition of a tempo-move. Nonsense is achieved by trying to oversimplify a complex concept for the sake of some(read:any) definition.
It is reasonably simple to recognize the tempo-move here and only then you might try to produce some definition that fits to the problem AND NOT the other way round.
|
|
| (56) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Oct 5, 2023 23:09] |
Definitions could have some use, sometimes. But they are expectedly misguiding when they confine concepts that are not definitive.
Better no-definition than a no-sense. Start from the nature of a whole system and then analyze a possible meaning of the apparent components.
Otherwise, oversimplifying in the start results with ever-growing complications later.
As we witness :-)
|
|
| (57) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Thursday, Oct 5, 2023 23:35] |
@Nikola,
What good are concepts if no one can explain what they mean? So many men, so many opinions.
|
|
| (58) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Oct 6, 2023 00:36] |
I'm not sure what you mean. We perceive and are aware of the world around us. In many ways we grow various concepts which evolve and change with time, individually and hystorycally. What good are they? Well, at least we have something to grow and evolve as well as the explanation of them evolve. Definitions lead to a dead end if they don't evolve too. Maintain the things alive, beware of suffocating them by oversimplifying the pseudo-rational explanations.
|
|
| (59) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Friday, Oct 6, 2023 12:27] |
@Nikola
Precise definitions are essential for clarity of communication. When everyone understands the same meaning for specific terms, it becomes easier to discuss and avoid misunderstandings. Clear definitions promote consistency in the use of terminology, that is essential when evaluating and comparing compositions. When definitions evolve, it's possible to update and refine them without stifling creativity.
Why do you think that we simplify the concept of tempo play?
Rather, I am trying to approach the tempo play as a whole that has many forms. Tempo-move is a basic form, but there are also more complex ones such as tempo-maneuver, tempo-try, hidden zugzwang, etc. In turn, each form has subtypes etc. This classification is not described anywhere yet, but part of it is implemented in Helpmate Analyzer.
Helpmate Analyzer only reflects my personal view and way of thinking. Another person may propose a different tempo play concept, as different approaches are possible. In HA, the tempo play (including tempo move) concept has already changed several times and this is a natural process.
I have previously presented several points of view on the same example, but I did not write that I agree with any of them. I don't have an answer yet. That is why we are discussing.
|
|
| (60) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Friday, Oct 6, 2023 13:26] |
@Dmitri
QUOTE
(1) & (3) How would you define "zugzwang"/"hidden zugzwang" in helpmate precisely?
In helpmates, zugzwang should understood in the same way as in ordinary chess. This is a position where we cannot achieve the goal due to the lack of a waiting move. In the actual play, zugzwang never happens because the goal is always reached. But zugzwang can occur in a tempo-try.
There is a type of tempo move "zugzwang avoidance". Such a move is always accompanied by a tempo-try with a real zugzwang.
In general, every tempo move has at least one corresponding tempo-try, but not every tempo-try has a corresponding solution line with a tempo.
A tempo-try that differs from the actual solution is called a "hidden tempo try".
Just recently, I found the article "Zugzwang in the Helpmate - the Paradox of Time" by F. Abdurahmanovic and M. Klasinc (The Problemist, July, 2017, p.128). There, such hidden tempo tries are called "hidden zugzwang". Perhaps "hidden zugzwang" is a bit more clear term than "hidden tempo-try". I use both terms interchangeably depending on the situation.
Your scheme is an example of a helpmate with hidden zugzwang:
1.Bxf6 Qxf6 2.?? Qd4# - hidden tempo-try (=hidden zugzwang).
QUOTE
(2) Doesn't this imply that "3... Bxa4" is a tempo move in h#4, but not a tempo move in h#1.5? In other words, does tempo/non-tempo depend on history?
It depends on the definition of a tempo move. By the current concept of tempo move implemented in HA, tempo/non-tempo does not depend on history.
|
|
Read more... |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
MatPlus.Net  Forum General The arrival effect needs a name |
ISC 2024
