[Retros] rights & ocassions / not answering Andrew anymore

Guus Rol grol33 at gmail.com
Tue May 27 13:20:50 EDT 2014

Dear Joost,

Ignoring the threefold repetition is indeed legal in a chess game,
but repetition problems are mainly based on the retro convention that 3R
leads to an automatic draw. You cannot claim that a convention
automatically draws in one phase (the solution), and does not apply in
another phase (DR evaluation).

I just saw Andrews mail with his liberal take on the use of conventions. I
am glad he has a different view and I am sure we will not agree on this for
a long time to come. I can't however resist the temptation to make one
argument here. Andrew writes "... *then* use conventions as a last step to
resolve any residual uncertainty". It is important to observe that this is
not about uncertainties in rules but uncertainties on
"retro-active-states". The game rules are clear enough (applied with
reasoning). The crucial point is that composers create the state
uncertainties on purpose in order to invoke the use of appropriate
conventions by the solver. As such they become integral components of the
composition and act there as temporary rules within the problem space. The
one thing however noone would not wish to allow is that the "temporary
rules" are different at different phases of the solution. OK, they might
vary prroblem to problem, but to allow shapeshifting within the same
composition would indeed amount to "Magic". Accepting that one either uses
the 3R convention in a problem or not at all places a considerable burden
on the composer. In particular, finding decent stipulations becomes a
difficult issue. With game rules, draw claims may precede the actual
repetition, and so should the diagram. This causes confusion amongst
solvers and composers. Draw(n) when? By the way, winning is OK as well when
the instruction is simply to "draw"..

I can't see how a loose and undeterministic approach will forward this
field. How can we ever hope to conquer the fairies if we cannot even
provide unambiguous clarity in the orthodox domain?,

I think I just axed my 2003 problem. What I do for love...

Best wishes, Guus Rol.

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Retros Probleemblad
<retro at probleemblad.nl>wrote:

> On 05/27/2014 11:57 AM, Guus Rol wrote:
>> Hi Olli,
>> Yes, you got the idea! I am not sure about the precise position and
>> timing but basically DR cooks it if you aim for the position after Bf8.
> I don't think so. DR uses article 5.1b ("The game is drawn when a position
> has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with
> any series of legal moves."). Since ignoring the 3-fold repetition is
> legal, there's a legal continuation in which any colour can checkmate.
> 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/20140527/17858b10/attachment.html>

More information about the Retros mailing list