[Retros] rights & ocasions

[Kevin Begley]

OK, I will take the lawyer's viewpoint -- because, in this case, that's the
only correct viewpoint.

I don't care whether you can castle, or not.
I care only that you have altered the position.

Consider the following position:

White : Ke1 Rh1 Pd6c5b4b2
Black : Kb8 Ra8a7 Bc8b7a6 Pd7c6b5h2

According to your "spirit of the law" interpretation (which is frankly no
such thing), movement of the white pawn, from b2 to b3, is useless -- no
capture or promotion is possible.
Therefore, according to your viewpoint, the position never really changed.
Rubbish.

All that matters is positional deviation.

Kevin




On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:55 AM, <raosorio at fibertel.com.ar> wrote:


>

> Hi Joost,

> On may the 3rd I wrote,

>

>

> ******************************************************************************************************

> How many two moves switchbacks could be legally performed by the kings

> in the following position,

>

> White   Ke1, Rh1

> Black   Ke8, Ph2

>

> Just to start.

>

> *****************************************************************************************************

>

> And Joost de Heer answered,

>

>

> ****************************************************************************************************

> White 4, black 3 (and after the 4th return of the white king, the

> position is draw).

>

> Technically, white still has castling rights. Practically these rights

> are nonexistent (no legal sequence exists in which white castles), but

> the rule of threefold repetition only looks at the technical rights, not

> the practical rights.

>

> ****************************************************************************************************

>

> Of course my point is related to "identical positions", the basis for

> "triple repetition".

> The question was "both kings performs two switchbacks", continuing the

> game, and

> the point is if it is considered that on the diagram position the castling

> right is something

> that makes a difference with the position resulting from the first

> switchback.

>

> "What does a right with definitively no ocassion to use it mean?"

>

> I found that the present text of the FIDE Laws has changed, not using the

> term "rights" but trying to

> be more explicit,

>

>

> *****************************************************************************************************************

> 9.2 The game is drawn upon a correct claim by the player having the move,

> when the same position,

> for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):

>  a. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and

> declares to the arbiter his

> intention to make this move, or

>  b. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

>

> Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player

> has the move, pieces of the same

> kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the

> pieces of both players are the same. Positions are not the same if a pawn

> that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured in this

> manner. When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its castling

> rights, if any,

> only after it is moved.

>

> *****************************************************************************************************************

>

> But, as usual, the text is not clear enough. ".....and the possible moves

> of all the pieces of both players

> are the same".  When? In the immediate move or all the posible game

> development?

>

> - The e.p. reference: isn't it pathetic? The e.p. is a "one shot" rigth by

> nature, so it is obvious that the

> panw that made double step can not be captured e.p. two moves after (?!).

> Some years ago there were a discussion in the Chess Caffe where Geurt

> Gijssen interpretated that

> the e.p. right makes a difference in the position even if the e.p. is not

> legal because the capturing pawn

> is pinned (?!). Nunn clearly pointed out his disagreement with this

> burocratic interpretation.

> Anyway, in the present text "....if a pawn that could have been captured

> en passant .." is clear that

> the pawn can not been captured e.p. if the capturing pawn is pinned.

>

> - The castling right reference: "When a king or a rook is forced to move,

> it will lose its castling rights,

>  if any, only after it is moved". This apparently supports Joost's

> oopinion: the right is lost only after

> the  move". But what about "..if any.."? I insist with the question,

>  "What does a right with definitively no ocassion to use it mean?"

>

> I resist to take the burocratic interpretations instead of the "spirit of

> the law" ones. Equivalently to the

> 50 moves rule, the triple repetition one is inspired by the practical

> intention of stopping a game where

> nothing relevant is happening in a recurrent way. We were three times in

> the exactly same position:

> where are we going to?

>

> The relevant difference having the castling right intact is that I can

> develope a game that is not posible

> without having the right. But in the position I propossed,

>

> White   Ke1, Rh1

> Black   Ke8, Ph2

>

> white can not play 0-0, never, definitively. "What does a right with

> definitively no ocassion to use it mean?"

> So, there are no posible games from the initial position that are not

> posible after a repetition.

>

> And this is due to other Laws of Chess (castling is not legal if the king

> is checked after doing it) combined

> with the moves of pieces (to remove the bP on h2 eather the wK or the wR

> has to move).

>

> Some Lawyer's viewpoint would be useful here.

>

> Best,

>

>

>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Retros mailing list

> Retros at janko.at

> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20140505/1cefc093/attachment.htm>