[Retros] Are the King and the Rook pieces or what?

A J Mestel A.J.Mestel at damtp.cam.ac.uk
Mon Jan 28 09:03:40 EST 2008

I remember when FIDE were finalising the Touch-Move rules, and they listed
all possible combinations e.g. I touch my WKe1, WRa1 and WRh1
simultanously with a BRd2 and BPh6. Do I have to play "0-0, Kxd2, or Rxh6"
or can I play Rh5 or Rd1 etc etc?

For obvious reasons, we called these "The Octopus rules."


On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, andrew buchanan wrote:

> Hi Tom,


> 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

> see.


> Instead, I reserve my frustration for those who have impeded the refinement of

> the Codex.


> 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,

> Andrew Buchanan.



> --- 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

>> honest

>> intent? If not for an error or some sort, the issue would not arise at all.


>> TV



>> **************

>> Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.


>> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489

>>> _______________________________________________

>> Retros mailing list

>> Retros at janko.at

>> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros



> _______________________________________________

> Retros mailing list

> Retros at janko.at

> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros


More information about the Retros mailing list