[Retros] rights & ocassions /answering Andrew

Guus Rol grol33 at gmail.com
Wed May 14 15:30:00 EDT 2014

Starting with a puzzle followed by an introduction, the solution and an

Make the followiing changes from PAS (initial game array): Remove Nb8, move
Pe2 to e4, move Bf1 to h5 and  Ng8 to f6. This is an SPG in 4.0 moves but
it is not unique. How many legal  forward moves do you need to play
forward at least to make sure that the first 4 moves in the game are unique

This puzzle shows many different aspects of the issues discussed. It also
adds a new one: retro-logics. Whenever you do anything in retro-solving
which moves both froward and backward in time, you need a supporting
retro-logic, either implicitly or explicitly. The interaction between the
FIDE laws and the retro-logics is more complex than between the Laws and
the basic retro-conventions. Naturally,since the conventions are
required input for the logics to function besides other concepts.

Note: I hope to discuss some other day why I think that retro-logics and
conventions should be separated. It doesn't matter for the current story
that you subscribe to that view or not.

One of the things the solution shows are the two different relationships
between repetition and castling:
1. The dependency relationship dictated by the laws and conventions.
Repetition may be dependent on castling right but not in reverse.
2. The (retro-)logical relationship between repetition and castling right.
Here the choice of forward moves may decide on either a past with (loss of)
castling rights or a drawing repetition. The context is usually one of
retro-strategic logic.

You can imagine that combining a retro-logic for trying to decide missing
information from the past with a dynamic chess Law trying to look into an
uncertain future from that past, at times produces quirky results. And so,
besides solving the puzzle, I wil make a detour into Jumanji with the idea
of "dynamic castling rights".

Solution to the puzzle:

Play forward: 5. Be2 Ng8 6. Bh5 Nf6 7. Be2 Ng8 The next white moves are not
unique, the blacks are e.g. 8.Nc3 Rb8 9.Nb1 Ra8.
By convention, the new position is not a draw unless a repetition draw can
be proved. Such is not the case and we therefore have no draw here. From
that information you can derive only 1 proof game without
drawing repetitions: 1. Pe4 Na6 2. Bxa6 Nf6 3. Be2 Rg8 4. Bh5 Rh8. You can
see that the eighth and ninth black move Rb8 and Ra8 demonstrate the type-1
relationship (castling rights must have been lost there) and 7...Ng8 shows
the type-2 relationship. Before that move, black could have had both
castling rights, after it, one was lost. This shows the common paradoxical
scene of losing castling right without ever moving King or Rook. Well, what
you really lost, was just a "past". Happens all the time in retro-chess!

Now to Jumanji. Suppose move 8 and 9 were not played in that game. Notice
that before 7...Ng8 black had both future castling rights and after it he
lost 1 - not to say which but that doesn't matter. Lets now play 8. Bh5 Nf6
again reaching the same position for the 3rd time. According to the "future
castling law", the position is not the same as the previous times when
there were still both future castling rights/occasions. In reality, by
standard proof game assessment, the position is an unnegotiable draw at
this point. Welcome to the Zoo!

Explanation. The confusion comes from mixing retro-strategy and
retro-analysis. Whenever the term "future" is used one reaches - almost
unconciously - for what seems the appropriate retro-logic. Since there is
no framework for handling repetitions in prA or retro-variants one resorts
to the natural choice that is always available - retro strategy. But
retro-strategy can eliminate roads into the past and thereby narrow down
your (retro) options. Static definitions only refer to past proof games and
need not take data from an ambiguous future. In this case, the proper
retro-analyst arrives at the same conclusion Valery did in his example: a
castling right was already lost by move 4 in all remaining proof games - as
seen in retrospect after move 9.

Well, I never said it is impossible to operate on dynamic rights, only that
it requires an I.Q. of 280 plus a winning lottery ticket. Proves that you
can manage the future.

Guus Rol..

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Guus Rol <grol33 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/faa0d7fb/attachment.html>

More information about the Retros mailing list