[Retros] rights & ocassions / not answering Andrew anymore

Kevin Begley kevinjbegley at gmail.com
Wed Jun 4 23:06:05 EDT 2014

By the way, the number 3 seems highly arbitrary in the context of a chess
problem -- why 3Reps?

In the context of a game, I can understand 3 -- though, I tend to think 2
is better.
But, in the context of a chess problem, somebody should explain why anybody
would require more than a single repetition.

I know, some problemists want to masquerade under the false delusion that
chess problems offer a virtual parallel to the game of chess, but in this
case, it seems an excessively expensive burden.
A single repetition should suffice to make the parallel case -- solvers do
not labor under the pressure of a 40-move clock, they are given no
time-increment for making additional moves (this is already generally
discouraged by the move number constraint found in formal stipulation), and
they have infinite takebacks (to avoid repetition).

So, why burden problem composers with the need to achieve 3-times, what
need only be expressed once?  One can easily achieve the illusion of a
nearly equivalent position once, for example, whereas to achieve this three
times is needlessly excessive.

I know, somebody thinks it's a good idea to pretend that we mirror the FIDE
game, but this is hardly sensible -- we've already extended the arbitrary
50, in 50M, to infinity...
Similarly, 3R should either be reduced to 1R, or extended to infinite reps.

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, that proved much easier than I thought it might be.  LMAO.
> But, it turns out to be minimally persuasive -- one could construct a much
> more interesting problem, whereby it is necessary to avoid 3R, to achieve
> mate, and this would undoubtedly prove the more interesting interpretation
> (unless it spoils something good -- either something in existence, or
> something certain to exist in the future).
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Nicolas Dupont <
> Nicolas.Dupont at univ-lille1.fr> wrote:
>> If this is not difficult [...]
>> Condition: a piece (King excluded) may give check only after his fourth
>> move.
>> W: Kc3 Ra1 Pa2 B: Kc1 Sb2
>> ser-#4
>> 1.Rb1 2.Ra1 3.Rb1 4.Ra1#
>> No solution with 3R.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Retros mailing list
>> Retros at janko.at
>> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://one.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20140604/db951f3d/attachment.html>

More information about the Retros mailing list