Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostTheory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 11, 2014, 08:46
Quote Remove Edit

I have copied last big post of Nikola Predrag from No.636 (https://juliasfairies.com/problems/jf-2014-iii/no-636/) here.

Nikola Predrag says:
November 7, 2014 at 05:20

OK Georgy there is indeed the crucial point in your 6 points:

1. ” It is very easy to tell the same thing in many different ways”
Yes, we should say the same thing.

2. Yes, AFTER e2-e4 wP is still not unconditionally/definitively on e4, in new position wP is conditionally on e4 or e3.
BEFORE the EP capture wP is on e3, BEFORE any other black move it’s on e4.

3. Do you seriously think that wKf5,wPg4,bKh5,bPh4h6, must be a mate even after a “long” move, because wP ” has all of the abilities of piece standing on the fourth rank and no abilities of the piece standing on the third rank”?
I think that abilities are not the same as in case after some other move and the result of the game might be changed quite a bit.

4. The exceptions which corrupt the organic principles of a system are caused by the inadequate point of view. Corrupting exceptions in the celestial movements were caused by geocentric viewpoint.
The potentially corrupting exception was allowing the “long” move but the EP is a beautiful amendment which preserves the organic principles .
FIDE rules avoid a corrupting interpretation that bP on forth rank may capture wP standing on 4th rank by moving to 3rd rank.
There are indeed chess rules which rely on such absurdly corrupting exceptions.
I don’t insist on FIDE rules, but only if better rules might be offered.

5. “Any chess rule may be interpreted the way the author wants it”, providing a consistent definition for everything that violates the standard rules. Otherwise, the interpretation is not detectable for a viewer.
And any viewer may interpret how significantly the chess principles are corrupted in such case.

6. Is a “real problem or schematic example generally worth” at all, if the rules or a change of standard rules are not defined?

I also say it for the last time:
When a wP definitively and unconditionally arrives on 4th rank, there is no, even exceptionally miraculous way, that bP on 4th rank may capture it. That is one of the organic principles of standard chess. Whoever changes this, at least should define and announce the change.

Dominic, when the “double-step” and ep. capture were added to the previous chess rules, double-step was sometimes even not allowed to parry the check.
That interpretation would support Zenon in your example.
So, double-step was sometimes interpreted as moving to d3 first and if the opponent alllows (refusing to apply ep. capture), wP may continue to d4. Achille’s pawn wouldn’t be allowed to jump on d4 and moving to d3 first, would be illegal.
It was not easy to change the viewpoint, many centuries ago.

After Achille has made its move d2-d4, wP conditionally occupies d3 or d4. If Zenon plays exd3ep., wP was unconditionally and definitively on d3. If Zenon plays any other move, wP was unconditionally and definitively on d4. So, e.g. Bh8-c3+ was not a legal possibility, as well as the attack on a1.
While Zenon was thinking about the EP, there was wPd3. While Zenon was thinking about any other move, there was wPd4. The rules do not allow bBh8 to attack beyond d4 as though wP had been moved to d4, but they allow exd3 as though wP had been moved to d3.

The organic principles of chess are thus preserved by conditional occupation of the squares which depends on determining the next (opponent’s) move. When the next move is determined, it just happens and the play continues.

If this viewpoint looks strange to you, then capturing wPd4 by moving bP from e4 to the empty square d3 must surely look to you as a complete nonsense.
You should claim that ep. capture is not possible at all and that it must be deleted from the rules. Then the double-step should be deleted too, because it would allow wPd2 to avoid the attack by bPe4.
And welcome to the twelfth century, or so.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 11, 2014, 10:09
Quote Remove Edit

Nikola!

Your problem is that you are basing your logic on some organic principles of chess which are either non-existent or highly subjective. FIDE is unable to provide us with such principles – they only give us what they call “basic rules of play”.

For example, I consider the concept of “conditional placement of pieces” very suspicious. I have always thought that what we see on diagram/board _is_ what is really on diagram/board. So, the position you mentioned in p.3 is definitely a check. Direct and unconditional. Black king is unconditionally under attack. There may be a possibility of en passant defense, but it is 100% defense against check. And if it is a mate, then it is a mate _before_ black are allowed to do something (and there is no time to resolve “conditional placement”).

There is a natural interpretation of en passant rule (as I had written, black pawn moves like h4-g3, white pawn disappears from g4; maybe word “literally” is really unsuitable). It is natural in the sense that _all_ otb players use it. I’ll need extremely strong arguments instead of appellation to unwritten “organic principles” to agree that every chess player does not understand what is really going on.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 17, 2014, 02:41
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy, it was indeed exhausting and more than enough.
I’m sincerely grateful for your patience and pointing out the critical issues.

For those who are curious to explore the basic essence of the concept of chess, here is a summary of my view, seemingly unsupported by anyone else.

Abstract thinking is recognizing the essential relevance.
The complete general essence of chess is given in 3.1 with the specific point in 3.9
Any abstract reasonong will recognize the relevance of that essence as mandatory. It governs the whole concept of chess.
Any interpretation which neglects that essence as irrelevant in some “exceptional” case, would corrupt the whole concept.
Paragraph 3.1 has THE mandatory relevance in chess and thus, in any little detail of any chess rules.
– No captures on empty squares – determines the frame for any valid interpretation.

So:
3.1 & 3.7.c – define the capture.
3.7.d – defines no exceptional suspension of 3.1 or 3.7.d
3.7.d – is not an explanation of a non-existing suspension
3.7.d – defines the specific details of 1.1 (the players make the moves by moving their pieces on the board so, when a piece has been MOVED, the opponent has the move)

3.7b – The pawn may MOVE as in 3.7.a, or alternatively it may ADVANCE two squares ALONG the same file.
ALONG means “through any part of the length of”, so the pawn may alternatively ADVANCE to the first and then to the second square of the same file, from its original square.

The ADVANCE does not define WHEN the move is MADE i.e. finished when the advanced pawn has been MOVED to ONE square or ANOTHER.
-The first of these two possibilities is defined in 3.7.d “as though the MOVE WAS MADE (finished)” WHEN the pawn has ADVANCED ONLY ONE SQUARE.
The shorter expression is written: “as though it had been MOVED only one square”.
The term en passant explains the capture as “while the captured piece is passing across the attacked square”.
-The second possibility is not explicitly defined but it can only be considered that: if the move was not treated as made, when the pawn has advanced only one square, the pawn advances one more square, to the limit defined in 3.7.b, and the play continues “as though” the move was made by that last part of the advance.
Or shorter expression: if not “as though it had been MOVED only one square”, then “as though it had been MOVED two squares”.

So, it’s all about WHEN A MOVE IS MADE (finished) and WHEN the opponent will HAVE THE MOVE.
And that is exactly the issue argued about, for some FOUR CENTURIES!
And the OTB games have been played according to the various interpretations of that issue during these centuries.
It was clear that a player has the right to decide WHEN and HOW the opponent has made his move of “advancing two squares”.
One interpretation was: if “moving one square” is illegal, then the “two squares advance” is also illegal. So, moving two squares to parry a check, was illegal.

Another interpretation was that the right of deciding means: a player may choose the ep. capture if he finds it convenient, or choose that the opponent’s “advancing pawn” has been moved two squares, and then to claim that the ep. capture is not possible any more. So, in case of having no other legal move, beside the “privilege” of choosing the ep. capture, the player may claim a stalemate.
This interpretation was rejected only in 1860, with Morphy, Anderssen, Loyd etc. already on the scene.

I don’t know when the presently valid FIDE rules were formulated, but they deal quite extraordinarily with that extremely delicate issue.
The very essence of chess is preserved and at the same time, the players can unambiguously apply the rules, even without understanding the delicate details.

Expert-player can understand the essence of the strongest play, without understanding the essence of chess.
Expert in chess-concept can understand the essential basic concept of chess, without understanding what makes a good play.
Expert recognizes and understands what is relevant in his field of expertize.

Who is the expert that recognizes the relevant essence of the 4 centuries long history of the “en passant issue”?

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 17, 2014, 08:37
Quote Remove Edit

Nikola,

“Advance” means “move forward”, so there is no reason to search for second bottom here.
Also, there is no such thing as “general essence of chess” (or, at least, anyone has his own notion about it).

Who is the expert? You are to choose anyone you want, in either otb or composition. As for now all my attempts have only shown that there is a consensus in chess, including composition, concerning en passant rule with you being the only exception. I have even checked tutorials for beginners in the Internet. The best approximation of your point of view was: “Imagine that the pawn has moved only one square, but you should not really move that pawn back”.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 18, 2014, 19:00
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy,
movement and advance are different concepts, which might get equivalent only if the meaning of both concepts is extremely narrowed.
Without a clearly defined meaning, their presence in the same definition, same sentence and for the same pawn strongly suggest a difference in the meaning.
Even in the poetry, and certainly in the formal definitions.

Pawn “has advanced two squares” but “had been moved one square”.
The move is finished when a piece has been moved.
A formal definition 1.1 does not recognize “advance” as finishing the move.
The only defined exception in 3.7d is, that after advance, the other player has the move as though the first player has finished his move.
And that is, and always was, the point of the allowed ADVANCE ALONG the line two squares, as the alternative to the default MOVING “one-step”, see 3.7.b
– The opponent has an exceptional right to decide WHEN the advance was finished and that is, “while passing” the first square during the advance along the line.

If a capture is allowed, the square is occupied, see 3.1, 3.7.c.
If you have any other idea, see 3.10.a, 3.10.b

And the principles of chess-concept could be recognized behind the rules.
You don’t have to be interested in concepts if you are not interested to “really” understand anything. Just obey the rules.
The “experts” are confident “as though” they understood, so they can “really” be accepted only “as though” they were the experts.

An “explanation” which is not defined but at least doesn’t violate the rules:
wP has advanced b2-b4, bPa4 may say: Congratulations for your advance, you may move to b4 and occupy the square!
Or, alternatively may say: I’m sorry, it would be too much for one move in my opinion, and I have the right of final word! So far, you still occupy b3 and I capture you as though your move has been made, so, the “advance” two squares will not be realized as the “move” two squares forward.

Or,
wPb2 projects its own hologram to b4 and follows it in person, bPa4 may stop that “pawn” before it reaches its own image and the image disappears from b4. But the pawn was captured and removed from b3.

There could be more, but whatever the explanations, the rules are there to define what happens, even if they don’t explain how it does happen!

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 19, 2014, 08:39
Quote Remove Edit

Pawn “has advanced two squares” but “had been moved one square”.

Not so. “has advanced two squares” and “had been moved forward one square” (as in 3.7a). The word “advance” is used only in statements where the word “move” is also used – to avoid repetition and make text more fluent. You example seems to show that “advance” and “move” are really used as synonyms.

There is no concept of “unfinished move” in chess. P.1.1 and 6.7 definitely show, that there is no exception for any kind of move.

Concerning “principles of chess-concept”, the problem is that everyone recognizes them differently, if at all. As a result you need an additional proof that your recognition is correct. As such “principles” are not written anywhere, _the practice_ seems the best criteria in this case. I have given you a lot of practical examples from composition, otb play and video-lessons. You provide only your personal opinion.

Frankly speaking, it is not enough, especially to prove that everyone interprets the rules incorrectly.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 19, 2014, 10:46
Quote Remove Edit

Formal definitions do not use undefined synonyms.
Yes, there are not unfinished moves. The advance is finished either on 1st or on 2nd square and the opponent decides where it was finished.
That’s the idea of en passant, a pawn may exceptionally advance to 1st OR alternatively 2nd square but the opponent may decide where the move was finished. Decision about 1st square is mandatory followed by the capture.
BTW, articles 6 and further are not the rules of chess.

The principles of chess are known for perhaps millennium and half. Different principles make a different system which is not chess.
Pawns move differently when capturing or not capturing.
In chess universe, a pawn is a particle which can’t turn diagonally alone. There must be an interaction with some opponent’s particle on the diagonal.
wPb4 may be captured by bPa5, wPb3 by bPa4.
If both bPa5 and bPa4 could capture wPb4, the rupture in geometry and symmetry would collapse the whole universe.
Unless you provide a logic to prevent such a rupture, perhaps a “black hole”.

Anyway, advancing as different than moving, only explains HOW, but the rules say WHAT happens without requiring that explanation. A Pawn or any piece captures on an OCCUPIED square!

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 19, 2014, 16:50
Quote Remove Edit

“Formal definitions do not use undefined synonyms.”
I am not sure if I should agree or disagree. If the words with similar meaning are used without specific explanation marking their difference, then they should be considered synonyms.

You are the only one who sees any threat to “chess universe”, if both bPa5 and bPa4 could capture wPb4. This makes me think that this threat is not really serious.

A Pawn or any piece captures on an OCCUPIED square!
In all cases except en passant, where pawn moves as if the square is occupied.

Maybe, I do not understand English, but if it is is said “Do A as if B has happened” then for me it means “B has not happened, but do A anyway”.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 20, 2014, 03:19
Quote Remove Edit

Where did you read “In all cases except en passant, where pawn moves as if the square is occupied.”?

Pawn may move exclusively to a square which IS OCCUPIED, and not “as though/if it was occupied”. Wherever you think that the pawn has advanced in that paragraph, that pawn OCCUPIES the particular square as though it has been MOVED to that square, which means as though it has MOVED to that square or, as though the move had been finished when the pawn WAS OCCUPYING that square.

