[Retros] Castling ambiguity officially resolved

[Andrej Jakobcic]

My opinion: term theoreticaly mean

- e.p. capture is theoreticaly possible if last move was oponents double
pawn step
- castling is theoreticaly possible if neither king nor corresponding  rook
hasn't already moved

Andrej Jakobcic


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Francois Perruchaud" <francois.perruchaud at wanadoo.fr>
To: <retros at janko.at>
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 3:07 PM
Subject: RE: [Retros] Castling ambiguity officially resolved


I don't understand what is a move theorically possible, but that can't be
played.
e.p. capture can't be played so it is theorically impossible in my opinion.

Another position :
3bk3/8/8/8/8/7P/8/4K2R
W:Ke1,Rh1,Ph3 / B:Ke8,Bd8
Black to play - Neither kings nor rook have moved

After 1...Ba5, you can say that castling is theorically possible, but
unplayable.
My opinion is that white has already lost castling rights.
After 2.Kf2 Bd8 3.Ke1 Ba5, is the position the same ?

François Perruchaud



> -----Message d'origine-----

> De : retros-admin at janko.at [mailto:retros-admin at janko.at] De

> la part de Andrej Jakobcic

> Envoyé : lundi 23 août 2004 13:35

> À : retros at janko.at

> Objet : Re: [Retros] Castling ambiguity officially resolved

>

> >I think that is pretty unambiguous. And if an e.p. is

> illegal because

> >it

> would leave/put the

> >player in check, then the pawn can't be captured by e.p. So the

> >positions

> are the same.

>

> My opinion is that case is unambiguous but this way: after

> first move pawn (at least theoretically) could be captured by

> e.p., later (even

> theoretically!)  couldn't ever be captured again. So the

> positions are NOT the same.



>

>

> Regards

> Andrej Jakobcic



_______________________________________________
Retros mailing list
Retros at janko.at
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros