[Retros] fractional moves: to be or not to be (Geurt Gijssen's answer)

raosorio at fibertel.com.ar raosorio at fibertel.com.ar
Mon Apr 28 07:16:57 EDT 2008


X-Accept-Language: es
Priority: normal
Content-Type: text/plain; charset o-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Rol and Juha,
I'm attaching here my comments to Geurt's answer,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Geurt,

Many thanks for your answer. The issue is sensitive for me because I'm preparing an article related to "Minimal Deviation from the Rules"
(MDR), an extended convention for chess problem composition.

This convention will allow the diagram to show a position resulting from a certain type of illegal moves, no necesarily the last one.
The solutionist has to find out this illegality and reinstate the position and, after that, there is a stipulation to play forward.
In the case of Ke1-g1 (as the Laws are written) there are two alternatives: a) if it's the last move then it's an underway move and
article 4.6 applies b) if it's not the last move then it is an illegal move and art 4.3 applies. this is quite peculiar.

I think that the reference to 4.3 in article 7.4 is a mistake. The intention surely was to refer article 4 (in general); this way, even in
the b) case the player is forced to castle.

It would be very interesting to see the result of your presentation in Dresden.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, I completely aggre that the natural result is that the player should be forced to castle in any case.
Otherway would mean that the deeper your fault the lighter your penalty.

But it's also clear that, as it's written, art 7.4 explicitly asks art 4.3 to govern the situation so in the
present situation after pressing the clock the player has to move the king FREELY. The problem is this
unfortunated reference to art 4.3 instead of art 4 in general (which would lead to art 4.6, undeway move).

Guus said,
"The logical defense for this position can be found in the atomic nature of the "chess move".
What else can a "chess move" be than a "legally completed chess move"? "
-----------------------------------------
This thinking is a key one in the MDR definition.

Juha said,
That thinking would make captures forced if I touch opponents
piece even before my own. Then I am forced to capture it, because
capture is part of the move.
-----------------------------------------
this is exactly what the rules prevent. To make a capture removing first the opponent's pìece
from the board (and after that placing the own piece on the capturing square) is perfectly legal.
For this reason I remarked in previous mails that this trick is a sort of cooking for many 0.5 moves
problems (which acceptably use a non written convention defended by Valery Liskovets: "In chess
problems captures are made touching the own piece first").

Roberto Osorio


Rol, Guus G.A.Rol at umcutrecht.nl
Wed Apr 23 11:57:17 EDT 2008

Previous message: [Retros] fractional moves: to be or not to be (Geurt Gijssen's answer)
Next message: [Retros] fractional moves: to be or not to be (Geurt Gijssen'sanswer)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Roberto,

Geurts inclination seems close to my suggestion a few months ago:

"There is another way to interpret 7.4a "the position immediately before
the irregularity shall be reinstated". If one conceives that the
irregularly only started AFTER playing Ke1-g1, more precisely at the
time the clock was pressed, then the referee might decide to restore the
conditions after Ke1-g1 and demand that the player completes the
castling move."

There is a natural way to handle the illegal move situation by adopting
this axiom: an illegal move cannot be terminated, not by pressing the
clock, not by the opponent playing, not in any other way. Every illegal
move remains incomplete until it is corrected. The logical defense for
this position can be found in the atomic nature of the "chess move".
What else can a "chess move" be than a "legally completed chess move"?
Ever seen half an oxygen atom?

I suppose some pitfalls remain (may be for blitz chess and such) but one
would expect that adopting this position would make the rules a bit
simpler overall.


Guus Rol.

Juha Saukkola juha_saukkola at hotmail.com
Wed Apr 23 12:59:50 EDT 2008

Previous message: [Retros] fractional moves: to be or not to be (Geurt Gijssen'sanswer)
Next message: [Retros] Die Schwalbe 230, april 2008
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say that after Ke1-g1 with move Rh1-e5 is illegal,
so move would be taken back and I can make a move Ke1-d1.
Of course I should move my king now, if possible.
Other way to think is that I have touched two pieces I am allowed
to touch, so I should 0-0.

That thinking would make captures forced if I touch opponents
piece even before my own. Then I am forced to capture it, because
capture is part of the move.

Other nice trick would be to take own piece out of board,
and not accept to correct it. If opponent now corrects any
piece, then he is forced to capture that too.

Any ot these things should not be in the rules, because we
all should have accepted "the spirit of chess". That's only
rule we need!


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] Namens
raosorio at fibertel.com.ar
Verzonden: dinsdag 22 april 2008 22:18
Aan: retros at janko.at
Onderwerp: [Retros] fractional moves: to be or not to be (Geurt
Gijssen'sanswer)

Hi,

I reproduce here the Geurt Gijssen's answer (in his section "Arbiter's
notebook", chesscafe) to the question I made in february.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer
Your question is very interesting. Article 4.6 relates that a piece
released on a square, provided the move is legal, cannot be replaced by
another move. It also states that there are three types of moves that
consist of two parts: capturing a piece, castling and promotion of a
pawn. If the first part of a move is legal, then the player is forced to
play the second part of the move as well. In case of Ke1-g1 nothing else
can be played except the rook from h1 to f1. Therefore, I am inclined to
consider Ke1-g1 as the first half of a legal move, not as an illegal
move. Nevertheless, I shall discuss this case in Dresden during the
meeting of the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee in November
2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
Hi retrofriends and Geurt,

I'm sending this with copy to the Retro mailing List and to the chess
caffe.

On january 30th I made the following question,

"If the wK is standing on e1 and a wR on h1, castling is legal and
posible but the player conducing the white side moves the King to g1 and
that's it, he stops there. This move is illegal, but it's also a half
legal move. Is white forced to move the king freely or he's forced to
castle? "

Then I found article 4.6,

"4.6 When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been
released on a square, it cannot then be moved to another square.
b. in the case of castling, .... When the player has released the king
from his hand, the move is not yet made, but the player no longer has
the right to make any move other than castling on that side, if this is
legal; "

I concluded that time that this answered all the questions, forcing in
any case to castle. But I got another surprisse in my project related to
ilegal situations. Art. 4.6 applies in the half move situation (the
player has not pressed the clock) but in the case the player pressed the
clock, then he made an ilegal move and the situation is governed by the
article 7.4.a.,

"7.4.a. If during a game it is found that an illegal move.... has been
completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be
reinstated. .... Article 4.3 applies to the move replacing the illegal
move. "

Then, in this case the move after the illegality is restricted by 4.3
instead by 4.6?! The 4.3 is the
"touched piece" article so the player is just forced to move the king
freely, not to make castling.

Let's imagine the following situation,

I'm in the turn to move and I have doubts: is it better to play O-O or
Kd1? Then, being an expert on the
fine details of the Laws, I move Ke1-g1 to have a look of this
alternative a half move forward. My
opponent claims and the arbiter comes and, before he asked me to
complete the castling, I press the
clock (I found that Kd1 was better). Consequences? A couple of minutes.
Piece of cake!

Am I missing something here?

Roberto Osorio
ARGENTINA






More information about the Retros mailing list