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

pastmaker at aol.com pastmaker at aol.com
Mon Jan 28 10:49:03 EST 2008

email problems again. please see message below. Sorry if duplicated.

-----Original Message-----
From: pastmaker at aol.com
To: retros at janko.at
Sent: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:47 am
Subject: Re: [Retros] Are the King and the Rook pieces or what?

Hard to trivialize intent.? Please consider this situation.? Black (our friendly obtuse player) is about to move in a position in which he is way behind in material.? He picks up his queen, which has several available moves, one of which can deliver checkmate.? Precisely at the moment that he puts the queen on the very square that would deliver the checkmate, he announces, "I resign.".

The rules say that the game ends at checkmate and at resignation.? Who won???A player?can deliver checkmate without knowing it, and if?he does so without performing another act that has some contrary significance under the rules, he has won whether he knows it or not.? Intent is not a factor in such a situation.

But (without getting into unusual psychological state) resignation is a function of intent.

Who won the game above?

Tom Volet

-----Original Message-----
From: Rol, Guus <G.A.Rol at umcutrecht.nl>
To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List <retros at janko.at>
Sent: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 9:23 am
Subject: Re: [Retros] Are the King and the Rook pieces or what?

Yes Tom, I agree the issue would not arise unless there is an error of some sort. In itself, "the intent to castle" could be derived from the player touching Rook and King in a position where castling is possible. Even if not completing the move, the intent could still be construed from these circumstances if the arbiter needed it to resolve a touch-move?issue.


The distinction I wanted to make is between "touching King and Rook with intent to castle" and "touching King and Rook without intent to castle" -?in a situation where castling is illegal. Since I can't see how this distinction can be made without?specific addtional criteria, I suggested to drop everything relating to "the intent to castle". Metaphorically I would offer the equal challenge of proving in court that "someone bought explosives with the intent of blowing up the bridge over the?local river" rather than "bought the explosives without the intent to blow up that bridge" - IF THERE IS NO SUCH BRIDGE.


I feel confident that any judge will rule the metaphor along the same line I suggested for the King&Rook touch-move.


Guus Rol.


Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] Namens Pastmaker at aol.com
Verzonden: maandag 28 januari 2008 13:52
Aan: retros at janko.at
Onderwerp: Re: [Retros] Are the King and the Rook pieces or what?

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.


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

Retros mailing list
Retros at janko.at

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20080128/c637384f/attachment.htm>

More information about the Retros mailing list