[Retros] Are the King and the Rook pieces or what?
andrew at anselan.com
Mon Jan 28 08:49:57 EST 2008
I don't feel any sense of frustration at an obtuse player. Nor would I demand
that this issue arise solely out of error. If a player wishes to playfully
touch a number of the different pieces prior to making a move, that is totally
ok by me.
Nor do I feel that the rules are badly drafted, since they are intended to give
support to the games as it is played, and the arbiters are explicitly given
authority to fill in the games. It seems clear that 4.4 over-rides 4.3, since
it gives guidance for a very specific circumstance. It seems clear that "intent
to castle" is meant to be a helpful comment, to show when 4.4 would be likely
be relevant, not to imply that the laws depend on some philosophical resolution
of the question of intensionality.
The rules of chess are basically so simple, that there is not much damage that
can be done to the game by the level of imprecisions in the language that we
Instead, I reserve my frustration for those who have impeded the refinement of
That Art 4 is included as applying to chess problems, is further indication
that basically the Codex was a worthy first draft, put together by well meaning
people probably after a nice lunch. But they failed to recognize the greater
degree of precision which problemists (particularly we retro folk) require
compared to game players.
Is there any way that the stalled process of developing the Codex could be
kicked into action?
Just my opinion,
--- Pastmaker at aol.com wrote:
> But Guus, as frustrated as one might be with such an obtuse player, aren't
> those exactly the reasons why the move would not playable in spite of an
> intent? If not for an error or some sort, the issue would not arise at all.
> Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
> > _______________________________________________
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
More information about the Retros