[Retros] Example 3 with e.p. and repetition from Yefim Treger 08/22/2004
kesavan7777 at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 27 01:59:47 EDT 2004
Please do not send any more mails to me.
TregerYefim at aol.com wrote:
Once again and some new simple positions for this topic (3-times repetition):
1. The first example was the game: 1.e4 e5 2.Qe2 Qe7 3.Qd1 Qd8 4.Ke2 Ke7
5.Kd1 Ke8 - all agreed there is no 3-repetition for position after 1.e4 e5
2. The second example was: White: Ke1;Bb2, Rh1 (castle is saved) Black:
Kd6 pawn e3. Black's last move was 1...e2 after which a game goes as follows:
2.Bc3 Kc7 3.Bb2 Kd6 4.Rh2 Kc7 5.Rh1 Kd6. The problem is in 3-times repetition for
position(s) after 1...e2; after 3....Kd6 and after 5...Kd6. When Rook had moved nobody argued that right of castle is lost, but positions after 1...e2 and 3...Kd6 can
be understood for chess rules ambiguously. One can agree that if King (Rook) had not been moved then castle is always possible (but it is not math correct?) or use logic, math and retro knowledge and (the second opinion):
Count that the given above positions are the same because mathematically
speaking a tree after them is the same and the whole set of possible games is the same! That is a good definition for equality of positions (what others think?) but
I will give new example about en passant.
3. Position (picture is below if any) White:Ka5 p. d5 Black: Kf8, Qg5;p.c7; Black's move which is 1...c7-c5. Assuming that this position pretends to be repeated White played next as game follows: 2. Ka4 Qg4 3.Ka5 Qg5 (second time?)
4.Ka4 Qg4 5.Ka5 Qg5 -third time! Can he claim a draw?
That is math simple logic: all positions are the same, but I feel that somebody
thinks in other way, counting that after 1...c7-c5 position has en passant.
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Retros