The trouble is not in your English but in reading what is not written. You don’t read what is written, but you create a meaning by yourself, “between the lines”.
It’s the rules, not an interpretation of poetry.

And “Do A as if B has happened” then for me it means “B has not happened, but do A anyway”.
That’s not the language but the logic mistake, believe what you wish, I won’t discuss to explain this.

What you do consider as serious? The proof of “all experts”?
Their compositions could be excellent, but with a changed concept of chess.
And if they don’t think it’s necessary to announce that change beside, or within, the definition of other fairy elements, then they perhaps understand the chess same as you do.

I don’t care who “says” but what he says.
There’s no expert without a convincing concept.
What concept would be “a pawn which captures on the same rank”?
No -concept, just a computable pattern, without an intuitive feeling of “reality”.
It’s not the same universe as the chess has been for such incredible period.
Without its deeply convincing concept, the game would not survive, at least it would not be so widely and passionately embraced.
Disrespect and scorn for the concepts is the epidemic plague of modern times.

With such “as though experts”, it’s no wonder that computers will compose problems tomorow.
But fortunately today, the rules still don’t allow a4xb4 or a capture on an empty square “as though it was occupied”.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 20, 2014, 09:29
Quote Remove Edit

Pawn may move exclusively to a square which IS OCCUPIED, and not “as though/if it was occupied”.

This is only your interpretation of hypothetical clause “as though” from the rules.

And “Do A as if B has happened” then for me it means “B has not happened, but do A anyway”.
That’s not the language but the logic mistake, believe what you wish, I won’t discuss to explain this.

My statement is shorter than it may have been, but there is no mistake in it.

What you do consider as serious?

Anything that will prove that this “concept” goes beyond personal opinion.

Unfortunately, today Nikola Predrag still doesn’t allow a4xb4 or a capture on an empty square “as though it was occupied”.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 20, 2014, 14:26
Quote Remove Edit

So far I was reading your posts AS THOUGH YOU HAD BEEN SERIOUS.
Now, you have proved that AS THOUGH IT HAD HAPPENED means ALTHOUGH IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.
Sorry, my mistake, but now I read your latest post AS THOUGH YOU WERE NOT SERIOUS.
And this should make sure that you are serious in reality
?

Your understanding of the rules is YOUR personal opinion which is not matched in the rules. To justify your opinion, you corrupt the rules.
Somehow you believe that a multitude of similar personal opinions changes the truth.

We all see the sun and moon circling around the still earth so, a few astronauts who have visited the moon, surely can’t affect our collective “truth”.

Nevertheless, the chess rules define 3.7.c without defining or even hinting any possible exception.
3.7.d neither defines nor mentions any exceptional change for applying 3.7.c.
So, what proves that your reading goes beyond YOUR personal opinion?
A “sum” of many personal opinions?

The only suggested exception is in 3.7.b, expressed as “or alternatively it may advance two squares along the same file provided both squares are unoccupied…”

But here, where there IS an exception, you read:
??on its first move the pawn may move as in 3.7.a or it may move forward two squares along the same file provided both squares are unoccupied??

You believe that “advance” is a synonym used specially for your personal pleasure of “fluent” reading.
And that “alternatively” provides even more fluency.

I wonder WHO and WHEN has formulated the definitions in the paragraphs 3.7b and 3.7.d,
with such and amazing skill.

A question for the experts, just to check the basic understanding:
How many independent dimensions the chess (or its definition) requires?

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 20, 2014, 15:48
Quote Remove Edit

So far I was reading your posts AS THOUGH YOU HAD BEEN SERIOUS.

This is wrong analogy.
The correct analogy would be:
Press the alarm button as though there is fire in the room.
(With the text “Press in case of fire” above the button – and no exceptions mentioned.)

Or if you want your example, then it should be written the following way:
This text may be read as though the author is serious.

You believe that “advance” is a synonym used specially for … “fluent” reading.

Exactly. So that word “move” is not repeated several times in one sentence. Standard editorial trick.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 20, 2014, 17:48
Quote Remove Edit

Good for you, you just press the button as though there was fire and you’re safe because there can’t be fire!
Thanks, I’ll try it. Could it be any button with this particular text?

In case of a true button alarming the firemen, you could make a joke.
Still, there might really be fire and they might actually save you.
But also, they might not come, considering the ringing “as though” you were only joking.
Well, you were indeed joking but the fire was also real.

You adjust the logic as you would like it to be.
Editorial trick to make a formal definition “perfectly clear” or to avoid a potential ambiguity?
In case of a trick, the rule is not applicable.
In case of any different meaning of “advance”, other than “moving to a particular square”, there’s no ambiguity.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 21, 2014, 09:59
Quote Remove Edit

Nikola, you have just made a bad joke. In the situation when a person needs an urgent help and no other communications means are available, pressing fire alarm button may be the best way to receive that help, although there is really no fire.

In fact I have seen two interpretations of phrase Do A as if B has happened.

1. Pretend/Imagine B has happened and do A. This is what I consider our case. But you do not need to pretend/imagine something if it really has happened.

2. Do not check if B has happened and do A. This also a possible interpretation though definitely not our case.

At the same time I have never before seen the interpretation Make B happen or believe B has happened, then do A.

Editorial trick to make a formal definition “perfectly clear” or to avoid a potential ambiguity?

Editorial tricks are used to battle awkward wording – in this case to avoid extra repetition of word “move” in one sentence.
You cannot avoid ambiguity by using different word without special definition, unless you use it in most direct and well known sense.
According to online Merriam-Webster dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advance) word “advance” is exact synonym for “move forward”.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 21, 2014, 11:11
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy, a meaning of “as though” depends on a context. If you say “there’s no fire but still press the button as though there was fire”, then there’s indeed no fire, because it is explicitly stated. “As though” doesn’t mean “although not”.
Move away from the snake as though it was a viper. You act according to the real possibility.
Wherever the pawn has advanced, it’s possible that it has been moved one square.

Read that whole page about advance, especially the use as the intransitive verb. Forward is the direction and along two squares of the line indicates the limited length of the PROGRESS (not advancing along the whole line).

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 24, 2014, 09:53
Quote Remove Edit

Nikola, if somebody says (without additional explanation) for any reason a) “Press fire alarm button!”; b) “Press fire alarm button as though there is a fire!”, then there is probably a fire in case a) and there is probably no fire in case b).

You viper example exactly fits to my “do not check” case above.

Anyway “as if/as though” never means that the event mentioned after it has definitely happened. It is either not happened (imagine/pretend) or may have or have not happened (do not check, or maybe more precisely do not take opposite for granted – as in “always handle weapons as if they are loaded”).

But as _I_ see from the context, here we have the first case, as the second only determines the action and not resolves the situation.

Concerning the word “advance”, as there is no additional explanation the most direct meaning should be used, that is “move forward” which exactly corresponds to previous paragraph. The rules are not written for professional lawyers/linguists, so the simpler explanations should be preferable.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 24, 2014, 14:15
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy, “may advance” or “may move” tells you nothing without having a place in a sentence.
You need Who or What, subject or object!
Therefore the dictionary gives you most directly the meaning:
1. transitive: to move (someone or something) forward
2. intransitive: to go forward : to make progress : to continue in a process of development, aging, etc.

It’s NOT defined “pawn may be advanced” as the object???
It IS defined “”pawn may advance” as the subject!!!
A pawn may GO forward and if it GOES forward, it is GONE from the original square for a “walk” along the line. You may find that pawn walking/going somewhere on the 2 squares along the line.
When the 2nd pawn hears that the first one went for a walk along 2 squares, 2nd pawn knows that it can find 1st pawn exactly and surely on the 1st square only in case of the immediate capture.
2nd pawn knows that the 1st pawn has stopped/paused his going as though the move was ENDED with 1st pawn occupying 1st square.
For the other pieces the move is ended with 1st pawn on 2nd square.

Not knowing a language does not justify a wrong or changed understanding, but unfortunately too many people do not understand their own native language.
“To move” is useless if you don’t know what will move or will be moved.
Exact meaning of the verb “to advance” depends on the (in)transitive use in a sentence.
To avoid a misunderstanding, the rule is formulated:
“may GO forward” and “as though it had been MOVED”!!!

– Intransitive meaning of “to advance” is lasting, still happening, the pawn went forward, it has left the original square but we don’t know how much of the planned progress it has exactly made.

– Transitive meaning of “was moved” (and not: “has moved”), was ended in the past.

The only and most direct meaning of “pawn may advance”, explicitly given in the dictionary, is “pawn may GO forward” (but not beyond 2nd square).

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 25, 2014, 08:30
Quote Remove Edit

Nikola, your post would have made sense, if there was some crucial difference between “move forward” and “advance”. Unfortunately, there is no such difference, as “move” may also be used intransitively.

Somehow, you consider “has moved” as a finished action, but “has advanced” as unfinished.

(And if we are speaking of general principles, there are no unfinished actions in chess.)

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 25, 2014, 12:49
Quote Remove Edit

And there is the point
the move was finished –
the pawn alternatively went forward 2 sq. along the file –
as though it had been moved 1 sq. or, as though it had been moved 2 sq.

2nd rank+X=3rd rank (as though X=1) or, 2nd rank+X=4th rank (as though X=2)
The pawn’s presence has spread forward along 2 squares –
(like the water or fog may advance along the valley) –
as though the pawn “has been occupying” both squares when the move was made
This “as though occupation of 2 squares” is focused/restricted to a single square, according to the immediate opponent’s move.
The pawn occupies only 1st square in case of ep. capture, as though it had been moved exactly to that square (AS THOUGH it was NOT PRESENT on two squares)!

You don’t have to like or understand that logic but nevertheless, the rules require the same result. The square of capture MUST be occupied.
So, wPb2,bPa4,bPa5; after b2-b4, wP must occupy:
b3 (as though it had been moved 1 sq.) or b4 (as though it had been moved 2 sq.)
Even without bPa5, wP must occupy b4 in case of any opponent’s move, other than ep. capture.
When the possibility/right of ep. capture expires, the pawn’s presence on 1st square also expires.
bPa4 may find wP occupying b3 and all other pieces may find wP occupying b4.

John is advancing 2 floors upwards the staircase. We might meet him on the 1st floor or the 2nd floor.
Since John is my cousin, I’m sure I will find him on 1st floor, it’s my privilege to meet him there.
Everyone else might meet him on 2nd floor, unless I met him on 1st floor.

A pawn MAY NOT be MOVED forward 2 squares along the file, that is the nature of a pawn.
On its first move, a pawn A may EXCEPTIONALLY ADVANCE 2 squares, extending its presence along 2 squares so a relevant opponent’s pawn B may utilize the presence of A on 1st square, as though A has been MOVED to that single square.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 26, 2014, 08:58
Quote Remove Edit

The pawn’s presence has spread forward along 2 squares

This is against “the nature of chess”.

The square of capture MUST be occupied.

The square of capture is to be CONSIDERED occupied.
As in your example: Move away from the snake as though it was a viper – you may KNOW that you see a grass-snake, and your caution does not make it a viper. Still you are required to be as cautious as when moving away from viper.

John is advancing 2 floors upwards the staircase.

When John HAD ADVANCED, you have missed your chances to meet him on the first floor.

A pawn MAY NOT be MOVED forward 2 squares along the file, that is the nature of a pawn.

Say this to any otb player – a long laugh is guaranteed.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 26, 2014, 16:02
Quote Remove Edit

“…Say this to any otb player – a long laugh is guaranteed….”
Laughing seems much more harmless than burning to death.
Nevertheless, your argument sounds like: a long laugh is guaranteed from those who were never ever interested to understand the system of chess, beware of that majority, beware the lynch.

Georgy, did you ever try to understand the fundamental principles of the system named Chess?
It doesn’t seem so but nevertheless you come to conclusions, without even guessing the principles/laws of the system.
What are the dimensions of chess?
What is the board?
What is the move?
What is a piece?

You don’t have to understand these questions to play chess.
However, you should understand them when discussing about the basic laws of the chess system/universe.

I have at least tried to understand these questions and to search for the answers.
So far, you’ve been only questioning my reasoning, but you have never offered any basis for the chess system of yours, except one. Your basic principle is “I and the OTB players say so”!

A piece is a phenomenon spread across the board (as defined by article 3). That IS the nature of chess.
A pawn is also a piece.

“When John HAD ADVANCED, you have missed your chances to meet him on the” – zero floor, look for him along the route of his advance.

bPa4 KNOWS that wP (which has advanced 2 sq.) occupies b3, otherwise it would not be able to capture.
“bP knows it was a viper”, and all other pieces will recognize that too, only when bP “captures the viper”.
Without the immediate capture, the viper loses its venom as though it had never been a viper. And the play goes on as though wP had never been occupying b3 but only b4.

“may capture” means “may move to an occupied square” and there’s the end of story about the basic laws of chess.
Obviously, the advance must include occupying 1st square.
You might “invent” your own interpretations of “advance” if you wish, respecting the result which is “occupying 1st square in case of ep. capture”!

