[Retros] Mate with a 3-fold repetition
ralphmerridew at gmail.com
Wed Oct 10 21:08:45 EDT 2007
On 10/10/07, Franco <peufe at tin.it> wrote:
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:51:54 +0100 (BST)
> > From: A J Mestel <A.J.Mestel at damtp.cam.ac.uk>
> > Subject: Re: [Retros] Is it always right to loose because time?
> > To: andrew at anselan.com, The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List
> > <retros at janko.at>
> > What are the rules if someone loses on time and the only conceivable way
> > he could be mated would lead to a 3-fold repetition? Is it assumed that if
> > he is playing badly he would forget to claim a draw? I suppose that's
> > logical.
> > Jonathan
> What you say is not clear for me.
> How can be a 3-fold repetition the only way to give mate?
> The repeated position could'nt just be the mate,
> and if it is'nt the mate it is useless, so it can't be "the only
> conceivable way".
> Did you mean a mate more than 50 moves longer?
Perhaps an intermediate position on the path to the checkmate was
passed previously, and the player didn't notice that he missed a mate.
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
More information about the Retros