[Retros] Are the King and the Rook pieces or what?

[Rol, Guus]

Yes Tom, I agree the issue would not arise unless there is an error of
some sort. In itself, "the intent to castle" could be derived from the
player touching Rook and King in a position where castling is possible.
Even if not completing the move, the intent could still be construed
from these circumstances if the arbiter needed it to resolve a
touch-move issue.
 
The distinction I wanted to make is between "touching King and Rook with
intent to castle" and "touching King and Rook without intent to castle"
- in a situation where castling is illegal. Since I can't see how this
distinction can be made without specific addtional criteria, I suggested
to drop everything relating to "the intent to castle". Metaphorically I
would offer the equal challenge of proving in court that "someone bought
explosives with the intent of blowing up the bridge over the local
river" rather than "bought the explosives without the intent to blow up
that bridge" - IF THERE IS NO SUCH BRIDGE.
 
I feel confident that any judge will rule the metaphor along the same
line I suggested for the King&Rook touch-move.
 
Guus Rol.
 

________________________________

Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] Namens
Pastmaker at aol.com
Verzonden: maandag 28 januari 2008 13:52
Aan: retros at janko.at
Onderwerp: Re: [Retros] Are the King and the Rook pieces or what?



But Guus, as frustrated as one might be with such an obtuse player,
aren't those exactly the reasons why the move would not playable in
spite of an honest intent?  If not for an error or some sort, the issue
would not arise at all.

TV


**************
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20080128/402fd770/attachment.htm>