What’s the basic principle of “your” system?
3+7=5 as though 7=2 but nevertheless 7=7?
You easily accept such a preposterous “exceptional” rupture in the consistency of logic, but the reasoning that the advance means X=1 or alternatively X=2, is unacceptable to you as an exceptional feature of the move.
Nevertheless, the latter reasoning is based on the consistent principles of general logic applied to the definitions.
Even if we define an exceptional way that something paradoxical (apparently impossible) may happen, the general logic requires full consistency in the reasoning.
Exceptionally, we allow “something” (call it energy) to be added to or taken from wPb4, in order to enable its “hypothetical” occupation of b3. Now bPa4 may move to b3. As the result, wP may be captured and removed from b3.
When it’s done, the energy has transformed into the work. If we “restore” the reality with wPb4 (to remove wP from there), we must give the spent energy back to wP and bP must return to a4.
It’s not about the physics, the general logic requires simply “something” which would enable the paradox.
And something permanent might come out of nothing only in human wishes and fantasy.
However, there’s is a difference between human fantasy and human logic .
Unfortunately, replacing the logic with the absurd fantasy might be “justified” by the majority which does not understand (or care about) the logic.
And there’s a “paradox”, we may claim that something is “obviously” logical although we don’t care a bit about the logic.
? + ? = tragicomedy

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 27, 2014, 09:19
Quote Remove Edit

Nikola,

You are again making the same logical error. There are no “fundamental principles of the system named Chess”, or at least there are no written and generally approved such principles. So, if you are insisting on your personal system of principles, it should be at least minimally confirmed by practice (I even only asked for one example from any source) or it begins to look like some kind of religious belief.

What are the dimensions of chess?
What is the board?
What is the move?
What is a piece?

I do not quite understand the first question.
The board is the set of squares with some geometrical connections.
The piece is a unit with its own properties which may be tied to specific square.
The position is the set of pieces tied to specific squares of board.
The move is the change in the position made according to the rules of game.

What’s the basic principle of “your” system?
3+7=5 as though 7=2 but nevertheless 7=7?

No. It is only allowed to add 7 to 3, but you may add 2 as though it is 7.
so 3+2=5 (as though 2 is 7) but not 3+2=10 (as 2<>7).

“may capture” means “may move to an occupied square” and there’s the end of story about the basic laws of chess.

This is not so in case of en passant capture. If this was true the rules may have been written much simpler.

Let me try to show you the example based on your John case.
Let’s think that there are following strict household rules known to all parties – and all parties try to follow them.

1. When a guest arrives, the porter informs the host.
2. The host must greet the guest by entering the room where the guest is and saying “Hello, guest!”.
3. All guests are to wait in foyer until the host greets them.
4. Alternatively, John may advance through the foyer to the dining room.
5. If John has advanced to the dining room, the host may still greet him as though John has only moved to foyer.

Now the situation:
The porter informs the host that John has come. The host comes to foyer, sees no one and says: “Hello, guest!”

The questions.
1. Was John correctly greeted according to household rules?
2. Where was John at the moment of greeting?
3. Is there an exact analogy between these “household rules” and “en passant capture”?

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: November 27, 2014, 10:52
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy, I have to go just now to a 3 days journey, I’ll try to answer when I get back.
Chess system was established long ago and the present rules define mostly the same system.
There is no “my system”.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 2, 2014, 14:33
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy,
The source is THE FIDE RULES which define the capture, including the capture by a pawn.
The source is the history of chess, telling the same thing.

The rules are not just a pile of mutually independent statements, they create a system in which each separate rule obeys the same principles. That makes the lasting beauty and attractiveness of chess.

However, you don’t have to RECOGNIZE and UNDERSTAND the system. But you have to OBEY the rules.

So far, your “practice” simply violates the rules and the question “principles or no principles” is irrelevant.
I try to explain the principles just hoping that you might understand which RULES your “practice” violates.

You start from a point of “your practice” and then you change the given definitions.
Before reading the rules, you believe that a pawn may be captured by an opponent’s pawn on a square to which the latter may not move. And that the latter may move to an empty square capturing a piece not occupying that square.
Then you INVENT the rules which should match your prejudices. Your “new rules” violate the official rules and that’s enough. And your “new rules” are not even defined. You only give a rough description of what you believe.
You should first define clearly the relevant paragraph(s) of your “new rules”, only then they could be seriously discussed about.

I don’t care what you or the other believers think about the capture before reading the rules. It’s your problem how to forget your prejudices and apply only the rules.

3.1 defines the capture and wherever the term “capture” is mentioned in the other paragraphs, it refers to 3.1.
If you and the believers apply your personal DIFFERENT understanding of the capture, you clearly violate the rules.
The ONLY meaning of the term “capture”, defined in the rules, is given in 3.1 and it requires that a “piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece…”
ONLY NOW you know something about the capture, forget your previous beliefs.
3.7.d says: “a pawn … may CAPTURE … as though …”
Now, you know that:
a “pawn may MOVE TO A SQUARE OCCUPIED BY AN OPPONENT’S PIECE … as though …”
and the rest of 3.7.d determines which “opponent’s piece” and which “square”!

But you change 3.7.d to match your belief. “Your rule” is:
“a pawn may move to an empty square as though it was occupied by X …”
And this is only an introductory change of the rule, the main contradiction is yet to be seen.
“Your rule” would mean:
“a pawn may move to an empty square as though it has captured X …”
“Your rule” have changed “may capture” into “as though it might capture”.
So far, it might be considered just as a bad formulation in which “as though something was real” is equivalent to “something is real”.
Such explanation of “as though” would allow “your rule” to have the same meaning as the FIDE rule.
Now, when we accept it, you insist that “as though” is NOT REAL.
Suddenly, X does not really occupy the mentioned square because now, “as though” is not real. And the complete subsequent reasoning relies on that.
If “as though” is not real, the capture is not real and the move is not real.

I will not continue guessing what might be “Georgy’s definition” of 3.7.d.
You give only your own CONCLUSIONS according to the unknown “your definition”.
Your “explanations” are contradictory so,
write down “your definition” and we’ll see whether it obeys the rules.

To my – “may capture” means “may move to an occupied square” and there’s the end of story about the basic laws of chess. –
You’ve answered “…This is not so in case of en passant capture. If this was true the rules may have been written much simpler…”

This is your obviously firm belief, you just have show where it is written in the rules! And then apply YOUR possible re-formulation of the rules to define what YOU believe about en passant.

Without any mention of principles or questioning why and how, I read 3.7.d:
– A pawn attacking a square crossed by an opponent’s pawn which has advanced two squares in one move from its original square may move to the square occupied by this opponent’s pawn capturing the latter as though the latter had been moved only one square. This capture is only legal on the move following this advance and is called an ‘en passant’ capture. –

How do you read 3.7.d?

I won’t comment the John case, the guests and the host, because I don’t see a relevant relation to en passant.
Advance to the room or into the room? Host may greet the guests in the dining room or may not? Wouldn’t it be better to have a guardian of the foyer instead of a host? A guardian may not enter the dining room but may grab a dangerous guest in the foyer and throw him directly out of the building through a foyer window?

Probably you don’t care much about what is relevant, OK but I don’t have time to explain that. You should try to care about that by your own wish.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 3, 2014, 09:34
Quote Remove Edit

Nikola,

ALL OTB PLAYERS even in OFFICIAL FIDE TOURNEYS under the control of INTERNATIONAL FIDE JUDGES play en passant capture by moving a pawn to the empty square and then removing the captured pawn from 4th(5th) rank. ALL CHESS LEARNING BOOKS AND VIDEOS describe this procedure in the same way. As far as I know this was so from the moment of “invention” of the en passant capture (I have NEVER seen your approach applied in any chess book).

I consider this as a STRONG PRACTICAL PROOF that my interpretation is correct, and I consider “history of chess” to be on my side. It is not “my practice” – it is GENERAL PRACTICE OF CHESS, which may be easily confirmed by visiting any chess event: from school tournament for beginners to World Championship match.

You give only your own CONCLUSIONS according to the unknown “your definition”.

“My definition” based on FIDE rules (confirmed by quotes) was given in comments to No.640. Here I copy it.

Q1. Which piece may make an en passant capture?
A1. Black pawn from the 4th rank.
J1. A pawn attacking a square crossed by an opponent’s pawn…

Q2. Which piece may be captured en passant?
A2. White pawn on the 4th rank.
J2. …opponent’s pawn which has advanced two squares in one move from its original square…

Q3. How this capture is made?
A3. The same way as the capture of a pawn on the third rank.
J3.…as though the latter had been moved only one square.

Q4. Can you give more details?
A4. Yes.
J4.The pawn may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece, which is diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file, capturing that piece.

You next sentence:

To me – “may capture” means “may move to an occupied square” and there’s the end of story about the basic laws of chess. –

shows where you probably have a mental block.

There is NO such statement in FIDE rules. P.3.1 is formulated other way round: if <something happens> then <the capture is made>. This does not exclude that other types of capture are possible, described specifically.

And your second mental block is making the two sentences:
1. Do A when B has happened.
2. Do A as though B has happened.
have the same meaning.

They are different.
Maybe the best interpretation of “as though” is “in assumption”.

So, when we are trying to apply 3.7c to en passant:

the pawn may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece, which is diagonally in front of it on an adjacent file,

it may be applied as we assume the pawn on the square in question, so the capturing pawn moves diagonally. Of course, there no sense in capturing “an assumed pawn”, so the piece captured is directly named in 3.7d.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 3, 2014, 12:04
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy,
in your belief, you don’t see a difference between the basic laws of chess and the otb games.
Basic laws define what is the legal play. Chess is an abstract system in our minds and even the “otb” games could be played blindly, without the material board and pieces.

The “otb practice” is a visualized projection of an abstract play onto a material board. There are conventions about how a particular chess move and a particular chess position will be visualized and projected onto a material board.
FIDE laws of chess cover o-t-b play, clearly distinctively:
– BASIC RULES OF PLAY, articles 1-5
– COMPETITION RULES, after article 5

Chess (system) is defined by 1-5 and the otb-games practice is completely irrelevant for the laws of chess!
Imposing “otb practice” into the laws of chess is your personal dogma.
Please, don’t mention the “otb practice” as an argument in this discussion.

“…And your second mental block is making the two sentences:
1. Do A when B has happened.
2. Do A as though B has happened.
have the same meaning….”

That statement is ridiculous, I don’t say that 1. and 2. have the same meaning, but
it’s YOU who tries to apply 1.&2. with the same meaning when it fits into your dogma and when it doesn’t fit, you apply 1.&2. with a different meaning.

I must go now, but I’ll continue later.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 3, 2014, 13:19
Quote Remove Edit

you don’t see a difference between the basic laws of chess and the otb games.

Of course, I see it. This is the same difference as between the law and the court decision. That is, otb game is practical application of chess rules. And I should say, that specific application is one which is most interested in following the FIDE rules to the letter, so I see no reason to discard it.

When you are saying, for example, that No.627 is incorrect, you are doing the same thing – applying basic rules to the practical situation. Why should I limit myself by only one kind of practical application?

“…And your second mental block is making the two sentences:
1. Do A when B has happened.
2. Do A as though B has happened.
have the same meaning….”

That statement is ridiculous, I don’t say that 1. and 2. have the same meaning, but
it’s YOU who tries to apply 1.&2. with the same meaning when it fits into your dogma and when it doesn’t fit, you apply 1.&2. with a different meaning.

It is your comment what is ridiculous. You directly insist that in case of en passant 2 surely means the same as 1.
I consistently say that 2 NEVER means the same as 1. It is not always easy for me to find the correct English words but I think I have done it in the end.

Do A as though B has happened means Do A ASSUMING B has happened.

So, in a conditional action when you come to the checking of condition you consider it satisfied without real check.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 5, 2014, 05:11
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy,
I will surely not ask from you the correct English words, after all, it’s not may language too.
But in a discussion, we must help each other to understand the meaning of what we try to say.
I try to understand what you want to say and only then I analyze your reasoning.

I hope that I have never said that 1.&2. means the same, because I have never meant so.
I said that “as though it was” – DOES NOT MEAN – “although it is not”.
And “as though it was” DOES NOT MEAN “as it is”.

sin(X+2nπ)=sin(X) as though n was equal to zero. It doesn’t mean that n is equal or not equal to zero, it’s simply irrelevant, n may be any natural number.

You apply a personal belief of what is the capture instead of reading and applying the rules.
Capture is defined EXCLUSIVELY as a CONSEQUENCE of moving a piece to a square occupied by an opponents piece. There is no trace of any other definition.
“…If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move….”

Obviously, an advancing pawn may occupy a square “as though it has been moved there”. Was it “really” moved there or not, that’s irrelevant for en passant. In case of ep. capture the opponent’s pawn occupies 1st square and not 2nd square.

I understand that people like magicians, I like them too. However, “as though” is not a magic word with which you can achieve impossible (that you believe).

