[Retros] rights & ocasions

[Kevin Begley]

ps: if you believe otherwise, present a clear definition for your
interpretation.


On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com> wrote:


> OK, I will take the lawyer's viewpoint -- because, in this case, that's

> the only correct viewpoint.

>

> I don't care whether you can castle, or not.

> I care only that you have altered the position.

>

> Consider the following position:

>

> White : Ke1 Rh1 Pd6c5b4b2

> Black : Kb8 Ra8a7 Bc8b7a6 Pd7c6b5h2

>

> According to your "spirit of the law" interpretation (which is frankly no

> such thing), movement of the white pawn, from b2 to b3, is useless -- no

> capture or promotion is possible.

> Therefore, according to your viewpoint, the position never really changed.

> Rubbish.

>

> All that matters is positional deviation.

>

> Kevin

>

>

>

>

> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:55 AM, <raosorio at fibertel.com.ar> wrote:

>

>>

>> Hi Joost,

>> On may the 3rd I wrote,

>>

>>

>> ******************************************************************************************************

>> How many two moves switchbacks could be legally performed by the kings

>> in the following position,

>>

>> White   Ke1, Rh1

>> Black   Ke8, Ph2

>>

>> Just to start.

>>

>> *****************************************************************************************************

>>

>> And Joost de Heer answered,

>>

>>

>> ****************************************************************************************************

>> White 4, black 3 (and after the 4th return of the white king, the

>> position is draw).

>>

>> Technically, white still has castling rights. Practically these rights

>> are nonexistent (no legal sequence exists in which white castles), but

>> the rule of threefold repetition only looks at the technical rights, not

>> the practical rights.

>>

>> ****************************************************************************************************

>>

>> Of course my point is related to "identical positions", the basis for

>> "triple repetition".

>> The question was "both kings performs two switchbacks", continuing the

>> game, and

>> the point is if it is considered that on the diagram position the

>> castling right is something

>> that makes a difference with the position resulting from the first

>> switchback.

>>

>> "What does a right with definitively no ocassion to use it mean?"

>>

>> I found that the present text of the FIDE Laws has changed, not using the

>> term "rights" but trying to

>> be more explicit,

>>

>>

>> *****************************************************************************************************************

>> 9.2 The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player having the move,

>> when the same position,

>> for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):

>>  a. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and

>> declares to the arbiter his

>> intention to make this move, or

>>  b. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

>>

>> Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player

>> has the move, pieces of the same

>> kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all

>> the pieces of both players are the same. Positions are not the same if a

>> pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured in

>> this manner. When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its

>> castling rights, if any,

>> only after it is moved.

>>

>> *****************************************************************************************************************

>>

>> But, as usual, the text is not clear enough. ".....and the possible moves

>> of all the pieces of both players

>> are the same".  When? In the immediate move or all the posible game

>> development?

>>

>> - The e.p. reference: isn't it pathetic? The e.p. is a "one shot" rigth

>> by nature, so it is obvious that the

>> panw that made double step can not be captured e.p. two moves after (?!).

>> Some years ago there were a discussion in the Chess Caffe where Geurt

>> Gijssen interpretated that

>> the e.p. right makes a difference in the position even if the e.p. is not

>> legal because the capturing pawn

>> is pinned (?!). Nunn clearly pointed out his disagreement with this

>> burocratic interpretation.

>> Anyway, in the present text "....if a pawn that could have been captured

>> en passant .." is clear that

>> the pawn can not been captured e.p. if the capturing pawn is pinned.

>>

>> - The castling right reference: "When a king or a rook is forced to move,

>> it will lose its castling rights,

>>  if any, only after it is moved". This apparently supports Joost's

>> oopinion: the right is lost only after

>> the  move". But what about "..if any.."? I insist with the question,

>>  "What does a right with definitively no ocassion to use it mean?"

>>

>> I resist to take the burocratic interpretations instead of the "spirit of

>> the law" ones. Equivalently to the

>> 50 moves rule, the triple repetition one is inspired by the practical

>> intention of stopping a game where

>> nothing relevant is happening in a recurrent way. We were three times in

>> the exactly same position:

>> where are we going to?

>>

>> The relevant difference having the castling right intact is that I can

>> develope a game that is not posible

>> without having the right. But in the position I propossed,

>>

>> White   Ke1, Rh1

>> Black   Ke8, Ph2

>>

>> white can not play 0-0, never, definitively. "What does a right with

>> definitively no ocassion to use it mean?"

>> So, there are no posible games from the initial position that are not

>> posible after a repetition.

>>

>> And this is due to other Laws of Chess (castling is not legal if the king

>> is checked after doing it) combined

>> with the moves of pieces (to remove the bP on h2 eather the wK or the wR

>> has to move).

>>

>> Some Lawyer's viewpoint would be useful here.

>>

>> Best,

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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/20140505/999df59e/attachment-0001.htm>