[Retros] rights & ocassions /answering Andrew

Retros Probleemblad retro at probleemblad.nl
Wed May 14 10:59:22 EDT 2014

On 05/14/2014 03:50 PM, Valery Liskovets wrote:
> Joost,
> In my example, looking in the past, we have enough time for 4 repetitions.
> But are they (more exactly, should the Rules be such that they are) all
> identical in both twins? I see no way to pose this question via a problem
> with an ordinary stipulation (unless I overlook anything). As far as I know
> Nikita Plaksin has never discussed this (modern, future-depending)
> collision:
> is castling _practically_ executable or not? And his corresponding problems
> didn't depend on such nuances of the 3-rep. rule. But maybe any of them
> can be reinterpreted in such framework?


Although the question is different, the underlying theme is the same: Is 
castling allowed if it can be proven that, by castling (or in your case: 
by making it possible to castle), more than 100 single moves without 
capture, pawn move or castling have occurred?

Your example could be changed to something even more extreme by the way:
Ke1 Rh1 Sa1 // Ke8 Ph2
No captures/pawn moves for 46 full moves. How many times can the 
sequence Sb3 Ke7 Sa1 Ke8 be repeated until there is a correct claim for 
3-fold repetition.

Can white really lose his castling rights by moving a piece besides the 
rook and king?


More information about the Retros mailing list