[Retros] rights & ocassions /answering Andrew
kevinjbegley at gmail.com
Thu May 15 14:50:57 EDT 2014
ps: the obvious dilemma here, of course, is that problem chess has no
reasonable expectation to successfully petition for any change (or even
clarification) in FIDE's rules (which inherently exist -- and evolve! --
for an altogether unique purpose: to function as a competitive game).
Furthermore, FIDE has no obligation to maintain a consistent set of
orthodox rules, which has an erosive impact upon our classification system
(wherein we have surrendered all authority to define orthodoxy).
Eventually, the problem chess community will have to take responsibility
for developing a unique set of chess rules, under WFCC sanction, which
strive foremost for clarity, while still providing a fair reflection of
every evolutionary step in the rules of FIDE Chess.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>wrote:
> 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
>>> 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#
>> Retros mailing list
>> Retros at janko.at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Retros