———————–
“…There is NO such statement in FIDE rules. P.3.1 is formulated other way round: if <something happens> then <the capture is made>. This does not exclude that other types of capture are possible, described specifically…”
————————
That’s indeed a mental block!
Which “other type of capture” is described specifically?
Your personal type of capture which is not described in the rules?
ep. capture is defined by “a pawn…MAY CAPTURE…” so, go back to 3.1 and 3.7.c to see what “capture” means.
But suddenly your description “may capture=may move to an empty square” should be accepted as specifically described in the rules.
If you don’t apply 3.1, the term capture is meaningless in chess. But perhaps you will choose some convenient meaning from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capture

Your “definition” violates the rules.
————–
“…Q3. How this capture is made?
A3. The same way as the capture of a pawn on the third rank.
————–
Answer 3.- requires that a pawn occupies (and not “as though” a pawn occupies) the third rank …as though the latter had been moved only one square…

————–
“… Q2. Which piece may be captured en passant?…”
————–
Answer 2.- wP which has advanced two squares in one move from its original square… and occupies the square to which the bP may move capturing wP as though wP had been moved only one square…

———–
“…Why should I limit myself by only one kind of practical application?…”
———–
Why should you? Simply define the new rules and do what you wish. It doesn’t have to be chess, after all.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 5, 2014, 10:57
Quote Remove Edit

It doesn’t mean that n is equal or not equal to zero, it’s simply irrelevant, n may be any natural number.

Exactly! This is the thing I am trying to explain you for several last messages.
Do A as though condition B is satisfied means that condition B is considered satisfied for the purpose of A, and it’s simply irrelevant if it is really satisfied.

Capture is defined EXCLUSIVELY as a CONSEQUENCE of moving a piece to a square occupied by an opponents piece. There is no trace of any other definition.
“…If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move….”

In this part the word exclusively is your invention. Pawn capture is described in full in p.3.7c and p.3.7d – no need to refer to p.3.1.

Obviously, an advancing pawn may occupy a square “as though it has been moved there”. Was it “really” moved there or not, that’s irrelevant for en passant.

Exactly!

In case of ep. capture the opponent’s pawn occupies 1st square and not 2nd square.

No! “Moved to” and “now occupies” are synonyms, so: does it “really” occupy that square or not, that’s irrelevant for en passant.

You see? You just wanted to allow a piece to occupy a square it may have not moved to. This does not cause any discomfort in your logic, does it?

However, “as though” is not a magic word.

Yes, but it has a meaning. And it means: skip the check and consider the condition satisfied.

Which “other type of capture” is described specifically?

You would not believe! It is pawn capture in general and en passant capture specifically! Surprise, surprise!

But suddenly your description “may capture=may move to an empty square” should be accepted as specifically described in the rules.

Exactly! This is where “as though” part plays very significant role.

If you don’t apply 3.1, the term capture is meaningless in chess.

Why should it be so? You apply p.3.1 in all cases when there are no separate and/or different explanation.

————–
“…Q3. How this capture is made?
A3. The same way as the capture of a pawn on the third rank.
————–
Answer 3.- requires that a pawn occupies (and not “as though” a pawn occupies) the third rank …as though the latter had been moved only one square…

This is your interpretation.

According to me one asks him himself: is square on third rank occupied, so that I may apply p.3.7c?
And as though clause answers him: you may continue with capture, in this case it is considered occupied and it’s simply irrelevant if it “really” occupied or not.

Why should you? Simply define the new rules and do what you wish. It doesn’t have to be chess, after all.

I have a strong feeling that it is you who is defining new rules. That is why I am asking for any other opinion supporting your point of view. Any citation/link to book, article, problem, post, video or something else will do. Vague reference to “history of chess” or “general principles” will not do. Citation of Article 3 from FIDE laws of chess ad infinitum also will not do.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 5, 2014, 17:13
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy,
you are quite a dogmatic believer!
You believe that you know what is a capture without referring to 3.1.
In the first place, capture does not include in its meaning a removal of the captured piece, it’s mentioned only in 3.1.
Removal is a consequence of moving to an occupied square.
Capture is also a consequence of the same moving.
Even if you change 3.7.d to allow capture on an empty square, you would have to add a definition for the removal of a piece which is “captured” on some other square.

———————-
“…Do A as though condition B is satisfied means that condition B is considered satisfied for the purpose of A, and it’s simply irrelevant if it is really satisfied…”
———————-
It is absolutely relevant that B is satisfied in all elements which are needed for A.
Occupied square is mandatory for any capture and a pawn’s diagonal move is not even possible to an empty square.

—————–
“…You see? You just wanted to allow a piece to occupy a square it may have not moved to. This does not cause any discomfort in your logic, does it?…”
—————–
“Alternatively advanced” means that the pawn was either moved to 1st square or moved to 2nd square.
After that advance, the move is made resulting with the specific position where that pawn occupies either one or the other square.
In case of ep… it occupies 1st square as though it had been moved there.
It has not been moved “exclusively” there as defined in 3.7.a, but it has “alternatively advanced…”, which allows the opponent to choose the convenient alternative in a specifically defined way.
So, you’ve spotted my imprecision, thanks.
“Exclusively is more precise than “”really”.

I simply read the rules and you invent the new descriptions which are so happily logic-free that I begin to envy you.
Read the rules SERIOUSLY and apply them.
Ten times reading without noticing that the meaning of capture and removal are defined only in 3.1???
I have asked you to write “your definition” but you haven’t define the only things which are relevant, capture and removal.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 6, 2014, 11:31
Quote Remove Edit

Removal is a consequence of moving to an occupied square.
Capture is also a consequence of the same moving.

This was not an issue in this discussion, as there was no difference in opinions.

It is absolutely relevant that B is satisfied in all elements which are needed for A.

And as though clause is one of the ways to make condition considered satisfied for special cases.

“Alternatively advanced” means that the pawn was either moved to 1st square or moved to 2nd square.

There are no words “alternatively advanced” in FIDE rules. If you have in mind p.3.7b than the word alternatively stands before the subject and so it belongs to all the following statement rather than to the verb. This word means that there is an additional possibility for the pawn on the second rank and nothing more. Maybe, it was this paragraph which have sent you to the wrong track?

I simply read the rules and you invent the new descriptions which are so happily logic-free that I begin to envy you.

You even miss the fact that you are not simply reading, but heavily interpreting the rules. And I have to find some words which will make the origin of your mistake visible to me from your answer. That is why I have to find “new descriptions”. At the same time I have to agree that at first I may have been imprecise because I thought it would be easy to explain the issue to you.

But anyway now everything is much more clear for me.

1. Advance means move forward in the same sense the verb move is used throughout the rules.

2. As though means that the condition mentioned is to be considered satisfied, and it is irrelevant if it is really satisfied.

3. Alternatively means there is an alternative possibility of pawn movement from its initial position, not any kind of alternative inside the move.

It is very unfortunate that you are unable to see any logic in my posts, but I can live with it.

I also still hope to see any confirmation from you that your opinion has some value for somebody except you, or if you prefer, that your interpretation of English text can be confirmed by any native English speaker.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 7, 2014, 04:49
Quote Remove Edit

There are two opinins:
NP-opinion and GE-opinion

NP-opinion is formulated as a definition with the exposed critical point which could be discussed and eventually accepted or denied.
The point is that “… a pawn A may capture the opponent’s pawn B WHICH OCCUPIES X (1st square)…, as though B had been moved to X”.
Capture and removal are defined by 3.1 in the rules.
So, you can claim that B does not occupy X and that is the point for discussion.

GE-opinion is based on the claim that capture is not defined in 3.1 exclusively.
(“This does not exclude that other types of capture are possible, described specifically.”)
(“Pawn capture is described in full in p.3.7c and p.3.7d – no need to refer to p.3.1.”)
To see some logic in your opinion I have to see the specific and full description of capture that you have mentioned, which need not to refer to 3.1!
A critical point for discussion is missing!

You did not provide a description which answers THE QUESTION of this whole discussion:
From which square the captured pawn is removed, according to the rules?
And this is what I have asked: What in the FIDE rules defines, or at least suggests, that the pawn was captured and removed from 2nd square?

If the OTB players play by FIDE rules and if your conclusion is so OBVIOUS, then I expect that you can easily show that it is OBVIOUSLY AND CLEARLY written in the rules.
But you have never made a link between your descriptions and the REMOVAL.
And you avoid that crucial point because you try to avoid applying 3.1 in your reasoning.

Without 3.1, the pawn would not be removed from 2nd square, it wouldn’t actually be removed from the board!
So far I was interested to improve my own understanding of the concept of chess system by trying to formulate the definitions which would allow the removal of the “captured” pawn.
You are not careful about the meaning of your own arguments and logic. You connect elements without logical links, jumping to the conclusions.

But it is actually not important that you understand my reasoning.
You should in the first place UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN REASONING!

Why should the ep.-captured pawn be removed from the board?
And who would “confirm” your logical reasoning which might prove that is defined by the FIDE rules?
You and everyone except me (as you say) seemingly understand “capture” differently than the rules say. Can you justify your understanding by the rules?
I don’t think so.

By the way, do you understand the meaning of your own words:
——————-
“Moved to” and “now occupies” are synonyms…..You see? You just wanted to allow a piece to occupy a square it may have not moved to. This does not cause any discomfort in your logic, does it?
——————-
What does it mean – that a piece can’t occupy a square if it has never really moved to that square?
I’m sure that you don’t really think so. You are just not careful about what are the exact synonyms.
So, why should I waste my time to explain the exact synonym for “advance”, if you consider the different meanings as the synonyms?

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 7, 2014, 10:47
Quote Remove Edit

You did not provide a description which answers THE QUESTION of this whole discussion:
From which square the captured pawn is removed, according to the rules?

There is no answer to this question in the rules! And I have mentioned it during the discussion. It is only mentioned that the piece is removed from the chessboard.

There are some natural presumptions, but if someone will insist that all captured pieces leave board through square a1, you will not be able to prove otherwise referring to the rules.

What in the FIDE rules defines, or at least suggests, that the pawn was captured and removed from 2nd square?

There is a natural presumption that the piece is removed from the square it stands on (1).
Yours is another natural presumption that the piece is removed from the square the capturing piece arrives to (2).

It is just so that in the case of en passant those are different squares, as I have explained in the post Capture for dummies.

The thing you are trying to prove is that in case of en passant the captured pawn stands on the third rank at the moment of capture and so the arrival and removal squares are the same. And I am trying to explain that such conclusion CANNOT BE DEDUCED FROM RULES. I am NOT trying to prove that opposite is true.

And if your statement is not a direct consequence of the rules, then instead of right or wrong, we enter the field of better or worse. And in that field I am saying that presumption (1) is widespread in both otb play and composition, while presumption (2) is a personal opinion of NP.

What does it mean – that a piece can’t occupy a square if it has never really moved to that square?

Yes. The only other way is to occupy the square is to stand on it in the initial game array.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 7, 2014, 15:23
Quote Remove Edit

———–
“…It is only mentioned that the piece is removed from the chessboard….”
————
Where is it mentioned?
You only believe that it is mentioned.

“…Yes. The only other way…”
So, your “Yes” means “Not exactly” ?

There is the problem, insisting on the exactness “here” and allowing “free” interpretations “there” can’t go together when the same logic is in question.

You claim that the SAME TERM “capture” may have a “special” NEW MEANING in 3.7.d, but the NEW TERM “advance 2sq. along” must have the SAME MEANING as “move to a particular square”.
(“…This does not cause any discomfort in your logic, does it?…”)

However, even with such contradictory criteria, a pawn would be able to move diagonally (as though 3.7.c was applied) but now to an empty square.
The “special” new meaning of “capture” would allow such move, exceptionally in case defined by 3.7.d.

3.1 defines that “…an opponent’s piece…is captured AND removed…”
“Special way of capture” would allow “capture without removal”.
Quite naturally, if two pieces won’t occupy the same square, there’s no reason for the removal.

Capture is not a synonym for removal.
Not in the rules and not in the language.
Both terms coincide with “moving to an occupied square” and may be conditionally treated as synonyms only in that particular case defined in 3.1!
In case of “moving to an empty square”, there’s no removal.
You may claim that 3.7.d defines a possibly new definition of capture, and that could be discussed.
But there’s no new definition of removal.
And the “coincidence” of “capture” and “removal” is missing.

It is a common human “practice” to abstract the elements out of some concept, without caring about what are the most relevant elements.
If two concepts appear as equivalent in one case, they are not necessarily equivalent in other case.
A tiniest difference between the relevant elements may ruin the equivalence.
But humans are not interested to perceive what is relevant, for it might spoil the “beauty” of prejudices.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 8, 2014, 09:09
Quote Remove Edit

Where is it mentioned?
You only believe that it is mentioned.

I am sure that your great analytic capabilities will help you to find this quote.

“…Yes. The only other way…”
So, your “Yes” means “Not exactly” ?

The other way belongs to a different situation, but I mentioned it for the sake of fullness.

You claim that the SAME TERM “capture” may have a “special” NEW MEANING in 3.7d, but the NEW TERM “advance 2sq. along” must have the SAME MEANING as “move to a particular square”.
(“…This does not cause any discomfort in your logic, does it?…”)

Yes, no discomfort. New or extended definition means new or extended meaning. The absence of definition means no new meaning.

Capture is not a synonym for removal.

Of course, not. Capture is a move which includes the removal. So there is no capture without removal, but they never are synonyms. Capture is a chess move, while removal is a technical action.

In case of “moving to an empty square”, there’s no removal.

Why? If we have a piece to be captured, it is removed from the chessboard. According to p.3.1, if you want.

It is a common human “practice” to abstract the elements out of some concept, without caring about what are the most relevant elements.
If two concepts appear as equivalent in one case, they are not necessarily equivalent in other case.

Just to limit the scope of discussion I tried to avoid raising questions where there are no difference of opinion.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 9, 2014, 01:26
Quote Remove Edit

“Moving to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece” results with – “capture” and “removal”.

