[Retros] rights & ocassions / answering Kevin

[Kevin Begley]

I didn't ask for code.
I didn't ask for an algorithm.
I didn't ask for pseudo-code.
I asked only for a definition.

If you are unable to provide that, you have my sympathies.

Once you realize that an impossible casting scenario is equivalent to a
pawn with zero hope of capture/promotion, you will find something better to
crow about.

Kevin.




On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:37 PM, <raosorio at fibertel.com.ar> wrote:


>

> Hi Kevin,

>

>

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

> interpretation

>

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

> I have learned trough some previous messages to the RML how to

> interpretate this type

> of prhases coming from you; just non aggresive but temperamental. I feel

> comfortable with this.

> Other way it would sound imperative, and frankly speaking I have enough

> with my wife at home.

>

>

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

> I care only that you have altered the position.

>

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

> but we are taulking about castling

>

>

> 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.

>

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

> a) I can not connect this with what I said. O f course b2-b3 is a relevant

> move from

> many points of view: it defines the draw (the position is not DR; white

> could move the R

> and the game continues). THE POSITION CHANGED, but just after that move.

>

> My point in this type of position is just that there is definitively no

> 0-0 chance for white

> from the diagram position on.

>

> b) Perhaps what is making noise here is my reference to the "spirit of the

> law". Is it?

> If so, let's forget it. I was just trying to frame the idea of the "no

> castling chance" in the

> position I presented, and the same applies to yours. All of this as a

> result of the non clear

> phrasing in the Laws.

>

> c) Rubbish?!!  :-)

>

> Best,

> Roberto

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20140506/67e17504/attachment.htm>