[Retros] rights & ocassions /answering Andrew

Wed May 14 16:30:50 EDT 2014

ps: perhaps we should encourage a retro competition (especially including
fairies), wherein the stipulation asks for 3-fold-repetition in n-moves
(for n < 3, which would obviously imply retro-content)

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>wrote:

> Guus,
>
> > "...we are left with the question on how to harmonize the original FIDE
> concept with the addition of automatic draws in the world of composition -
> still not considering castlings at all. I would suggest that to "continue
> to ignore possible terminations" is most in line with the FIDE concept.
> Yes, some repetitions do  change options for the players but so does the
> original FIDE law in real chess games..."
>
> This issue has already been harmonized, by the implicit presumption that
> such repetition is not inherent in the diagram, unless it can be proved by
> retrograde analysis.
> Several retro composers have even attempted to make good use of this
> presumption (most notably in studies wherein the solver must make use of
> this to either draw, or avoid draw); unfortunately, I can provide no good
> example (the concept is obviously very difficult to achieve, which might
> explain my having no recollection of an entirely successful rendition).
>
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, because I would have expected that this
> presumption was inherently obvious (otherwise, it would cast suspicion upon
> almost every #2 composition).
>
> Kevin.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Guus Rol <grol33 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Starting with a puzzle followed by an introduction, the solution and an
>> explanation.
>>
>> Make the followiing changes from PAS (initial game array): Remove Nb8,
>> move Pe2 to e4, move Bf1 to h5 and  Ng8 to f6. This is an SPG in 4.0 moves
>> but it is not unique. How many legal  forward moves do you need to play
>> forward at least to make sure that the first 4 moves in the game are unique
>> (then)?
>>
>> This puzzle shows many different aspects of the issues discussed. It also
>> adds a new one: retro-logics. Whenever you do anything in retro-solving
>> which moves both froward and backward in time, you need a supporting
>> retro-logic, either implicitly or explicitly. The interaction between the
>> FIDE laws and the retro-logics is more complex than between the Laws and
>> the basic retro-conventions. Naturally,since the conventions are
>> required input for the logics to function besides other concepts.
>>
>> Note: I hope to discuss some other day why I think that retro-logics and
>> conventions should be separated. It doesn't matter for the current story
>> that you subscribe to that view or not.
>>
>> One of the things the solution shows are the two different relationships
>> between repetition and castling:
>> 1. The dependency relationship dictated by the laws and conventions.
>> Repetition may be dependent on castling right but not in reverse.
>> 2. The (retro-)logical relationship between repetition and castling
>> right. Here the choice of forward moves may decide on either a past with
>> (loss of) castling rights or a drawing repetition. The context is usually
>> one of retro-strategic logic.
>>
>> You can imagine that combining a retro-logic for trying to decide missing
>> information from the past with a dynamic chess Law trying to look into an
>> uncertain future from that past, at times produces quirky results. And so,
>> besides solving the puzzle, I wil make a detour into Jumanji with the idea
>> of "dynamic castling rights".
>>
>> Solution to the puzzle:
>>
>> Play forward: 5. Be2 Ng8 6. Bh5 Nf6 7. Be2 Ng8 The next white moves are
>> not unique, the blacks are e.g. 8.Nc3 Rb8 9.Nb1 Ra8.
>> By convention, the new position is not a draw unless a repetition draw
>> can be proved. Such is not the case and we therefore have no draw here.
>> From that information you can derive only 1 proof game without
>> drawing repetitions: 1. Pe4 Na6 2. Bxa6 Nf6 3. Be2 Rg8 4. Bh5 Rh8. You can
>> see that the eighth and ninth black move Rb8 and Ra8 demonstrate the type-1
>> relationship (castling rights must have been lost there) and 7...Ng8 shows
>> the type-2 relationship. Before that move, black could have had both
>> castling rights, after it, one was lost. This shows the common paradoxical