We might say that “chess-capture” is a chess move in which:
“1.(=a piece moves to a square OCCUPIED by an opponent’s piece)” which results with
“2.(=the latter is REMOVED from the board)”

“Chess-capture” includes (“1.” which results with “2.”)
That has been perfectly clear from the very beginning of chess.

The essential RELEVANT relation “1. results with 2.” has a meaning only as a whole.
If “capture” does not include “1.”, we may NOT say that “capture” results with “2.”!
If a square is not occupied, IT IS NOT “chess-capture”!

Now the “experts” claim that some “extended meaning of the word capture” is defined in 3.7.d!
“A piece may capture by moving to a square, which is not occupied, as though it was occupied”.

The relation “as though” might be applied: as though (“1. results with 2.”)
“as though P was occupying” results with “as though P was removed”.

Now you and all the experts may speculate whether “as though” indicates reality or not.
– If P was not really occupying that square, P was not really removed!

You would like to apply “chess capture” instead of “capture”, after the relation “1. results with 2.” was already neglected as IRRELEVANT.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 9, 2014, 10:14
Quote Remove Edit

We might say…

I may say that according to 3.7d black Pa4 may capture white Pb4 which has just moved to b4 from b2. The procedure of capture is described in 3.7c and 3.1 and is applied under the assumption that white pawn is on b3 (and it is irrelevant where it “really” stands at the moment). The last action of procedure is the removal of captured piece from the board according to 3.1 and it is again irrelevant from which square.

The relation “as though” might be applied: as though (“1. results with 2.”)
“as though P was occupying” results with “as though P was removed”.

Of course, not. “As though” only applicable to the statement after it, that is “as though P was occupying” in your words and means that the condition mentioned is to be considered satisfied when checking.

Now you and all the experts may speculate whether “as though” indicates reality or not.

No, it does not matter.

If P was not really occupying that square, P was not really removed!

No, if it is captured then it is removed.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 9, 2014, 15:09
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy,
it is very, very simple, moving to a square and removal determine the position. The change of position makes the chess move.
But you call it “technical action”.
Capture is the EXACTLY DEFINED TERM which may be shortly used instead of the whole long sentence in 3.1.
It is perfectly clear that the square is occupied in case of capture and removal.

It is you who says:
“…Yes, no discomfort. New or extended definition means new or extended meaning…”
Since you claim that some “new or extended definition” allows capture on an empty square (as though whatever), this is automatically not the TERM defined in 3.1.
The removal remains defined exclusively as the result of 3.1!

But your claim is invalid, there is NO “new or extended definition” of capture. The term is defined in 3.1 and there is no logic element which would announce any new meaning of the term!
Therefore, if a piece may capture the opponent’s piece on some square, the latter occupies that square, as though the latter had been moved to that square!
Now the removal is mandatory as defined.

The question is “how a piece could occupy a square if it has not moved to it?”
This is the logic element which might announce the new meanings of the defined TERMS or the definitions of NEW TERMS!

The new term is “advance 2 squares along the same file”. You say that it is not defined.
However, 3.7.d defines the possible result of advance – the capture on the crossed square.

So, whatever you speculate, the ADVANCE includes the possibility of occupying the crossed square “as though” the pawn has been moved there. Just accept it without an explanation.
And “advance 2 squares along the file” may explain it, if you’re interested.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 10, 2014, 09:17
Quote Remove Edit

The change of position makes the chess move.

Exactly. And any part of chess move is a technical action.

Capture is the EXACTLY DEFINED TERM which may be shortly used instead of the whole long sentence in 3.1.

This is discussible, because the statement in 3.1 has two functions: defining the capture in general, and defining it for all the pieces except pawn. But even if we accept your statement as correct, nothing is needed to be changed.

Since you claim that some “new or extended definition” allows capture on an empty square (as though whatever), this is automatically not the TERM defined in 3.1.

Why? 3.7d only shows how the term from 3.1 should be applied in a special manner in the case of en passant.

But your claim is invalid, there is NO “new or extended definition” of capture.

If it were so, there would have been no need in 3.7c and 3.7d!

Therefore, if a piece may capture the opponent’s piece on some square, the latter occupies that square, as though the latter had been moved to that square!

You again making a difference between moving to a square and occupation. There no such statement in the rules, and your opinion goes against what I call a natural presumption.

And there is quite a number of points where you have to give some word a special meaning to fit you position: as though, occupy, advance, cross, alternatively. And the time forms has advanced and crossed in 3.7d also do not fit your concept.

And my position described in the beginning of my previous post does not require this kind of wordplay.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 12, 2014, 23:28
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy,
you have written quite a lot of resolute statements without any valid supporting logical reasoning.

I repeat my statements which are not supported by logic because that statements DENY your statements which REQUIRE to be logically deduced from the rules.

– capturing by moving to an empty square is not allowed by the rules.
Your attempt to allow it, relies on a contradictory reasoning.
But I will not discuss it, because even if the rules would explicitly allow such “capture”, it would be a capture without a removal of the captured piece.

– removal of a piece after moving to an empty square is not allowed and there is no any logic reasoning at all, which might deduce such conclusion from the rules.

The logical frame for a discussion about the meaning of 3.7.d, deducible from the rules, is the following CRITICAL POINT 1:
“A pawn attacking a square crossed by an opponent’s pawn which has advanced two squares in one move from its original square may capture this opponent’s pawn -BY MOVING TO THE SQUARE OCCUPIED BY THE LATTER- as though the latter had been moved only one square.”

I may discuss within that frame. Or within a frame of some other logically deducible formulation.
I will not discuss about the trivial mistakes or cheap tricks which might lead to the wrong conclusions.
I have asked for the definitions or at least clear descriptions of “capture” and “removal”, which would be in accordance with the rules.

What is your best offer?
“…Capture is a move which includes the removal…”
This is a typical mistake where the most relevant part is dropped.
I deduce from the rules:
– Capture is a move which includes the removal in case exactly defined in 3.1! –

If you really don’t understand what is relevant in the definitions, someone should explain it to you! Without the elementary logic, there is no serious discussion!
However, if that is only a cheap trick to deceive me deliberately, I might find it offending.

Anyway, as I’ve said, I will discuss only about the logically deducible reasoning and conclusions.
So far, there is the mentioned CRITICAL POINT 1.
The possible meanings of 3.7.b would give the possible results.
If you may formulate a different valid critical point, go ahead.

______________________
“…And my position described in the beginning of my previous post does not require this kind of wordplay. …”
______________________
I see exactly the opposite relation! Your position requires various distortions of words, terms, definitions etc., from the very beginning!!!
I start from the rules to a critical point and only then I search for the possibly valid interpretations of the terms which are not exactly defined.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 13, 2014, 12:00
Quote Remove Edit

– capturing by moving to an empty square is not allowed by the rules.

It is allowed by 3.7d in a special case.

If the rules would explicitly allow such “capture”, it would be a capture without a removal of the captured piece.

The captured piece is always removed according to 3.1, because the part “and removed…” is an explanation/definition what the capture is. So, I am interpreting the statement from 3.1 as:

“If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured, that is removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.” So, this is a definition of capture, the only one present in the rules.

The logical frame for a discussion about the meaning of 3.7.d, deducible from the rules, is the following CRITICAL POINT 1:

Yes, this is a critical point, though not the only one. And I should agree that there are some hints that the pawn may be considered standing on the third line. But you happily ignore similarly serious hints which point in the opposite direction.

1. No matter if “advance” has transitive of intransitive value, the form “has advanced” means a finished action, stating that the pawn is on the 4th row.

2. The word “cross” also means that the thing crossed has left behind. It sounds very silly: “You have crossed the road, so now you may be hit by vehicle in the middle of it”.

3. The empty square may become occupied only if a piece has been moved or transferred (as in 3.8a – the word “crossed” is also used there) to this square. So “as though moved” may only mean “as though occupied” and nothing more.

I will not discuss about the trivial mistakes or cheap tricks which might lead to the wrong conclusions.

It is interesting that I am trying to discuss all your “trivial mistakes or cheap tricks”, while you are only saying that they are present, not naming any.

I deduce from the rules:
– Capture is a move which includes the removal in case exactly defined in 3.1! –

See above – removal is part of capture by definition of capture.

If you really don’t understand what is relevant in the definitions, someone should explain it to you! Without the elementary logic, there is no serious discussion!

If under elementary logic you understand exclusively your logic then yes, maybe someone should explain it to me!

I see exactly the opposite relation! Your position requires various distortions of words, terms, definitions etc., from the very beginning!!!

While it may be so, the only objection was: if we take Georgy’s meaning then Nikola’s arguments will become poor, so this is unacceptable.

I start from the rules to a critical point and only then I search for the possibly valid interpretations of the terms which are not exactly defined.

The statement you have written in CAPS: BY MOVING TO THE SQUARE OCCUPIED BY THE LATTER – is not a part of the rules. So, it is already an interpretation. I simply start interpretation a one step before you and so see more possibilities.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 13, 2014, 23:26
Quote Remove Edit

_________________________________
“…”If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured, that is removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.” So, this is a definition of capture, the only one present in the rules….”
_________________________________
Yes, and if the square is not occupied, no opponent’s piece is captured and removed.

___________________________________
“…The statement you have written in CAPS: BY MOVING TO THE SQUARE OCCUPIED BY THE LATTER – is not a part of the rules…”
___________________________________
Of course it is a part of the rules, but you may try to formulate a more direct definition of how a piece “may capture” an opponent’s piece, according to the rules. That is what I have been asking all the time.

____________________________
“…2. The word “cross” also means that the thing crossed has left behind. It sounds very silly: “You have crossed the road, so now you may be hit by vehicle in the middle of it”…”
____________________________
Yes, it sounds very silly, that’s what I’m telling all the time, wP standing on b4 can’t be hit on b3.
But again, you try to reduce the meaning of the whole concept to a meaning which suits you.
That is a “wordplay”.
“A river is crossed by a bridge”.
The meaning of “crossed by” depends on the context, in the first place on the meaning of 3.7.b.

You claim that “advance” in 3.7.b means “move to the 2nd square (in front)”, call that claim #1.
OK, now deduce what 3.7.d means.
bPa4 may move to b4, capturing wP which occupies b4.
After the definitions of pawn-moves in 3.7.a&b&c, yet another pawn-move is allowed. But only immediately after the “advance”, that is the only “special feature”.
So, a4xb4ep.

Does it mean that bPa4 attacks any opponent’s piece on b4, since it could make a capture on that square?
No, it attacks only an opponent’s pawn which “has advanced…” and that’s only a transient attack.
That might be the reason to introduce a new term “advance” instead of “move” – to make clear that wP moved to b4, like b3-b4, would not be attacked by bPa4.

According to #1, 3.7.b allows alternatively, b2-b3 or b2-b4; wP may move to b3 or alternatively it may cross b3 (leaving b3 behind).
In both cases, IRRELEVANTLY to “wP occupies b3” or “wP has crossed b3”, it is RELEVANT that bPa4 attacks that wP as though it had been moved to b3.
wP is transiently attacked even when it has crossed b3. Therefore bPa4 may capture it by moving to the square occupied by that wP.
And it is not only a direct formal consequence of the rules, it is also perfectly natural!

Crossing b3 is considered as the same “justification” for capture as stopping at b3, but only transiently.
However, the very capture and removal may naturally take place on b4.
Catching the enemy piece on b3 and throwing it from the board, although it is not there, would not only be SILLY AS YOU SAY, it would also be against 3.1!

You are trying to use “as though” as a magic wand, to do IMPOSSIBLE “as though” it was possible.
“As though” may only indicate what is RELEVANT and what is IRRELEVANT!
The RELEVANCE is a relation about which you pretend as though you didn’t understand it.

According to #1., 3.7.d, indicates the same relevance “R1” to “square occupied” and “square crossed”. According to 3.1, 3.7.d means that bPa4 attacks wPb4 due to R1.
The resulting a4xb4 is POSSIBLE by all relevant articles in the rules, IF the claim #1 is correct!

Now you name my trivial and cheap trick in this reasoning.

_____________________________________
“…It is interesting that I am trying to discuss all your “trivial mistakes or cheap tricks”, while you are only saying that they are present, not naming any…”
_____________________________________

I have named your most trivial and cheap “trick” which “should support” all your reasoning:
________________________________________
What is your best offer?
“…Capture is a move which includes the removal…”
This is a typical mistake where the most relevant part is dropped.
I deduce from the rules:
– Capture is a move which includes the removal in case exactly defined in 3.1! –
________________________________________
If a square is not “really” occupied, a piece is not removed.
Only moving to an OCCUPIED SQUARE is RELEVANT for removal.
“As though it was occupied” gives no such relevance to an empty square.

3.7.d allows one pawn to move to a square occupied by the other pawn, that is relevant. If wP has moved to b4, then this is simply a definition of 4th possible pawn-move. 5th possibility is promotion.

It would sound very silly that wP occupying b4 may be removed after moving bPa4 to b3.
But it’s not me who claims that the square crossed by the “advancing pawn” was left behind!

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 15, 2014, 12:51
Quote Remove Edit

Yes, and if the square is not occupied, no opponent’s piece is captured and removed.

The correct way to say the same thing is: if the rule 3.1 is not applicable then capture cannot be done. And this is where the critical point is – we have different opinions if this rule is applicable to my understanding of en passant.

you may try to formulate a more direct definition of how a piece “may capture” an opponent’s piece, according to the rules. That is what I have been asking all the time.

