Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40
  1. #1
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575

    Article 9.2 Question

    Article 9.2 says...

    Positions ... are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.
    Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently.


    So what happens if Player A has kingside castling rights but cannot because his opponent attacks f8. Say then he moves his king to d8 and back to e8 and all pieces are back on their same squares. Even though castling rights have been lost, is the posiion the same?

    It seems to satisfy the first requirement,

    the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.

    However, castling rights have changed permenently and while this doesn't affect the current move, it impacts the possible variations.

    My feeling is that it is not a repeated position due to the stipulation of the final sentence. Does everyone agree?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #2
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    135
    No, I disagree. In both positions, the player does not have castling rights, all else being equal, this means it is indeed the same position. The rules do not stipulate anything with regard to future potential, just the attributes of and possibilities in the current position.
    Last edited by jay_vee; 30-07-2004 at 01:20 AM.

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,310
    in the situation Barry mentioned, the position would be repeated cause at the time of the first king move, player A could not castle.

    If player A was able to castle, then by the way i read the rules, it would not be a repeat of the position.

  4. #4
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    in the situation Barry mentioned, the position would be repeated cause at the time of the first king move, player A could not castle.

    If player A was able to castle, then by the way i read the rules, it would not be a repeat of the position.
    Agreed.

  5. #5
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    However, castling rights have changed permenently and while this doesn't affect the current move, it impacts the possible variations.

    My feeling is that it is not a repeated position due to the stipulation of the final sentence. Does everyone agree?
    I do, in general. Castling rights have permanently been removed.

    However, consider this position:

    FEN Viewer


    Black just played ...hxg6 and it is White's move. The Black king and rook have not moved. Yet it is impossible for Black to ever castle from this position with any sequence of moves, because he must move the king or rook next move, and cannot castle through check.

    Does the move ...Kd7 in this position permanently change Black's castling rights? Suppose play continues as follows: 1.Bf2 Kd7 2.Bb6 Ke8 3.Bf2 Kd7 4.Bb6 is Black now entitled to write ...Ke8 on his scoresheet and claim a draw? Or has Black's castling right been permanently affected by ...Kd7 even though he had already been permanently prevented from castling in this position?
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

  6. #6
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    Quote Originally Posted by ggrayggray
    in the situation Barry mentioned, the position would be repeated cause at the time of the first king move, player A could not castle.

    If player A was able to castle, then by the way i read the rules, it would not be a repeat of the position.
    before moving to d8 the black king had "inhibited" kingside castling rights

    the attacked f8 square means it cannot move onto it (kf8) or through it (O-O)

    having moved from e8 the black king now has no castling rights

    if the rules finessed on this point then the before and after positions would be different

    but the king not being allowed to be in, pass through, or move into check is a precondition preventing castling on the side where that encumbrance affects it

    as is the king or the rook in question not having moved

    if the reasons for not being able to castle are taken into account each time then

    before ... can't castle due to attacked square
    after ... can't castle due king having moved

    the position would be different each time

    but i sense the ruling would be in both situations the king couldn't castle regardless of the reasons why

    the position would not be the same of course if the king's move relinquished a queenside castling possibility

    note too that the move possibilities of move players are taken into account

    so if white moved a king or either of its rooks to relinquish one or both of its catling options then the total position would not be the same for black upon its move

    is anyone confused?

    at 2 45 am it's how i feel


    some arbiter will give me a score out of 10

    eclectic
    Last edited by eclectic; 30-07-2004 at 02:52 AM.
    .

  7. #7
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    However, castling rights have changed permenently and while this doesn't affect the current move, it impacts the possible variations.

    My feeling is that it is not a repeated position due to the stipulation of the final sentence. Does everyone agree?
    I agree. But Barry, how is this contravertial?

  8. #8
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    Article 9.2 says...

    Positions are not the same if ... the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently.
    This is clear.

    1. The "right to castle" has conditions stipulated elsewhere int the "Rules of Chess".
    2. The right to castle is lost if the King moves.
    3. Thus, the permission is "perminantly" removed., ie changed.
    4. Therefore the position is deemed to have changed
    5. QED

    Note: The set of[i]possible games[i] becomes different from the previously attained identical position. From the newly attained identical position, certain lines are impossible. It is imaterial then, that at two different times, the set of all possible moves were, at that one moment identical, the possible continuations are different.

    I think that even if this logic is flawed, the spirit of the rule is that the concomitant event of "repeated position" and "set of all posible moves", should not be treated as a 2nd/3rd repetition.

  9. #9
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Sweeney
    I agree. But Barry, how is this contravertial?
    Ask Jay Vee, Garvin and Eclectic.

    The question came about because I was discussing repetition of position with someone. Actually we were talking about how it would change the game if the requirement was reduced from 3 times repetition to 2 times. Anyway, we got on to discussing the finer points of repetition and how in someplaces the distinction is made between the king's knight and queen's knight such that two of these pieces swapping position is NOT considered a repetition of position, although it clearly is in the FIDE rules.

