[Retros] fractional moves: to be or not to be (Geurt Gijssen'sanswer)

[Juha Saukkola]

I would say that after Ke1-g1 with move Rh1-e5 is illegal,
so move would be taken back and I can make a move Ke1-d1.
Of course I should move my king now, if possible.
Other way to think is that I have touched two pieces I am allowed
to touch, so I should 0-0.
 
That thinking would make captures forced if I touch opponents
piece even before my own. Then I am forced to capture it, because
capture is part of the move.
 
Other nice trick would be to take own piece out of board,
and not accept to correct it. If opponent now corrects any
piece, then he is forced to capture that too.
 
Any ot these things should not be in the rules, because we
all should have accepted "the spirit of chess".  That's only
rule we need!

> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:57:17 +0200> From: G.A.Rol at umcutrecht.nl> To: retros at janko.at> Subject: Re: [Retros] fractional moves: to be or not to be (Geurt Gijssen'sanswer)> > > Hi Roberto,> > Geurts inclination seems close to my suggestion a few months ago:> > "There is another way to interpret 7.4a "the position immediately before> the irregularity shall be reinstated". If one conceives that the> irregularly only started AFTER playing Ke1-g1, more precisely at the> time the clock was pressed, then the referee might decide to restore the> conditions after Ke1-g1 and demand that the player completes the> castling move."> > There is a natural way to handle the illegal move situation by adopting> this axiom: an illegal move cannot be terminated, not by pressing the> clock, not by the opponent playing, not in any other way. Every illegal> move remains incomplete until it is corrected. The logical defense for> this position can be found in the atomic nature of the "chess move".> What else can a "chess move" be than a "legally completed chess move"?> Ever seen half an oxygen atom?> > I suppose some pitfalls remain (may be for blitz chess and such) but one> would expect that adopting this position would make the rules a bit> simpler overall.> > > Guus Rol.> > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----> Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] Namens> raosorio at fibertel.com.ar> Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2008 22:18> Aan: retros at janko.at> Onderwerp: [Retros] fractional moves: to be or not to be (Geurt> Gijssen'sanswer)> > Hi,> > I reproduce here the Geurt Gijssen's answer (in his section "Arbiter's> notebook", chesscafe) to the question I made in february.> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> -------------------------------------------------------------------> Answer> Your question is very interesting. Article 4.6 relates that a piece> released on a square, provided the move is legal, cannot be replaced by> another move. It also states that there are three types of moves that> consist of two parts: capturing a piece, castling and promotion of a> pawn. If the first part of a move is legal, then the player is forced to> play the second part of the move as well. In case of Ke1-g1 nothing else> can be played except the rook from h1 to f1. Therefore, I am inclined to> consider Ke1-g1 as the first half of a legal move, not as an illegal> move. Nevertheless, I shall discuss this case in Dresden during the> meeting of the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee in November> 2008.> ------------------------------------------------------------------------> -------------------------------------------------------------------> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> -------------------------------------------------------> Hi retrofriends and Geurt, > > I'm sending this with copy to the Retro mailing List and to the chess> caffe. > > On january 30th I made the following question, > > "If the wK is standing on e1 and a wR on h1, castling is legal and> posible but the player conducing the white side moves the King to g1 and> that's it, he stops there. This move is illegal, but it's also a half> legal move. Is white forced to move the king freely or he's forced to> castle? " > > Then I found article 4.6, > > "4.6 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been> released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square. > b. in the case of castling, .... When the player has released the king> from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has> the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is> legal; " > > I concluded that time that this answered all the questions, forcing in> any case to castle. But I got another surprisse in my project related to> ilegal situations. Art. 4.6 applies in the half move situation (the> player has not pressed the clock) but in the case the player pressed the> clock, then he made an ilegal move and the situation is governed by the> article 7.4.a., > > "7.4.a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move.... has been> completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be> reinstated. .... Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal> move. " > > Then, in this case the move after the illegality is restricted by 4.3> instead by 4.6?! The 4.3 is the > "touched piece" article so the player is just forced to move the king> freely, not to make castling. > > Let's imagine the following situation, > > I'm in the turn to move and I have doubts: is it better to play O-O or> Kd1? Then, being an expert on the > fine details of the Laws, I move Ke1-g1 to have a look of this> alternative a half move forward. My > opponent claims and the arbiter comes and, before he asked me to> complete the castling, I press the > clock (I found that Kd1 was better). Consequences? A couple of minutes.> Piece of cake! > > Am I missing something here? > > Roberto Osorio > ARGENTINA > > > > _______________________________________________> Retros mailing list> Retros at janko.at> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros> _______________________________________________> Retros mailing list> Retros at janko.at> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20080423/10353725/attachment.htm>