I have given a thorough description in the first paragraph of post from December 9, 2014, 10:14.

Yes, it sounds very silly, that’s what I’m telling all the time, wP standing on b4 can’t be hit on b3.

The term “hit” does not fit the rules. But yes, the wP standing on b4 can be captured by move to b3.

You try to reduce the meaning of the whole concept to a meaning which suits you.
That is a “wordplay”.

While I agree with this definition of “wordplay”, this is what you are doing. I am taking the most simple and direct meaning of words. And yes, it suits me – and this makes me think I am on the right track.

You claim that “advance” in 3.7.b means “move to the 2nd square (in front)”, call that claim #1.

Yes.

OK, now deduce what 3.7.d means.

You following analysis is wrong because it ignores another critical point: there are two different squares: one is square of arrival of capturing piece and another is the square of removal of captured piece. This is nowhere forbidden by the rules. And it is exactly this fact which is confirmed by otb practice.

“As though it was occupied” gives no such relevance to an empty square.

Why? Because you do not like an idea?

3.7.d allows one pawn to move to a square occupied by the other pawn,

No. 3.7.d allows one pawn to move to a square it attacks. There is a definition of an attacked square in the same 3.1.

It would sound very silly that wP occupying b4 may be removed after moving bPa4 to b3.

Well, I am not happy with this myself, but dura lex sed lex. And anyway, it is less silly than the pawn spread between different squares.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 18, 2014, 02:46
Quote Remove Edit

Well, the removal is exactly defined so there’s nothing to be discussed about!

The same is about the capture, but everyone is free to fantasize as she/he wishes.
There’s no “special” definition about a capture on an empty square, but free fantasy might allow to interpret 3.7.d as a “capture without removal”.

However, the logic would not recognize the ambiguous speculations as a definition. And anyway, nobody claims that the captured pawn should not be removed from the board.

That whole part of discussion is closed for me as not interesting.

It is perhaps interesting why, in case of ep. capture, the “advanced” pawn does not occupy the 2nd square (for axb4ep.?), but occupies the 1st square.
However, I don’t intend to spend time in proving what is “…most simple and direct meaning of words…” in a language, or the purpose of the terms in definitions.
It is not about the English, one should understand the meaning of the words in her/his own language.
But that is not the case too often, unfortunately.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 19, 2014, 08:33
Quote Remove Edit

Nikola,

Your last message suddenly allowed me to understand the problem. The problem is not that you or me are joking or trolling or are illogical. The problem is that the critical point is really very different from what I thought before. The problem is that we absolutely differently interpret the crucial statement from 3.1.

If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.

Your interpretation:
A move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece is called capture. There is a side effect of a removal of a captured piece, as it is not allowed to have two pieces on the same square.

My interpretation:
A move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece has an effect of capture. This effect is a removal of a captured piece.

So, for you the “essence” of capture is a move to the occupied square, for me (and, sorry, it looks like also for everyone else) it is the removal of captured piece.

In the same way you could not imagine “the capture on the empty square”, I was not able to imagine “capture without removal”, even in free fantasy realm.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 22, 2014, 01:11
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy,
—–
“…So, for you the “essence” of capture is a move to the occupied square, for me (and, sorry, it looks like also for everyone else) it is the removal of captured piece….”
—–
“Everyone else” should read the rules before interpreting them.
I’ve wasted too many weeks only to discover the incredibly trivial “everyone’s” error caused by a prejudice that the word capture alone should include the removal.

The meaning of “chess-capture” includes the removal because capture is defined as a move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece.
If the square is empty, “a capture” is not “the chess-capture” because it DOES NOT include the removal.
I was actually too much able to “imagine the capture on an empty square”.
But I couldn’t detect any sane logic which would include the removal, in case of “specifically extended definition” of capture.
“As though” is not a magical term which might allow anything!

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 22, 2014, 10:50
Quote Remove Edit

…Discover the incredibly trivial “everyone’s” error caused by a prejudice that the word capture alone should include the removal.

It is only your personal opinion. And “everyone” has a different opinion about the person making a trivial error.

The meaning of “chess-capture” includes the removal because capture is defined as a move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece.

This is your personal prejudice – this is not necessarily the intention of the rules.

But I couldn’t detect any sane logic which would include the removal, in case of “specifically extended definition” of capture.

As I said, according to correct)) interpretation of 3.1 the removal is part of definition of capture, while move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece is not.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 22, 2014, 14:33
Quote Remove Edit

Yes Georgy, ERROR.
——
“…As I said, according to correct)) interpretation of 3.1 the removal is part of definition of capture, while move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece is not. …”
——

3.1 is formulated clearly, defining when a piece may move to an occupied square and when it may not.

“Interpretations” and “opinions” about an exact definition with a unique meaning?
“Correct” interpretation of 3.1 – what should mean the word “correct”?
Politically or religiously “correct”?

Well, I’m not a member of “everyone’s” fantasy club, I prefer the consistent sane logic.
You obviously prefer the logic established by voting.
For many centuries it was clear about a capture by moving to an occupied square and now it could be voted differently.
The voting procedure should take place at FIDE or WFCC and then you might have it.

Oh, I forgot your “magic concept”, I should accept “everyone’s” opinion “as though” it was already defined by FIDE laws of chess.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 22, 2014, 16:26
Quote Remove Edit

3.1 is formulated clearly, defining when a piece may move to an occupied square and when it may not.

Yes, but the definition of capture is something separate.

For many centuries it was clear about a capture by moving to an occupied square…

I am still waiting for independent confirmation of this statement. Any single example will suffice for me. For example, the definition of capture in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_chess seems good for me, but not for you.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 22, 2014, 22:58
Quote Remove Edit

——
“…Yes, but the definition of capture is something separate….”
——
There is no other definition of capture, but if you nevertheless manage to see a separate definition, it might be only separated from removal.

While you’re waiting for independent confirmation of my statement, read again the FIDE laws of chess.
There is the only one definition good for FIDE rules.
You may write your own rules and publish them and they might look beautiful to you.
I may write my own rules too and admire them.

But I thought we were talking about the FIDE rules, appointed by WFCC Codex.
You obviously believe that FIDE rules should obey Wikipedia’s “opinion”.
I believe exactly the opposite.

Since we have reached the point of personal beliefs, we can happily end the discussion.
We simply trust the different sources.
And Wikipedia is indeed “everyone’s” source of information, correct or false.
After all, who has enough time to care about the truth?

Guest

Posts: 1
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 23, 2014, 12:46
Quote Remove Edit

While you’re waiting for independent confirmation of my statement, read again the FIDE laws of chess.

See my message from December 19, 2014, 08:33. We have different interpretation of the statement in the rules.

There is the only one definition good for FIDE rules.

There are two different interpretations of this definition.

You obviously believe that FIDE rules should obey Wikipedia’s “opinion”.

Of course, not. But additional sources (of different value, naturally) may be used to show which interpretation is considered more correct. Until now your interpretation is supported solely by your opinion. Frankly speaking, for me this is an indicator that it is you who is making a mistake. Of course, I can do nothing if you consider yourself the only heir of “real chess essence”.

We simply trust the different sources.

Yes, I trust different sources (FIDE rules, different chess rulebooks, some chess problems and their authors, chess video lessons, Wiki, etc.). They all generally say the same thing.
Where are those different sources which may influence your opinion?

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 23, 2014, 12:48
Quote Remove Edit

Sorry, the previous one is my reply which has somehow lost my name.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 23, 2014, 15:51
Quote Remove Edit

—-
“…But additional sources (of different value, naturally) may be used to show which interpretation is considered more correct…”
—-

“Which interpretation of a definition is MORE correct” – what are you talking about?
A rule defines what is correct, its purpose is to rule out the ambiguous “interpretations”.

3.1 determines capture and removal as the consequences of a particular event. Capture or removal hypothetically still might happen together or separately without that particular event and such cases just have to be defined.
But they happen together only in case of the event defined by 3.1. and there’s no room for any “interpretations”.

Rules define what is legal and anything else is not legal. It is defined when the removal is legal. It might coincide with the capture or not. You should just look in the rules when the removal and the capture coincide and when not. It can’t be simpler!

I agree that capture is always accompanied by removal (in chess), because the capture is defined exclusively by 3.1.
You use 3.1 to prove that capture always includes removal and then you “invent” a capture which may happen without 3.1
Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

—-
“…Until now your interpretation is supported solely by your opinion. Frankly speaking, for me this is an indicator that it is you who is making a mistake. Of course, I can do nothing if you consider yourself the only heir of “real chess essence”…”
—-
There is no my interpretation, there are the rules. So you should say openly that the rules are just a mistake.
“Real chess essence” comes out of the rules.
It is possible that the writer of the rules wasn’t careful and didn’t notice what the rules actually define (differently to his intention).
But as long as these rules are official, your “interpretation” is ruled out!

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 23, 2014, 16:49
Quote Remove Edit

3.1 determines capture and removal as the consequences of a particular event.

No. In reality, 3.1 introduces capture as the consequence of a particular event and then defines it as a removal of captured piece. This is also an interpretation, of course, and different from yours.

Capture or removal hypothetically still might happen together or separately without that particular event and such cases just have to be defined.

According to the interpretation above, capture hypothetically still might happen without that particular event and such cases just have to be defined. But by definition, the removal is a “physical” effect of capture, and there is no capture without removal and no removal without capture.

It can’t be simpler!

You use 3.1 to prove that capture always includes removal.

Yes.

and then you “invent” a capture which may happen without 3.1

No. It occurs according to my interpretation of 3.1, not without 3.1.

There is no my interpretation, there are the rules. So you should say openly that the rules are just a mistake.

No. This is your interpretation. As soon as you start to explain what is intended, you begin to interpret the rules. You must show direct contradiction between what I say and what is written in the rules. I do not see such contradiction.

It is possible that the writer of the rules wasn’t careful.

I think that you are right in this part. The statement in 3.1 is ambiguous.
There are two ways to begin using new term. The first is to give the definition and then to start using the word. The second is to describe the situation, where this term is needed, introduce it and then give the explanation/definition of it. You consider the crucial statement from 3.1 to be the former case, I (and “everyone else”) interpret it as the latter case. The form of sentence does not allow to exclude either possibility.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 24, 2014, 00:45
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy, capture and removal are different words with different meaning.
To learn what they mean in chess, you should read the chess rules and not Wikipedia.

The only connection between these words in the chess rules is stated in 3.1
Capture is equivalent to removal when a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece.
The only way to use these different words conditionally as synonyms is to find a relevant meaning, common to both words.
3.1 defines the only common relevant meaning.

——
“…No. In reality, 3.1 introduces capture as the consequence of a particular event and then defines it as a removal of captured piece. This is also an interpretation, of course, and different from yours. …”
——
This can’t be considered even as a dubious interpretation. It is simply a most banal logical error.
And what you call “my (Nikola’s) interpretation”? – that “capture” does not generally mean “remove” in the language?

—–
“…The form of sentence does not allow to exclude either possibility….”
—–
“If A, then B and C” does not define “if B, then C”.
It might be reformulated as “if B due to A, then C”.
It still does not define “if B, then C”.

This all neither excludes nor forbids that the definition “if B, then C” might exist. The fact is that such definition simply DOES NOT EXIST in the rules and cannot be deduced from other definitions.

You treat the official rules as a collection of vague hints which “everyone” is entitled to interpret and the “louder” group would determine a “correct interpretation”.
That is a typical belief of those who are not able to understand or do not care about what is a definition and what is the logic deduction.

In your approach, one should know the meaning of the rules before reading them and that “previous knowledge” would enable a “correct” reading of the rules. Thus the “previous knowledge” might become “official”.
Quite a nice loop.
Apparently, the official rules are not only useless, they actually confuse a poor reader who is not informed about the opinion of logic “experts”.

So, “If A, then B & C” should mean that “if B, then C” is explained/defined.
I have nothing to say, you have knocked me out!

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 24, 2014, 12:02
Quote Remove Edit

The only connection between these words in the chess rules is stated in 3.1

Yes.

And what you call “my (Nikola’s) interpretation”? – that “capture” does not generally mean “remove” in the language?

It does not matter what “capture” means in language. We have the definition: a new chess term is introduced and its meaning is explained.

“If A, then B and C” does not define “if B, then C”.
It might be reformulated as “if B due to A, then C”.
It still does not define “if B, then C”.

This logic is just plain wrong.
The statement is the definition of B – so we do not know what B is, before we read this sentence.

So your “reformulation” when both A and C are independent from B is definitely incorrect.
The correct logic approach requires that either A or C is equivalent to B.

So, “If A, then B and C” means, as a definition of B, either
1) “If A (which is called B) then C”
or
2) “If A, then B which is the same as C”

The best analogy I could come with is:

If you see a semicircular shadow on the Moon (A) then this is an eclipse (B) and the path of light is obscured by another heavenly body (C).

From this sentence you may also extract two different definitions of eclipse.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 24, 2014, 16:15
Quote Remove Edit

You don’t understand the difference between the deduction and induction.
If a rock (from a ceiling of a cave) falls to a point occupied by someone, that one is trapped/captured and hurt.
If a rock falls to a point between someone and the exit, that one is captured but not hurt.