>> scene of losing castling right without ever moving King or Rook. Well, what
>> you really lost, was just a "past". Happens all the time in retro-chess!
>>
>> Now to Jumanji. Suppose move 8 and 9 were not played in that game. Notice
>> that before 7...Ng8 black had both future castling rights and after it he
>> lost 1 - not to say which but that doesn't matter. Lets now play 8. Bh5 Nf6
>> again reaching the same position for the 3rd time. According to the "future
>> castling law", the position is not the same as the previous times when
>> there were still both future castling rights/occasions. In reality, by
>> standard proof game assessment, the position is an unnegotiable draw at
>> this point. Welcome to the Zoo!
>>
>> Explanation. The confusion comes from mixing retro-strategy and
>> retro-analysis. Whenever the term "future" is used one reaches - almost
>> unconciously - for what seems the appropriate retro-logic. Since there is
>> no framework for handling repetitions in prA or retro-variants one resorts
>> to the natural choice that is always available - retro strategy. But
>> retro-strategy can eliminate roads into the past and thereby narrow down
>> your (retro) options. Static definitions only refer to past proof games and
>> need not take data from an ambiguous future. In this case, the proper
>> retro-analyst arrives at the same conclusion Valery did in his example: a
>> castling right was already lost by move 4 in all remaining proof games - as
>> seen in retrospect after move 9.
>>
>> Well, I never said it is impossible to operate on dynamic rights, only
>> that it requires an I.Q. of 280 plus a winning lottery ticket. Proves that
>> you can manage the future.
>>
>> Guus Rol..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Guus Rol <grol33 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Joost and Valery,
>>>
>>> The way I see it there is a pre-issue to the discussion. The FIDE-laws
>>> do not know of any automatic draws. Even in the simple case without past or
>>> future "castling rights", FIDE must have considered that "possible moves"
>>> would not change across 50M boundaries or repetitions within repetition
>>> cycles. None of those enforce draws or close gateways even when the options
>>> for the players do change - i.e. the right to claim. Chess players
>>> though, are keenly aware of the risks in repeating positions. You might say
>>> that when the board looks the same for the FIDE laws, it looks quite
>>> different for the players. Example: Ke4-e5-e6-e5-e4 (mimicked by the
>>> opponent) not only switches back but also spoils the game if Ke5 is now the
>>> only move to win it!
>>>
>>> Which means that we are left with the question on how to harmonize the
>>> original FIDE concept with the addition of automatic draws in the world of
>>> composition - still not considering castlings at all. I would suggest that
>>> to "continue to ignore possible terminations" is most in line with the FIDE
>>> concept. Yes, some repetitions do  change options for the players but so
>>> does the original FIDE law in real chess games - see example above. In
>>> fact, by down-playing the relevance of future developments in the
>>> conversion from play to composition, we also take the first step towards a
>>> static view on repetitions altogether. Do we need more then to justify the
>>> application of static castling rights in repetitions as well?
>>>
>>> Guus Rol
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Retros Probleemblad <
>>> retro at probleemblad.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/14/2014 03:50 PM, Valery Liskovets wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Valeri,
>>>>
>>>> Although the question is different, the underlying theme is the same:
>>>> Is castling allowed if it can be proven that, by castling (or in your case:
>>>> by making it possible to castle), more than 100 single moves without
>>>> capture, pawn move or castling have occurred?
>>>>
>>>> Your example could be changed to something even more extreme by the way:
>>>> Ke1 Rh1 Sa1 // Ke8 Ph2
>>>> No captures/pawn moves for 46 full moves. How many times can the
>>>> sequence Sb3 Ke7 Sa1 Ke8 be repeated until there is a correct claim for
>>>> 3-fold repetition.
>>>>
>>>> Can white really lose his castling rights by moving a piece besides the
>>>> rook and king?
>>>>
>>>> Joost
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/c667915c/attachment.html>