[Retros] A question on stipulations

Mario Richter mri_two at t-online.de
Sat Nov 21 03:35:03 EST 2009


Hello,

Bernd wrote:

> the answer might be "No", because the side which seems to be mated could

> have a right to capture en passant.


Other possibilities are: 50-moves-rule, parity, retro-opposition, ...

Reduced to their logical kernel, those problems simply ask
the question: "Is this position legal with a specified side to move?"
so they are in good company with similiar types like "Mate in one?",
"Who can mate in n?" a.s.o.

Renny> if ... the proof is an elaborate explanation of why every possible
Renny> attempt at resolving the position leads to a dead end,
Renny> would they publish such a problem?

Why not?
(Just a thought experiment: Replace "Is Black mated?" by "Can White castle?".
Would you still argue, that if an elaborate proof shows, that all attempts
to resolve the position with preservation of White's castling right leads
to a dead end, then the problem is not worth publishing?)

Best wishes,

mario




More information about the Retros mailing list