[Retros] Example 4 (better version of E.P.) Yefim 08/23/2004

TregerYefim at aol.com TregerYefim at aol.com
Mon Aug 23 00:44:06 EDT 2004

From Yefim T about Example 3 or (better version 4, below).
Did everybody agree with Andrey Jakobchich's opinion that in my E.P. example
(3-example) positions are different (especially concerning repetition topic)?
I looked at chess rules FIDE. Really, there is rule 3.7d
"A pawn attacking a square crossed by an opponent's pawn which has advanced
two squares in one move from its original square may capture this opponent's
pawn as though the latter had been moved only one square. This capture may only
be made on the move following this advance and is called an 'en passant'
capture." confirming that opinion but there is rule 3.9:
"No piece can be moved that will expose its own king to check or leave its
own king in check."
So, there is some vulnerability about this, I think emerging position after
E.P. must be legal (Andrew "from anselan" thinks as well…)
I am giving even better version, example 4 (picture if any)
White: Ka5 Rb1 p.d5 Black: Kf8, Qg5, Bd8, p.c5 Black's move.
Game follows: 1…c5+! 2. Rb6 Be7 3. Rb1 Bd8+ 4.Rb6 Be7 5.Rb1 Bd8+
Draw? (No need Black Queen g5!)
My point is: as a mathematician I am looking for right and good definition
of Position. I think math definition is different from "chess rules definition
(if any)".

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20040823/a2c28547/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 6611 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20040823/a2c28547/attachment.gif>

More information about the Retros mailing list