715 karma · joined November 11, 2010
It may be a non sequitur to suggest that the pardon of one convicted financial criminal is similar to the lack of convictions in another likely financial crime context, but it seemed germane and parallel to me.
I was mistaken and ultimately recognized that as well as being told I misidentified the antecedent of your "As stated it's wrong."
You are absolutely right, I misread that entirely. Thanks. I also misattributed the original comment and the follow-up to the same author.
The problem with pursuing "identity" is that these rules don't anchor the identity of pieces so far as I can tell. If the players agree that for expediency the inverted rook is a queen, the move notation would call it a queen, it would in fact be a queen for the purposes of that game. The only way anyone could tell which token was used in place of a normative queen shaped piece would be if there were video or photographs of the actual board at that phase of the game. And it doesn't affect those other people. In a formal setting it seems like an arbiter or judge or proctor or whomever should also be informed for accurate record keeping.
The fruit analogy raises the stakes to fraud while the use in a game, unless a player tried to cheat, is inconsequential to those players.
You originally wrote:
> Btw, the upside-down-rook trick is illegal in serious play.
You followed up to my asking for an explanation why with:
> As stated it's wrong
It seems like a very low effort restatement to say "illegal" and then "wrong." Your additional details were about the FIDE rules, which do not seem to forbid using an inverted rook as a proxy for a promoted queen. If they do, please tell me which rule[1]. The pivot from "illegal" to "wrong" adds a moral aspect to the evaluation which seems bizarre.
> I tried to be helpful and I got an aggressively hostile response.
I'm sorry if my spinning of a hypothetical yarn about the argument being one of identity of the piece in question came across as "aggressively hostile." It was not my intention in the least.
> And I see that the same happened to others here.
I grant you the other thread got more antagonistic and that's disappointing. I will defend that I think that if you want to claim the rules forbid this act, you should be able to cite a rule, and not a guideline about general consensus. The former is clear, the latter is something more akin to "tradition."
I'm also, across both of these descendant threads, annoyed with responses not readily engaging with my legitimate inquiry about why forbidding the use of the inverted rook as a promoted queen proxy may be the case. It's a neat quirk or curiosity to me. And I'm barely a casual player. It seems like an elegant solution to piece availability and actually preserves game pace -- those are aspects of the elegance that seem obvious to me.
That makes sense.
It seems to me that you've used a lot of truism reasoning out of frustration. I tried to head these off with my original assumption that it was a question of identity.
>> I anticipate the argument being one of identity, such as "a rook is a rook whether it is right side up or upside down." This is an argument of convention.
Since the reliance is on convention, and an inverted rook is conventionally treated as a promoted queen, the FIDE Arbiters' Manual describes a policy of not following this convention. I'm sure someone knows why this is the guidance. I was curious about that reasoning. It seemed interesting and worthy of discussion.
> You are probably the only person in history from the founding of FIDE until now who has pretended not to know what a rook or a queen is.
You ascribe to pretend ignorance what is in fact interest in the history of a thing. This seems unreasonably antagonistic.
I believe you've misunderstood my original comment and I do not know why, but I think I will be done with this thread. If you find out why this was the adopted guidance for the FIDE Arbiters' Manual I'd enjoy reading about it and I imagine others may too, but it should be put under the original question, not here.
My thinking is that if we take "many active tournament players will see it every year or two" as the absence of a strict prohibition, and that this description of how it is illegal occurs in the "Arbiters' Manual," which self-describes as guidelines for arbiters and in the preface explains that rules can't cover every situation which is why the arbiters exist, but not in the actual rules document, it seems less "illegal" and more "unadvised."
I did not wax metaphysical, quite the opposite with the desire to find a definition for how one identifies a given piece. I imagine there are some other tournament organizational guidelines which outlines how chess sets are chosen for official events. These conventions taken in aggregate would provide some perspective, but still not answer the original question. I wager that everyone in your tournament hall would also recognize the use of an inverted rook as a promoted queen. So if it's not a question of avoiding ambiguity, then I wonder again, "why?"
There is a shorter version of this reply, which I will now include below:
At the end of the table of contents there is another interesting note in an offset grey box, just like the box which contains the note you quoted above:
> IMPORTANT:
> Throughout this manual, text which appears in a box such as this one is given as advice and is the opinion of a number of experienced arbiters. It does not form part of the Laws nor the Regulations in which it appears.
Why does it seem obvious? Out of some sense of accessibility to third party observers?
> If at an NBA game they ran out of basketballs, they’d stop the game until they got one, not use a soccer ball instead.
This is an unreasonable straw man because basketballs and soccer balls behave quite differently. A marble would be less suitable than an overturned rook because it may roll away, but both are similarly graspable with similar dexterity.
Restatement of the premise is not an explanation. I asked "why."
> However, it's illegal under FIDE rules
Under which rule[1]? I anticipate the argument being one of identity, such as "a rook is a rook whether it is right side up or upside down." This is an argument of convention. I don't see a CAD model that describes a rook's physical representation. If both players were to agree that for the sake of a promotion that an overturned rook would in fact be played like a queen the piece identity requirement would be satisfied and no descriptive rule would be violated. Or perhaps a coin, or a stone, or anything of suitable size and ergonomics.
Using a proxy piece seems like an expedient, reasonable solution. A small square of paper with a Q on it?
Being a product of history, a legacy, is not a shortcut to sensible. It's an explanation for why the term is used. My complaint was that it does not even "make sense" in the context of the Northern Hemisphere of the Earth.
It doesn't even make sense there. It's not really a logical group of things that are geographically West of anything. The abstract cultural idea of "Western Civilization" or "the West" are poorly named.
> ... Teslas have at least as good a visual input system as humans, so that alone can't be a reason they're worse drivers.
I don't think that's an accurate description of the original claim. At this point I do wish it had been. This perpetuates the discarding of how past experience affects perception, which seems like part of the "visual input system" of humans to me.
Your analogy is a bad-faith definition of orthogonal.
I think I would concede the argument that it's "just processing" once someone has recreated the processing in an automation system. That seems unlikely. Or when an automation system outperforms a human in every situation one might encounter in a chaotic driving environment.
An interesting question might be if the automation system can be evaluated against the human perceptual system, or amalgamation of systems. This seems like an exceedingly difficult premise to evaluate though, given the varied and dynamic nature of the real-world driving environment.
Except that's not at all how humans drive. Sure, there's visual input, but human vision is largely based on expectations. You see what you expect and ignore a lot of things. The predictive engine of the brain does a lot more than evaluate the present environment. This is both good and bad insofar as safety is concerned.
https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/commit/7b66b41ce5cee48b14eb6c...
https://github.com/bpftrace/bpftrace/pull/3407
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659176...
Looks like they did in fact add the header detail to the porting guide:
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-15/porting_to.html#header-dep-change...
I'm sure it would be a feat of legal imagination to construct such an argument. It would probably be an interesting, if not also incredibly frustrating, read.
However, is there any argument for security camera footage like this instance to be considered a trade secret? Isn't that the only type of intellectual property it might be? It seems like if the business wasn't planning to derive economic value from the sale of the security camera footage (which seems like a generally safe assumption) it would fail to acquire trade secret protections.
I believe you and heed your warning. I think it's good to understand these things too though.
If the harm is that the company couldn't sell the footage itself, the remedy should be giving the company the money from the sale.