[Retros] rights & ocassions /answering Andrew

Kevin Begley kevinjbegley at gmail.com
Thu May 15 05:37:29 EDT 2014


Yes, this example is exactly what comes to mind, despite having never fully
accepted its logic, I did once study this enough to at least appreciate the
difficulties of fully realizing this idea, in an orthodox setting.
My only point is that retrograde analysis is presumed necessary, to
establish any preexisting repetition.

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Joost de Heer <joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl>wrote:

> On 05/14/2014 10:26 PM, Kevin Begley wrote:
>  Several retro composers have even attempted to make good use of this
>> presumption (most notably in studies wherein the solver must make use of
>> this to either draw, or avoid draw); unfortunately, I can provide no
>> good example (the concept is obviously very difficult to achieve, which
>> might explain my having no recollection of an entirely successful
>> rendition).
> I hope I understand you correctly, but I think that you mean something
> like P1004030 by Caillaud, which uses the threefold repetition rule in a
> h=2.
> 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/20140515/680941da/attachment.html>

More information about the Retros mailing list