[Retros] Fw: Response to Volet (easier to read, I hope?)

[Ryan M.]

Ugh, I keep forgetting to send only in plain text.  Here's another attempt.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan M.
To: Retro Mailing List
Sent: Sunday, September 08, 2002 12:36 PM
Subject: Response to Volet


If the 50-move rule is extended to, say, 60 moves, inevitable damage is done
to past works based on the 50-move rule.  An extra stipulation has to be
added to clarify that this problem uses the old rule, but this gives away
the intention and ruins future solving interest.  The problem is then only
of interest to composers who wish to see how to make such an idea function
(although, if the rule changes to 250 moves, this theme will be too much
trouble!).

Without an extra stipulation or a correction, the old problem has to be
considered unsound.  Anyone who solves it (or just plays through the
solution) will get a solution that makes no sense under the current rules.
For example, a problem (by Plaksin, I think), calls for #3.  It appears
white has a #2, but retro-analysis shows that white is about to make the
50th move with no capture or pawn movement, and that would let black off
with a draw.  So, white is obliged to capture something, and he can obtain
#3 this way.  If the rule changes to 60 moves, a solver could correctly
contend that the problem is unsound, because white has a perfectly valid #2
even after the retro-analysis is considered.

It appears, in the case of the cylinder, that the extended castling
possibility simply went unnoticed until (at least) after some of the first
cylinder problems were made.  If so, there has never been a rule change, but
rather a full realization of what the rules allow.

-Ryan McCracken