[Retros] rights & ocassions /answering Andrew

[Valery Liskovets]

Joost,

In my example, looking in the past, we have enough time for 4 repetitions.
But are they (more exactly, should the Rules be such that they are) all
identical in both twins? I see no way to pose this question via a problem
with an ordinary stipulation (unless I overlook anything). As far as I know
Nikita Plaksin has never discussed this (modern, future-depending) 
collision:
is castling _practically_ executable or not? And his corresponding problems
didn't depend on such nuances of the 3-rep. rule. But maybe any of them
can be reinterpreted in such framework?

Valery

Joost de Heer wrote:

>Valeri,
>
>This is similar to a few Plaksin compositions. He has several
>draw-compositions in which white castles, thereby proving that more than
>50 moves without capture, pawn move or castling have occurred. Because the
>retraction takes more than 50 moves, castling was illegal in the first
>place, if you interpret the 50-move rule as an 'applies immediately' rule
>in chess composition.
>
>Joost
>
>On Wed, May 14, 2014 12:25, Valery Liskovets wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi Roberto,
>>
>>Well, let me clarify my intention (without technical details).
>>Of course I mean the 50-m. rule. In a), castling is still achievable in
>>principle:
>>possible is 9(50).Bxh2! K~ and 10.0-0. Thus, the first switchback
>>Ke1-~-e1 does
>>change the position. In b), castling has been lost ultimately: 9(50).Bf4
>>(K~)=.
>>Thus, one might declare that already the first switchback Ke1-~-e1
>>changes nothing!
>>Practical possibility vs technical ("bureaucratic" in your terms) one!?
>>
>>Valery
>>
>>
>>Roberto Osorio wrote on May 11:
>>
>>Your idea sound interesting but I'm not getting it totally. It seems to
>>be connected with the
>>50 moves rule (I understand 41 complete moves, not single moves), but it
>>seems that the
>>answer is just "complete the 50 moves", since the bK.
>>
>>Moreover, I'm ashamed but I'm not getting the difference with wBc1->a1.
>>Could you explain a bit please?
>>
>>Guus Rol wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>From: <liskov at im.bas-net.by <mailto:liskov at im.bas-net.by>>
>>>Date: Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:49 PM
>>>Subject: To FORWARD: Re: [Retros] rights & occasions
>>>To: Guus Rol grol33 at gmail.com <mailto:grol33 at gmail.com>
>>>
>>>Hi retrofriends, Guus,
>>>
>>>Generally I share Guus' attitude to the future impact...
>>>To illustrate, returning to Roberto's starting challenge,
>>>let's consider a more sophisticated, and more doubtful, example:
>>>
>>>www.janko.at/Retros/d.php?ff=4k3/5p2/2p1pP2/2PpP3/2pPp3/2PpP3/3P3p/2B1K2R
>>><http://www.janko.at/Retros/d.php?ff=4k3/5p2/2p1pP2/2PpP3/2pPp3/2PpP3/3P3p/2B1K2R>
>>>(10+9)
>>>
>>>W to move, the same question for wK (how many sequential two move
>>>switchbacks
>>>could be legally performed by him) under the following precondition:
>>>the last pawn's move was made 42 moves ago (or, instead:
>>>last 41 moves were made by pieces, not pawns).
>>>
>>>b) wBc1->a1. Should the Rules ensure distinct answers?
>>>
>>>Valery Liskovets
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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://one.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20140514/25a31ec5/attachment.html>