    In discussing the rule I could only remember the first half of the rule and so expressed an opinion the oppose of what I now hold. After reading the rule again my opinion changed pi radians. That's why I thought it might be controversial. It certainly makes a change from speculating on the identity of posters.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  10. #10
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Does the move ...Kd7 in this position permanently change Black's castling rights? Suppose play continues as follows: 1.Bf2 Kd7 2.Bb6 Ke8 3.Bf2 Kd7 4.Bb6 is Black now entitled to write ...Ke8 on his scoresheet and claim a draw? Or has Black's castling right been permanently affected by ...Kd7 even though he had already been permanently prevented from castling in this position?
    That is an interesting wrinkle. My initial impression is no, castling rights have not been affected, and therefore yes the positions are identical. I can see that an argument against this position could be constructed from the wording of the Art. 9.2, however I am swayed more strongly by logic in this case.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    135
    Well, that article is not particularly well worded, i suppose. First of all, how could there be two seemingly identical positions (i.e. same pieces on the same squares) where during the transition from one to the other the right to castle has been temporarily changed? According to 3.8, Castling is prevented temporarily
    1.) if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces.
    2.) if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected.
    Obviously, if the pieces are on the same squares, the right to castle could not be temporarily different in the two positions; that part of Rule 9.2 is not neccessary.

    "The right to castle" is also not defined in the rules, but it seems obvious to me at least, that if in a particular position you cannot play the move "castles", wether temporarily or permanently, then you don't have the right to castle in that position.

    Moving the king back and forth doesn't change that, you didn't have the right before and you don't have it now. Thus the right hasn't changed and the positions are identical.

    But I agree, the article could be worded in a more precise fashion.

  12. #12
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,424
    I'd probably have to say that K-d7-e8 does change the position under the strict wording of the rules because the right to castle has been changed even though Black would never have been able to exercise that right. That's my first impression anyway.

  13. #13
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout
    I'd probably have to say that K-d7-e8 does change the position under the strict wording of the rules because the right to castle has been changed even though Black would never have been able to exercise that right. That's my first impression anyway.
    But this is the philosophical point. If you can NEVER exercise a right, can it be said that you really have that right? Or was the right lost a few moves before when the possibility of ever castling disappeared?

    Compare this idea to the wording of the definition of a dead position (Art. 5.2(b))...

    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. The game is said to end in a 'dead position'. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was legal.

    The laws of chess don't explicitly define the right to castle as never having moved your king and castling rook. They simply say (Art. 3.8)...

    (1) Castling is illegal:
    if the king has already moved, or
    with a rook that has already moved


    I would say: once a position arises where castling is no longer possible by any series of legal moves, then castling "rights" can be said to have been lost (a la 5.2). Normally this involves simply the moving of the king or rook. However this definition can also be applied to the position Kevin has constructed.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  14. #14
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Cox
    If you can NEVER exercise a right, can it be said that you really have that right?
    What about the right to have babies?

    I'd prefer an interpretation based on face value if it isn't expanded or further explained, especially considering that in the real world it might be very complex to prove that castling can never be legally possible, but Barry has a point too.

  15. #15
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,358
    I knew that would open a nice can of worms. If I send it to Gijssen he'd dispose of it with his usual killjoy line about showing him a game where it has actually happened.

    I can see a lot of merit in both arguments.

    I think the onus of proof is on Barry's side (that it's a draw) partly because an arbiter doesn't normally award a draw in a case of doubt (and I think this can be extended to a case of ambiguity in the Laws) and partly because of the point Ian makes that it could be difficult to work out whether (and when) the ability to castle had been lost. So at the moment if this came up I would rule no draw.

    I do think Barry's point about 5.2b (duplicated in 9.6) is a good one. The same principle applies in 6.10 as well - at the point where a state of affairs becomes impossible at any stage in the future of the game, a change in the way the Laws view the game occurs immediately.

    The comment Barry makes about whether double repetitions should be banned is another good question to discuss. I'd say that double repetitions shouldn't automatically be banned, because sometimes a player makes a move, realises it's an error, and then has no alternative but retreat. A draw seems a harsh price to pay

    However with the rise of time-per-move add-ons it's often tempting for players to double-rep to gain time on the clock, which can significantly extend playing session times. An option I might support would be a draw if there were three distinctive non-overlapping double reps by one player.
    Moderation Requests: All requests for, comments about, or questions about moderation of any kind including thread changes must be posted in the Help and Feedback section and not on the thread in question. (Or by private message for routine changes or sensitive matters.)

    ACF Newsletter Information - All Australian players and administrators should subscribe and check each issue for relevant notices

    My psephology/politics site (token chess references only) : http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ Politics twitter feed https://twitter.com/kevinbonham

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A Sicilian Question
    By young_ned in forum Chess Training
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-12-2005, 02:03 PM
  2. Maccas and the question of "work"
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 22-12-2004, 05:41 AM
  3. Article on Junior win
    By News Bot in forum Chess Australia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15-07-2004, 02:01 PM
  4. Rogers article in SUnday Herald about Zonals
    By chesslover in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 21-04-2004, 12:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •