Guus Rol: This is an incorrect interpretation of the AP-convention. Rules outrank goals in the definition of all GAMES. Therefore the legitimacy of a move cannot be restricted by the desire to achieve the goal (in this case: Remis). The proper way to view AP is that executing e.p. invalidates the legitimacy of all lines of future play that do not contain 0-0-0! In that sense black and white are forced to cooperate. In whatever freedom remains they can compete for the prize promised in the stipulation. By the way, this understanding of AP is not only more logical, it is also much more interesting as a playing field for AP-composition. (2005-09-21)
mri: citeWeiß kann aber so spielen, daß Schwarz nicht rochieren kann, z.B. 1. ... Lxc7 2. bxc7
/cite
How does white prevent black from castling after 1. cxb6 e.p. Ba7xb6+?
E.g. 2.Kxb6 a1=R 3.a7 Rxa7, or 2.Ka4 Bd8xc7 3.a7 Bb8. (2005-09-22)
VL: 1.c5xb6ep(??) a7xb6+ 2.Kxb6 a1R 3.Kb7 R1xa6 4.Rc8! (R6a7#?? illegal).
This study is correct under the generally accepted understanding of AP
a la' N.Petrovic'. Antiform (looking possibly somewhat strange):
Black's unsuccessful try. (2005-10-03)
Guus Rol: Generally accepted, true. Generally acceptable, false. Freedom of interpretation ceases for a concept once its polar concept (a priori validation) has been defined. "Goal induced AP" however, might be a passable stipulation for this type of problem. To keep this place from turning into a discussion forum I will discontinue comments on this issue. (2005-10-03)
paul: Author intention is: If black still can castle, his last move must have been b7-b5. However, to prove this, he has to castle (A Posteriori condition). So: 1.cxb6 e.p. axb6+ 2.Kxb6 a1R! (2...a1Q? 3.Kb7 Qxa6 mate obviously doesn`t prove b7-b5 as the last move) 3.Kb7 R1xa6 4.Rc8! and white has prevented black from castling. So black can`t prove the last move is b7-b5 and therefor is already stalemated in the initial position! (2011-07-12)
A.Buchanan: Isn't Guus' idea just AP-Prioritat? And even if it were "more logical" or "more interesting", it doesn't follow that other forms is AP are "incorrect" (2023-07-31)
A.Buchanan: Isn't Guus' idea just AP-Prioritat? And even if it is "more logical" or "more interesting", it doesn't follow that previous interpretations are "incorrect". Once a "polar concept" has been defined, prior art remains, and is valid in its own context. "Freedom of interpretation" remains, although newer compositions may adopt the newer paradigm. If a new idea does succeed in displacing the old, then problems (old and new) which depend on the earlier interpretation should be preserved with the context in which they existed. I don't know whether the
"Timeline Gallery" will ever physically exist, but I hope that it will. This is basically the "Golden Age" argument, that says if we don't value & preserve the old, we cannot consistently move on to the new (2023-07-30, hidden)
A.Buchanan: Isn't Guus' idea just AP-Prioritat? And even if it were "more logical" or "more interesting", it doesn't follow that previous interpretations are "incorrect". Even if a "polar concept" has been defined, prior art remains, and is valid in the context in which it was formed. "Freedom of interpretation" remains, although newer compositions may preferentially follow the newer paradigm, in part because fresh design space is always desirable.
If a new idea does succeed in displacing the old, then problems (old and new) which depend on the earlier interpretation should be preserved in a "Timeline Gallery", each with the context in which it was created.
It is also a fallacy to say that a stipulation should "explain" the philosophy. Such problems have been defined as AP, and that's fine. I think AP-Prioritat (sorry for absence of umlaut) *does* deserve to be mentioned as part of the stip, but whether the problem is Keym or Petrovic or both or something else - or PRA or RS - all that is part of the solving fun: keywords can record the taxonomic details & they don't need to be part of the stip. (2023-07-30, hidden) more ...
comment