[Retros] Castling temporarily changed and repetition of position

Rol, Guus G.A.Rol at umcutrecht.nl
Thu Oct 18 12:30:35 EDT 2007

Did anybody ever notice that a miniature copy of the castling issue
exists for the e.p. issue? It is possible to have a situation where the
'permanent' e.p. right exists, which is however 'temporarily'
unavailable since it will put the player in selfcheck. Clearly the
designations 'permanent' and 'temporarily' are misleading here - which
is why I prefer a different terminology - but the underlying question is
real. Strict application of 9.2 tells us that repeating a position with
an e.p. right that is non-executable is different from repeating a
position with an e.p. right that is executable. But if you substitute
"castling right" for "e.p. right" in the previous sentence then the two
scenarios are considered equivalent. Peculiar, to say the least!

Guus Rol.

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] Namens
Verzonden: donderdag 18 oktober 2007 12:49
Aan: retros at janko.at
Onderwerp: Re: [Retros] Castling temporarily changed and repetition of

---- olli.heimo at luukku.com wrote ----

> > My view is that the word temporarily is superfluous since the case

> Think about this: wKe1 wRh1 wBa7 - bKe8 bpe2. Game continues

> 1.Kf2 Kf7 2.Ke1 Ke8 3.Kf2 Kf7 4.Ke1 and now black claims for draw by

> intending the move 4. - Ke8. White says no because in the beginning he

> had permanent castling right. A few

I agree. The permanent right to castle has changed.
But the temporary right will not change with positions where pieces are
on the same squares with same mobility.

> years ago I suggested in Finland that both words "temporarily and

> permanently" should be removed from the rules and perhaps replaced

> with the word "immidiate".

That would be better.

---- G.A.Rol at umcutrecht.nl wrote ----

> One might argue that this rule was designed very cleverly to not just

> include regular chess but also fairy variants.

If only this was the case...

---- andrew at anselan.com wrote ----

> FIDE Head Arbiter Guert Gijssen reported in chesscafe in 2004 that he

> wanted to remove the "temporarily". He proposed this change to the

> (then draft) rules, but was outvoted, and he was baffled why anyone

> would vote against his proposal.

Wow! That sounds strange... I can understand they don't want to consider
composition related issues (forced mate when the flag fall...), that
will never happen in "real" play. But if M. Gijssen proposed it and it
was refused, maybe it's because of political problems, the lobbying you
speak of, and that's sad.

> Nevertheless, the success of the Open Source movement in IT

What is that?

regards, Alain

Alain Brobecker (abrobecker at yahoo.com) |_ _ _ |_
http://abrobecker.free.fr/ |_)(_|(_|| ) of Arm's Tech

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________
Retros mailing list
Retros at janko.at

More information about the Retros mailing list