3.1 alone is not a complete definition of capture or removal.
Every event type A is related to some event from the subset of types B and to some event from the subset of types C.
The set “Ax(B+C)” of events related to A consists of events type B and type C and is a subset of the whole set of types B and of the whole set of types C.
Events type B and events type C belong to the same set “Ax(B+C)” only when related to A.
That “belonging to the same set” is the only relation between B and C, defined by the rules.

A relation between the events type B and type C is not defined outside “Ax(B+C)” in the rules.
Undefined elements are IRRELEVANT for any rules, just as though they were not existing.
The presence or the lack of other definitions completes the meaning of 3.1.

Removal is related to capture in case of 3.1 and any other undefined hypothetically possible relation is IRRELEVANT for FIDE laws of chess!

If a capture happens exclusively as in 3.1, it is always related to the removal.

Your Moon-analogy only shows that you don’t distinct relevant from irrelevant and “who is who” as a cause and as a consequence.
According to your “definition”, eclipse might be anything or just a name for that particular event, while A and C are clearly related. B is defined as existing in case of relation A-C. Without being related to A, B is not defined as related to C.
Well, unless you know in advance that B is just a name for C, “forgetting” that A is a consequence of C.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 25, 2014, 11:11
Quote Remove Edit

You don’t understand the difference between the deduction and induction.

No deduction or induction is required to understand rules. You simply apply the template to game situation.

3.1 alone is not a complete definition of capture or removal.

It is, for a capture, as there is no other definition in the rules. There is no definition for removal at all, so natural meaning is intended.

See 1.2 to ensure yourself that capture is a term which is to be defined.

A relation between the events type B and type C is not defined outside “Ax(B+C)” in the rules.

The scope of definition may not be limited implicitly. Any implicit meaning is an opinion which may be wrong.

Removal is related to capture in case of 3.1 and any other undefined hypothetically possible relation is IRRELEVANT for FIDE laws of chess!

Being attentive, you should have noticed, that there is no standalone “capture” in the rules, but it is always “capture of piece X”. I understand that you will easily come with great explanation why this fact has nothing to do with the removal of captured piece.

According to your “definition”, eclipse might be anything or just a name for that particular event, while A and C are clearly related. B is defined as existing in case of relation A-C. Without being related to A, B is not defined as related to C.
Well, unless you know in advance that B is just a name for C, “forgetting” that A is a consequence of C.

First, B is not be related to A in case of Solar eclipse or any planetary eclipse. Second, of course I knew in advance that B is just a name for C. I tried to construct a correct statement with exactly this meaning. If in principle it is possible that B is just a name for C, then your arguments become weak.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 26, 2014, 18:23
Quote Remove Edit

—–
“…No deduction or induction is required to understand rules. You simply apply the template to game situation…”
—–
The official rules should enable anyone who has never heard about chess before, to play the legal and recognize illegal moves in any case.
Otherwise, that would not be the rules and the quarrel might occur after each move.

The “template” is a result of a very simple deduction. Removal is a result of 3.1 and you simply apply it to a game situation!

I was not perfectly precise in the following statement but you could have understand the meaning by noticing the RELEVANT relation between the first one and last two sentences of the reasoning:

3.1 alone is not a complete definition of capture or removal. ….
…Undefined elements are IRRELEVANT for any rules, just as though they were not existing.
The presence or the lack of other definitions completes the meaning of 3.1.

The word “alone” means that IF there are additional definitions in the rules, 3.1 might be only a special case of capture or/and removal.

It’s interesting that NOW you claim:
“…It is, for a capture, as there is no other definition in the rules…”
—–
So now you say that a capture is defined as the consequence of moving to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece?

—–
“…The scope of definition may not be limited implicitly. Any implicit meaning is an opinion which may be wrong….”
—–
I’m not sure what you mean, but the scope of definition is exactly the scope of what is defined.
Undefined and not deducible elements are not relevant, because they are meaningless within the scope of a definition. Such elements do not have to be proved as wrong, they simply don’t exist within the rules.

——
“…Being attentive, you should have noticed, that there is no standalone “capture” in the rules, but it is always “capture of piece X”. I understand that you will easily come with great explanation why this fact has nothing to do with the removal of captured piece…”
—–
It’s quite a mystery what you wanted to say.
3.1 defines when a piece X is captured and removed. What should I “explain” about such a clear simplicity?

—–
“…First, B is not be related to A in case of Solar eclipse or any planetary eclipse…”
—–
So what?
It’s your analogy and you point to the elements relevant for the analogy. I can’t guess what you consider as relevant in that mess. What we should consider as understandable from the used words and what should be deduced from the formulation?

—–
“…If in principle it is possible that B is just a name for C, then your arguments become weak…”
—–
If B might be considered just as a name for C, B would mean that C is in case, according to the definition of C.
Of course, this would mean that B is defined by C.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 27, 2014, 12:40
Quote Remove Edit

The official rules should enable anyone who has never heard about chess before, to play the legal and recognize illegal moves in any case.

You understand that the issue we are discussing here is not significant for otb play, do you?

It’s interesting that NOW you claim:
“…It is, for a capture, as there is no other definition in the rules…”
—–
So now you say that a capture is defined as the consequence of moving to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece?

No, it is other way round. The consequence of moving to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece is said to be a capture. And then capture is defined as a removal of a piece from the board.

It is a normal “if – then” statement, describing cause and result, and not necessarily stating that this is the only possible cause.

I’m not sure what you mean, but the scope of definition is exactly the scope of what is defined.

I mean a simple thing. You insist that capture=removal part is only valid if previous “if” part is true, while I think capture=removal is applicable at any point of the rules, independently of mentioned “if” part.

If B might be considered just as a name for C, B would mean that C is in case, according to the definition of C.

I begin to doubt that you understand what the definition is. C in this case is definition, not a term.

If you have a definition like:
B is “blah-blah-blah” then this generally means that at any point of rules B may be replaced with “blah-blah-blah” and the text will remain meaningful.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 30, 2014, 18:12
Quote Remove Edit

Georgy, I can’t tell whether you don’t understand the most elementary logic principles or you just try to deceive a reader by trivial tricks.
In any case I will not discuss about trivialities. I might only comment that something is correct or incorrect and perhaps sometimes just mention the crucial error.

Your entire last post is incorrect due to the inversion of relations which are not reversible.
Your comments of 4 quotations are incorrect. Even the lack of precision or undefined relevance, make the statement incorrect.

For instance, the legality of otb play is defined by the rules. This discussion has included some possibilities which would have different effects on legal play.
So, the issue we are discussing here IS significant for otb play!

The other 3 comments are incorrect due to the inversion of irreversible logic relation.
If any cow is an animal doesn’t mean that any animal is a cow.
When you learn the difference between deduction and induction, between a set and its subset and between a cause and its result, we might have a discussion.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 31, 2014, 11:29
Quote Remove Edit

For instance, the legality of otb play is defined by the rules. This discussion has included some possibilities which would have different effects on legal play.
So, the issue we are discussing here IS significant for otb play!

You are wrong. The reason for this discussion is exactly the fact that this issue has nothing to do with otb play and so FIDE had no reason to make strict rules concerning the point of our discussion.

The other 3 comments are incorrect due to the inversion of irreversible logic relation.
If any cow is an animal doesn’t mean that any animal is a cow.

Just brilliant! This is the fact I am trying to explain to you for several last pages.

If piece A plays to square occupied by piece B then piece B is captured doesn’t mean that if piece B is captured then piece A plays to square occupied by piece B.

Physician, heal thyself!

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 31, 2014, 14:39
Quote Remove Edit

—–
“… The reason for this discussion is exactly the fact that this issue has nothing to do with otb play and so FIDE had no reason to make strict rules concerning the point of our discussion….”
—–
What does that mean? That it’s also allowed bPa4xPb4, or bPa4-b3 (“capturing” wPb4 without removal)?
Or you think that the rules are not important – if someone plays differently than the majority believes, no problem, Georgy and the “experts” will decide what is legal.
___________________________________________________________
– “….And then capture is defined as a removal of a piece from the board…”
– &
“…while I think capture=removal is applicable at any point of the rules, independently of mentioned “if” part…”
– and also
– “…B is “blah-blah-blah” then this generally means that at any point of rules B may be replaced with “blah-blah-blah” and the text will remain meaningful…”
—–
This is what you are trying to explain and it is incorrect!

—–
“…If piece A plays to square occupied by piece B then piece B is captured doesn’t mean that if piece B is captured then piece A plays to square occupied by piece B…”
—–
Just brilliant!
But also, it doesn’t mean that piece B should be removed if piece B is captured by piece A playing to a square not occupied by piece B.

After the first step to correct conclusion you seem to get tired and you forget the logic.
Suddenly, any capture means removal, even when the only link between capture and removal doesn’t exist.

If the animal is a cow, it has head and legs.
But there could be some other animal with a head. Your brilliant logic says that head includes legs “by definition”.

You have commented my sentence:
-3.1 alone is not a complete definition of capture or removal.-
with yours:
– “It is, for a capture, as there is no other definition in the rules…. ” –

You should decide, is there any other definition of capture in the rules or not?

You simply don’t recognize what is relevant in logic reasoning.
And you don’t know what is natural.
Popular beliefs are based on the lack of knowledge and logic reasoning.
Common opinion depends on the force of majority.
However, the fundamental laws of nature do not care about it.
If you claim that something is “natural”, it should be in accordance with the fundamental principles of the nature.

The rules of a game may be “unnatural” but then, they can’t be claimed as being natural.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 31, 2014, 18:31
Quote Remove Edit

What does that mean? That it’s also allowed bPa4xPb4, or bPa4-b3 (“capturing” wPb4 without removal)?

This means that before the move we have bPa4 and wPb4 and after the move we have bPb3 and wP removed from the board. This result is defined by the rules and is the only thing which significant for otb play. Our disagreemnet about “internal processing” of this move does not affect the otb end result.

But also, it doesn’t mean that piece B should be removed if piece B is captured by piece A playing to a square not occupied by piece B.

Yes, it may be so. That is why I call it an interpretation. And if we speaking about an interpretation of rules, the opinion of experts becomes valuable.

Suddenly, any capture means removal, even when the only link between capture and removal doesn’t exist.

The link exists as shown in my message from December 19, 2014, 08:33. Yes, this is also an interpretation.

BTW, if I write that
The move is a capture when and only when the opponent’s piece is removed from the board as a result of the move
will you say that I am wrong?

You should decide, is there any other definition of capture in the rules or not?

No, there is no other definition. But we disagree which part of the crucial sentence in 3.1 is the definition of capture.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 31, 2014, 19:08
Quote Remove Edit

Incorrect, Georgy!
The rules define exactly what happens and various personal or popular interpretations are completely irrelevant.

All four comments of the quotations are incorrect.
Anything which is not defined is irrelevant because it can’t simply happen within the system defined by the rules.
If something undefined happens and if the consequence cannot be unambiguously deduced from the rules, the rules are not valid in that part. No “personal interpretations” could amend it.

The rules do not state that Georgy or anyone else will define the capture.
“…No, there is no other definition. But we disagree which part of the crucial sentence in 3.1 is the definition of capture…”

You disagree with the basic logic of the relations. You transfer the relation between capture and removal outside the frame within which it is defined.
Such a nonsense doesn’t deserve any decent comment.

And if there is no other definition of capture, capture is always a move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece.

And this is exactly the case in the laws of chess. After the advance, a pawn occupies either the first or the second square in front of its original square.
That is the consequence of the rules, the only one which is both logical and natural.

Happy New Year!

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: December 31, 2014, 23:19
Quote Remove Edit

If something undefined happens and if the consequence cannot be unambiguously deduced from the rules, the rules are not valid in that part. No “personal interpretations” could amend it.

Yes, the rules does not define unambiguously from which square the pawn captured en passant disappears, as this is not significant for otb play. Yes, this is a question of interpretation for circe-like effects. Yes, we need some kind of interpretation to decide how these effects are applied.

You transfer the relation between capture and removal outside the frame within which it is defined.Such a nonsense doesn’t deserve any decent comment.

The frame (I have used word “scope”) is not defined explicitly. It is normal and not a nonsense to introduce the term when it is first needed and then give a definition that is valid for all the text.

And if there is no other definition of capture, capture is always a move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece.

According to 3.1 the capture is an effect of removal the opponent’s piece. And no, capture is not a move.

Happy New Year!

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: January 4, 2015, 21:30
Quote Remove Edit

I’m not sure what is the relevance of your last post.
There is only one, both logical and natural meaning of 3.7.b & 3.7.d, so there’s no ambiguity.
Nevertheless, you try to “guess” and impose some meaning which is not defined in the rules.
Illogical and unnatural.

A relation has a meaning and is sensible within the area of definition. Outside that area, the relation has no meaning and is simply senseless. It makes a nonsense.
Coincidence of capture and removal is sensible within the area where it is defined.

Within the scope of 3.1, that coincidence may be interpreted as you wish, providing that the relevant exact meaning of the definition is preserved. An interpretation might help understanding, remembering, visualizing etc. but the abstract essence must remain the same.

My expression “capture is a move” is not relevant for the discussion because I used it just as a reference to the definitions formulated in the rules.
“a (consequence of a) move”, instead of “a move”, if you need it.
—–
“…According to 3.1 the capture is an effect of removal the opponent’s piece…”
—–
Within the area of definition of the mentioned coincidence, it is one of the possible interpretations.
Of course, this interpretation is irrelevant for the rules where only the coincidence is relevant.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: January 9, 2015, 10:22
Quote Remove Edit

A relation has a meaning and is sensible within the area of definition.

