[Retros] rights & ocassions /answering Andrew

[Kevin Begley]

Joost,

At least we've answered one question:

If you have wKe1, wRh1, bKe8, and play continues:
1. Ke2 Ke7 2. Ke1 Ke8 3. Rf1 Ke7 4. Rh1 Ke8, there is no explicitly correct
algorithm for counting repetitions -- it depends entirely upon whether we
use the 4-bit, or the 6-bit representation of castling rights!

6-bits would imply 1 repetition, whereas 4-bits would imply 2 repetitions.

In the interest of simplification of fairy chess rules, I would argue that
the 6-bit representation should be preferred.

As for claims against illegal moves, I think we can presume that the
composer has effectively implied a valid claim against every attempt at an
illegal move.

Beyond that, I fail to understand your question concerning whether castling
rights exist.
Obviously, castling rights exist;  and, they constitute an inherent element
of the position, which impact the legality of moves.



On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Joost de Heer <joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl>wrote:

> On 05/15/2014 07:58 PM, Kevin Begley wrote:
>
>> Hi Guus,
>>
>> Thank you for the clarification.
>> I fully agree that all assumptions should be explicitly stated,
>> somewhere in the Codex.
>>
>> However, there seems to be some confusion concerning the state of a
>> position.
>>
>> An orthodox chess position may be reduced to the following description:
>> 1) the diagram (board orientation, and placement of all pieces upon it),
>> 2) the set of all castling rights,
>> 3) the set of en passant rights, and (the one everybody forgets),
>> 4) the dead-reckoning consideration (if no help-win exists, however you
>> define win, the game is over).
>>
>> The above information is both necessary and sufficient to determine the
>> set of all legal moves, in any position; therefore, the above
>> information forms a basis for the position.
>>
>> Beyond this basis (the state of a position), there also exists some
>> attributes of a position...
>> For example, the counters (50-move counter, and 3-move repetition
>> counter) constitute an attribute of the position.
>> Alteration of these counters does not impact the the basis (or state) of
>> the position -- the attributes have no impact upon the set of legal move
>> possibilities in said position; they only have an impact upon the
>> resulting game outcome.
>>
>> It is important to separate the aims and goals of a given chess game (or
>> problem), from the rules of legal movement, for said game.
>> And, the people who write the rules/Codex should know how to express
>> these rules from a fairy chess perspective (accounting for varying
>> stipulations, aims, goals, etc)...
>>
>> With regard to the second point (castling rights), just consider how
>> orthodox chess skews the proper understanding:  in orthodox chess,
>> castling rights are reduced to a set of four information bits:
>> 1) white has K-side castling rights?
>> 2) white has Q-side castling rights?
>> 3) black has K-side castling rights?
>> 4) black has Q-side castling rights?
>> (each question can be answered by YES/NO, with the default being YES,
>> unless spoiled by retro-analysis).
>>
>> But, the people who write the Orthodox Codex mistakenly believe that
>> this information is fundamental to a position, when it absolutely is not!
>> The programmers who develop a more encompassing representation (e.g.,
>> including Circe/Anticirce forms, wherein castling rights may be renewed
>> when units are reborn onto their game-array squares) must all appreciate
>> that the above 4-bits are a fiction; actually, 6-bits of information are
>> necessary to completely characterize castling rights in a position:
>> 1) white King has castling rights?
>> 2) white K-side Rook has castling rights?
>> 3) white Q-side Rook has castling rights?
>> 4) black King has castling rights?
>> 5) black K-side Rook has castling rights?
>> 6) black Q-side Rook has castling rights?
>>
>> This example is just one reason (of many) that I've had to constantly
>> remind the orthocentric composers to return to the fundamental truths
>> (and establish sound definitions).
>> It is why I have advocated for a Fairy Codex, for years -- not only
>> improve the prospects for fairy chess, but also to clarify orthodox.
>> You really don't understand the rules of a language, until you encounter
>> the rules of other languages -- so it is with the rules of chess.
>>
>
> This still doesn't answer one of the questions: If all the paths towards
> the actual castling will result in a triggering of either the 50-move rule
> or the 3-fold repetition rule (which should be automatic in chess
> composition, since there is no one to claim), does the castling right exist
> or not?
>
> And a small sidenote: castling rights and castling have nothing in common
> in a game. You can castle in a game even if you don't have the right, since
> illegal moves are allowed until there is a correct claim of illegality. See
> e.g. http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/records/recordstxt.htm#
> greatest%20number%20of%20castlings
>
>
> 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/20140515/67970439/attachment.html>