[Retros] rights & ocassions /answering Andrew

Guus Rol grol33 at gmail.com
Wed May 14 12:47:54 EDT 2014

Hi Joost and Valery,

The way I see it there is a pre-issue to the discussion. The FIDE-laws do
not know of any automatic draws. Even in the simple case without past or
future "castling rights", FIDE must have considered that "possible moves"
would not change across 50M boundaries or repetitions within repetition
cycles. None of those enforce draws or close gateways even when the options
for the players do change - i.e. the right to claim. Chess players
though, are keenly aware of the risks in repeating positions. You might say
that when the board looks the same for the FIDE laws, it looks quite
different for the players. Example: Ke4-e5-e6-e5-e4 (mimicked by the
opponent) not only switches back but also spoils the game if Ke5 is now the
only move to win it!

Which means that we are left with the question on how to harmonize the
original FIDE concept with the addition of automatic draws in the world of
composition - still not considering castlings at all. I would suggest that
to "continue to ignore possible terminations" is most in line with the FIDE
concept. Yes, some repetitions do  change options for the players but so
does the original FIDE law in real chess games - see example above. In
fact, by down-playing the relevance of future developments in the
conversion from play to composition, we also take the first step towards a
static view on repetitions altogether. Do we need more then to justify the
application of static castling rights in repetitions as well?

Guus Rol

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Retros Probleemblad
<retro at probleemblad.nl>wrote:

> 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?
> Valeri,
> 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?
> Joost
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140514/b2acbf8c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Retros mailing list