There are well known words (like then and only then) used to limit area, frame, scope of definition. No such words are used in FIDE rules. So, it is only your opinion that some limits are imposed. And I dare to say that it is wrong opinion as no one else shares it.

Coincidence of capture and removal is sensible within the area where it is defined.

No limits are strictly imposed in the rules and no limits are intended.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: January 9, 2015, 16:51
Quote Remove Edit

The well known words like “then and only then” determine the area of definition. That area consists of two sub-areas.
It is defined when something IS and when something IS NOT.
So, both sub-areas have the exactly defined meanings.
If the sub-area “IS NOT” is not determined, the relation is senseless outside the area where “IS” is determined.

If I start a game 1.Sf3 and remove bPd7, should I claim it is a capture and removal or just a removal?
Or playing 1.Sf3, I say bPd7 is captured but not removed, claiming that 1…d5 (or any move by bPd7) is illegal as long as that bP is captured???

The rules do not need to care about my plans, strategy and tactics.
The rules are not about what I would wish to happen, e.g. to remove some enemy piece.
They are formulated to say simply WHAT happens.
A piece may move and arrive to an empty square.
If the arrival square is occupied by a friendly piece, the arrival is not possible.
In case of an enemy piece, the arrival is possible and the enemy piece is captured and removed.

I might wish to remove bPd7 and speculate that no “such words” in FIDE rules “limit” the area of definition of the removal or capture.
But there is the whole point, making the moves defined by the rules is a legal chess game, irrelevantly to the “idea” of the moves.
Anything else is simply a nonsense.
I may play 1.Sf3 and it does not result with the removal.

When you see the wording “may capture”, you must look what is relevant for the capture, “may capture” simply REFERS to the paragraphs in which you may find which moves include the capture.
And EXCLUSIVELY 3.1. defines the relation between the capture and the removal.
Any other, among innumerable possible “interpretations”, is equally meaningless.

—–
“…There are well known words (like then and only then) used to limit area, frame, scope of definition. No such words are used in FIDE rules. So, it is only your opinion that some limits are imposed. And I dare to say that it is wrong opinion as no one else shares it…”
—–

So you dare to say that no limits are imposed if “then and only then” is not explicitly written.
This should mean that I’m wrong by claiming that undefined is simply meaningless.
However, Georgy and the “experts” are entitled to impose the illogical limits as they wish and choose just one of many undefined “interpretations”.
And by the way, the most unnatural one.

I dare say that your logic is completely upside-down!

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: January 11, 2015, 00:16
Quote Remove Edit

If the sub-area “IS NOT” is not determined, the relation is senseless outside the area where “IS” is determined.

This is the error of your own “cow-animal” example. The issue is exactly if some specific if clause imposes the limit on the area or not.

In case of an enemy piece, the arrival is possible and the enemy piece is captured and removed.

This is where you are wrong. The newcomer interprets this statement very differently.

If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured…

The newcomer thinks:
the move is possible and something happens to the enemy piece and so I expect the explanation…

…and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.

…and it appears!

So the newcomer sees here two things:
1. The rule: If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece that piece is captured.

2. The definition: When the piece is captured it is removed from the board as part of the same move. (And there is never simply “capture” – it is always “capture of piece X”.)

The rule is applicable when it is applicable (in fact, it is applicable for all capturing pieces except pawn, for which two separate capture rules are given).

The definition is applicable everywhere where word “capture” is used. And it is natural that the definition is given when the term is used for the first time, and of course there is no sense in repeating this description all over the document. And it is reasonable that the part belonging to the rule does not limit the scope of definition.

When you see the wording “may capture”, you must look what is relevant for the capture.

No. Only the definition of term “capture” is needed. Most paragraphs in FIDE rules (including 3.7c and 3.7d) are self-contained and does not require to review all the rules in search of cross-references.

However, Georgy and the “experts” are entitled to … choose just one of many undefined “interpretations”.

This most unantural and upside-down interpretation is used by everyone except Nikola Predrag. This includes World chess champions of all times, the people who has written and edited FIDE rules, the people who give chess lectures, many prominent composers and so on. If they all are idiots, then I prefer to be with idiots.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: January 11, 2015, 06:41
Quote Remove Edit

Idiots are not able to create such fantastic interpretations on the basis of deliberately inverted logic.
And you invert the logic going backwards from your belief and searching for a convenient interpretation among all possible interpretations in the UNDEFINED area.
But the undefined situations are supposed as not possibly coming into existence in any serious rules.

So, you claim that the writer of FIDE rules believes that they clearly define a possibility of moving a pawn to one square and removing an opponent’s pawn from another square.
Also, you claim that World chess champions of all times, the people who give chess lectures, many prominent composers and so on, believe that the rules undoubtedly define the same.

If this is true, then I am clearly not with those great thinkers.
I see that the rules most clearly say that “may capture” means that the pawn may move to the square occupied by the opponent’s pawn, in which case the latter will be captured and removed from the board.
And there’s nothing which requires some “extended scope” of 3.1..
Nothing even suggests that something else than 3.1. should be looked for.

And naturally, as long as the ep. capture is legal in a particular position, the “advanced” pawn could possibly occupy the 1st square of its advance, as though it had been “moved” there.
That’s the logic and that’s the nature.

Since you repeatedly try to intimidate me by the eminent believers, this is not a discussion, but more an inquisition.

—–
“…So the newcomer sees here two things:
1. The rule: If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece that piece is captured.

2. The definition: When the piece is captured it is removed from the board as part of the same move…..”
—–

That is tragically sad. I can only hope you’ll never have a power to decide about someone’s destiny by applying such reasoning.

There may be defined reasons to capture and “remove” someone who is found guilty.
Potential suspects may be captured, but you wouldn’t waste time searching for the truth.
Suspicion leads to capture and your logic doesn’t require any real guilt for the removal.

There were well known names in the history, notorious for such reasoning.
Most deeply I hope that such upside-down reasoning is NOT “used by everyone except Nikola Predrag”.

If the pawn doesn’t occupy the relevant square, as defined by 3.1., it is not “captured and removed”.
If you can find a way how&why that pawn might be captured without removal, please yourself.

I’m not interested in “removals” without the perfectly clear and justified legal reasons.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: January 11, 2015, 11:18
Quote Remove Edit

So, you claim that the writer of FIDE rules believes that they clearly define a possibility of moving a pawn to one square and removing an opponent’s pawn from another square.

Yes. This is how this move is played otb and was always played otb. I am not saying that this is clearly defined, but this is definitely not excluded by the rules.

Nothing even suggests that something else than 3.1. should be looked for.

Open your eyes. You have just allowed the capture g2xg3.

Since you repeatedly try to intimidate me by the eminent believers, this is not a discussion, but more an inquisition.

You would have been right if this only was the issue between you and me. But there are chess players and other composers with some opinion and ignoring them altogether is a bad idea.

That is tragically sad. I can only hope you’ll never have a power to decide about someone’s destiny by applying such reasoning.

Well, this comment and your following text is plain silly. I have a feeling that you are using the term capture without definition and are unable to explain what it means. According to you, it is something very intimate that happens to, for example, bPb7, after white bishop moved to b7, but before this pawn is removed from board. For me this sounds like sheer nonsense and I would like to hear how you would explain to a newcomer what the capture is.

And no, any criminals or prisoners of war has nothing to do with chess capture. Please avoid such offtopic examples.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: January 11, 2015, 15:22
Quote Remove Edit

What do you consider as consistent logic?
I have quoted your reasoning:
1. The rule: …..
“logically” gives
2. The definition: …

If that logic reasoning is valid, it must be applicable in absolutely any case, irrelevantly to the topic.
The consistent logic does not support your conclusion that rule 1. leads precisely to definition 2., because the “occupation of a relevant square” is missing.

A newcomer will clearly understand “what the capture is”.
If a piece may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece, the latter may be captured and removed.

If no piece may move to some square occupied by an opponents piece, why would a newcomer ever think that that opponent’s piece may be captured and also removed?
If a pawn A may capture an opponent’s pawn B as defined in 3.7.d, this directly means that A may move to the square occupied by B.

What mysterious doubts should a newcomer have about that particular issue?
The only question is WHICH SQUARE IS OCCUPIED in case of ep. capture.
Purely abstract logic might offer different answers but none of them supports your opinion.
However, natural logic gives only one answer.

—–
“…Open your eyes. You have just allowed the capture g2xg3….”
—–
Your explanation of that comment is probably amusing, but I can’t guess it.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: January 11, 2015, 21:35
Quote Remove Edit

1. The rule: …..
“logically” gives
2. The definition: …

No, of course.
Initial statement from 3.1 logically gives both 1 and 2.

because the “occupation of a relevant square” is missing.

And it is only your personal opinion that this is a requirement for capture.

A newcomer will clearly understand “what the capture is”.
If a piece may move to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece, the latter may be captured and removed.

You a not going to prove anything by repeating the statement from the 3.1 over and over again (especially in this distorted form). But let me be more specific. What is the difference from the chess point of view between two following statements (the two words in bold are removed from second sentence)?

1. If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is captured and removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.
and
2. If a piece moves to a square occupied by an opponent’s piece the latter is removed from the chessboard as part of the same move.

If no piece may move to some square occupied by an opponents piece, why would a newcomer ever think that that opponent’s piece may be captured and also removed?

Because it is explicitly said in 3.7c and 3.7d. (And “captured and also removed” is an incorrect phrase from my point of view.)

The only question is WHICH SQUARE IS OCCUPIED in case of ep. capture.

This is NEVER a question. The only question relevant for the rules is WHICH PIECE IS CAPTURED. And this question is EXPLICITLY answered in the rules in ALL THREE CASES where rules of capture are given.

“…Open your eyes. You have just allowed the capture g2xg3….”
—–
Your explanation of that comment is probably amusing, but I can’t guess it.

Easy. White pawn can move from g2 to unoccupied g3. So, according to 3.1 it can move to occupied g3 with capture.

Nikola-
Predrag

Visitor
Posts: 42
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: January 12, 2015, 02:02
Quote Remove Edit

Wow, I can’t detect the consistent points in your reasoning.
—–
“…No, of course.
Initial statement from 3.1 logically gives both 1 and 2…”
—–
So, 2 is given by the initial statement which mentions “occupied square”.
But what are you trying to say?
That 2 is logically given without the same initial statement which logically gives both 1 and 2??????

You permanently violate the formulation of logic relations by dropping the crucially relevant relations.
3.1. gives the cause and gives two consequences, THIS AND THAT.
If you are not sure what means THIS, you might assume it is just a name for THAT.
So,
—–
“…The newcomer thinks:
the move is possible and something happens to the enemy piece and so I expect the explanation…”
—–
And WHAT happens???
A piece “which occupies the square to which an enemy piece moves” is removed from the board!!!
Because,
3.1. defines exactly WHICH ENEMY PIECE is removed, “the latter” does not refer to any piece.

The term “capture” in chess rules is not explained by the word itself, but by the removal of THE LATTER (which occupies etc..), as defined by 3.1.
That’s what a newcomer concludes.

—–
“… Because it is explicitly said in 3.7c and 3.7d. (And “captured and also removed” is an incorrect phrase from my point of view.)…”
—–
You pretend that you don’t know the meaning of “explicitly”.
I believe you know the meaning, therefore I find your statement offending, so no comment.

—–
“… Easy. White pawn can move from g2 to unoccupied g3. So, according to 3.1 it can move to occupied g3 with capture….”
—–
No, according to 3.1, a pawn g2 may not capture on g3. Look for the formulation where a pawn “may capture” to see what I have referred to.

Georgy-
Evseev

Visitor
Posts: 41
Georgy Evseev
PostRe: Theory of en passant capture. Started in comments to No.627 and No.636
on: January 12, 2015, 07:31
Quote Remove Edit

3.1. gives the cause and gives two consequences, THIS AND THAT.
If you are not sure what means THIS, you might assume it is just a name for THAT.

Not exactly the consequence – it is a pattern. Yes, THIS is a name for THAT, but with a twist.

It says that when X is captured then X is removed. (*)

Later in the rules it is said that Y may be captured. Y is described explicitly (I insist) and unambiguously.
I consider this means that when Y is captured then Y is removed. And this is enough to follow the rules.

You say that one should also check if Y meets the same conditions as X.

While either point of view cannot be proved logically, it is irrelevant for the chess play which point of view is selected. And this is here where tradition and all those experts which you like to put in quotation marks begin to interfere.

And tradition shows that statement which I marked by (*) in considered valid for any piece X.

You pretend that you don’t know the meaning of “explicitly”.
I believe you know the meaning, therefore I find your statement offending, so no comment.

I think that phrases capturing that piece and capture this opponent’s pawn which follow corresponding descriptions are explicit enough.

—–
“… Easy. White pawn can move from g2 to unoccupied g3. So, according to 3.1 it can move to occupied g3 with capture….”
—–
No, according to 3.1, a pawn g2 may not capture on g3. Look for the formulation where a pawn “may capture” to see what I have referred to.

Of course it cannot, but not according to 3.1. It is just an example how you are switching your logic on and off as you see fit.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments