[Retros] [Fwd: Re: rights & ocassions / not answering Andrew anymore]

Joost de Heer joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl
Wed Jun 4 07:23:49 EDT 2014

I accidentally sent my reply only to Guus.

On Wed, June 4, 2014 11:26, Guus Rol wrote:

> In chess, chess problems and retro problems are 2 type of choices (a)
> player choices (b) system choices. The  player choices are well known but
> examples of system choices are (1) who starts when solving a problem -
> usually it is determined by the stipulation but sometimes by retro
> analysis; if you can prove that white did the last move, then black starts
> (2) in a pRA problem, the variants to be solved are determined by
> evalution
> of the different rights and mutual exclusions in a particular position.
> Note that neither player decides these issues. Not the solver either,
> since
> failing to identify the correct decisions results in failure to solve the
> problem. To say that the rules make these decisions misses the point. In a
> game the players implement most of the rules in their moves, but who
> implements the rules given above? Well, I named that abstract authority
> "the system" and it plays an important part in my retro theory.
> When you carefully read the 3R convention, it is clear that the players
> are
> no longer involved. No player claims, no player decides, and so it is a
> convention decided by the "system". Whatever you may expect of a "system
> decesion", it will not be based on personal or external factors like "it
> is
> raining today and so we will continue the game for a while" or "white
> definitely has the best chances and so I think they should continue", or
> "lets ask the players what they want". No, the system will only decide on
> the 3R information available and the convention text. And the decision
> will
> always be the same under the same conditions: if 3R is confirmed then the
> position is either always a draw (which is natural), or it will always
> allow the players to continue. Since the latter choice would imply that
> the
> convention is completely meaningless in all cases, only the first choice
> is
> available.
> The conclusion is unavoidable that the convention always draws however
> careful is may be worded.

IMO, even in retro compositions, the 50-move rule and 3R-rule aren't
automatic. Take for instance the famous Plaksin 50-move compositions. By
castling, white proves that at least 100 single moves without capture,
pawn move and castling have occurred, and therefore the position is a
draw. If the 50-move rule was an automatic draw, castling would've been
illegal because the game would already have been over. The same with the
3-fold repetition rule: if one side can correctly prove that the current
position or one in the past triggers/has triggered the 3-fold repetition
rule, the position is a draw. The rule does, again IMO, -not- imply that
the draw is automatic and immediate at the moment the 3-fold repetition
rule can be applied for the first time (or is unavoidable in the future,
see DR).


More information about the Retros mailing list