[Retros] rights & ocassions / Tom, are you there?

Joost de Heer joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl
Mon May 5 02:04:10 EDT 2014

On 05/05/2014 07:31 AM, "Bernd Gräfrath" wrote:

> Dear retro-friends,

> some time ago, Noam Elkies recommended a meta-rule for chess problem

> composition (and I agree with him): We should understand our rules in a

> way which allows interesting composing!

> For example, in the current community of Losing Chess players, castling

> is no longer allowed. But in composing Losing Chess retros, we would

> loose a lot of interesting composing possibilities if we could no longer

> have stipulations like "Is White allowed to castle?", and so we are free

> to presuppose an understanding of Losing Chess which allows castling.

> Perhaps we should have a similar freedom regarding the FIDE-rules, when

> we determine our rules for the composition of orthodox problems.

> Apart from that, it is of course interesting to find a correct

> understanding of the current FIDE-rules.

Hello Bernd,

I agree with you. Funny that you should advocate this though, I can
remember a discussion about one of my Extinction chess compositions in
which you claimed that 'there was no check in Extinction chess' :).

The chess problem community already has a different definition of the 50
move rule (castling isn't mentioned in the FIDE rules), and the
implementation of several draw rules (in games, they must be claimed, in
compositions they apply immediately).

One more question which wasn't asked in the previously mentioned MatPlus
discussion: Does white have castling rights if every proofgame leading
to castling is a draw according to the 50 move rule?


More information about the Retros mailing list