PDA

View Full Version : Article 9.2 Question



Rincewind
30-07-2004, 12:00 AM
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?

jay_vee
30-07-2004, 01:16 AM
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.

Garvinator
30-07-2004, 01:35 AM
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.

jay_vee
30-07-2004, 01:58 AM
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.

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2004, 02:31 AM
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:

r3k3/P3Pp2/1B3Pp1/6P1/8/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1

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?

eclectic
30-07-2004, 02:49 AM
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

PHAT
30-07-2004, 05:31 AM
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?

PHAT
30-07-2004, 07:06 AM
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 ofpossible games 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,[i] 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 [i]concomitant event of "repeated position" and "set of all posible moves", should not be treated as a 2nd/3rd repetition.

Rincewind
30-07-2004, 07:18 AM
I agree. But Barry, how is this contravertial?

Ask Jay Vee, Garvin and Eclectic. :cool:

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.

Rincewind
30-07-2004, 07:25 AM
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.

jay_vee
30-07-2004, 08:55 AM
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.

Ian Rout
30-07-2004, 09:19 AM
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.

Rincewind
30-07-2004, 10:42 AM
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.

Ian Rout
30-07-2004, 11:12 AM
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.

Kevin Bonham
30-07-2004, 07:25 PM
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.

Garvinator
30-07-2004, 07:33 PM
An option I might support would be a draw if there were three distinctive non-overlapping double reps by one player.
how would that work?

Rincewind
30-07-2004, 09:21 PM
In order to answer Kevin's onus of proof point. I guess I feel that the spirit of the identical position rule is that two positions are identical if all the squares on the board are occupied by pieces of the same colour and type and iff the set of all possible sub-games from that point forward are equal. Therefore, rather than consider whether the king or this or that rook has moved, I only worry about whether castling is a possible move in the set of all possible sub-games.

Sure my definition might be harder to apply but it is up to the claiming player to convince the arbiter of the validity of his claim. In cases when it can be reasonably established I feel this defintion is closer to the intention of the law since, although the status of the king from never moved to moved does occur with the Ke8-d7-e8 manouvre - but for all intents and purposes the positions are identical as castling was already irrevocably denied.

Bill Gletsos
30-07-2004, 11:57 PM
Perhaps some history is relevant reagrding what is now Article 9.2

Originally the Rules Commission back in the 60,70's and 80's would give rulings.

The relevant part of the triple repition rule back in 1980 was:
"The position is considered the same if the pieces of the same kind and color occupy the same squares and if all possiblemoves of the pieces are the same."

Note there was no mention in the rule about en passent or castling per se.

However ther was a relevant FIDE Interpretation of 1964 and hence still binding in 1980. that said:
"Concerning the repitition of a position on the chessboard, a position shouild not always be considered the same if pieces of the same kind and of the same colo occupy the same squares (static identity), but only on the condition that the possiblities for moving the pieces these pieces are also the same (that is to say, that there is also dynamic identity), If one adds this last stipulation, a player would thus no longer be entitled to demands a draw if, after the repetition of a position, the right to castle or to take a pawn en passent had been lost."

An of positions were shown and discussed. One of the positions was as follows:

r3k2r/p1pNp2p/P1P1P2p/3p3P/3P4/6Q1/1P3p2/5K2 w kq - 0 1

The accompanying note went:
1.Ne5 Rf8 2.nd7 Rh8 (the same position but still a difference: Black no longer has the right to castle on the king side.) 3.Nf6 Kf8 4.Nd7+ Ke8(Now the initial position appears a third time, but still with one important difference: Black has lost the possibility to castle on both sides. Because the possibilities for moving the pieces are not the same the claim for a draw can not be accepted).

Now by 1984 they had done away with the interpretations instead trying to cover them in the laws and the relevant part of the Article became:
"The position is considerd the same if pieces of the same kind and color occupy the same squares and if the possible moves of all pieces are the same, including the right to castle or to take a pawn en passent."

There are two critical points.
Firstly the words : "if the possible moves of all pieces are the same."
The rest of the sentence is unnecessary unless the following sentence has additional meaning.
The additional meaning of the second sentence is to do with the words "including the right to castle".
A player at a given point in the game may have the "right to castle" since his king or a particular rook have not moved but not the possibility to legally make the castling move at this time.

The words "right to castle" still occur in the current Article 9.2.

In my opinion in Barry's and also Kevin's example the right to claim a draw is not available because Black has the right to castle in the original position but not in the subsequent position.

Rincewind
31-07-2004, 12:21 AM
In my opinion in Barry's and also Kevin's example the right to claim a draw is not available because Black has the right to castle in the original position but not in the subsequent position.

I agree in my example, but in Kevin's example the possibilities for moving the pieces are exactly the same in both the original and repeated position. The problem I think is to nail down what is meant by "right to castle". Does is simply mean king has not moved and the relevent rook(s) have not moved? Or does it mean that castling could be a possible move in the future. In Kevin's example, the first definition sticks but the second does not.

Bill Gletsos
31-07-2004, 12:25 AM
I agree in my example, but in Kevin's example the possibilities for moving the pieces are exactly the same in both the original and repeated position. The problem I think is to nail down what is meant by "right to castle". Does is simply mean king has not moved and the relevent rook(s) have not moved? Or does it mean that castling could be a possible move in the future. In Kevin's example, the first definition sticks but the second does not.
I'm believe it means the later.
As such there is no draw in Kevins example.

Kevin Bonham
31-07-2004, 02:41 AM
The accompanying note went:
1.Ne5 Rf8 2.nd7 Rh8 (the same position but still a difference: Black no longer has the right to castle on the king side.) 3.Nf6 Kf8 4.Nd7+ Ke8(Now the initial position appears a third time, but still with one important difference: Black has lost the possibility to castle on both sides. Because the possibilities for moving the pieces are not the same the claim for a draw can not be accepted).

Thanks for the background, Bill.

It's a real pity they were not more careful with the exact way they set up their position or they could have killed this little debate stone dead. In the initial position it is possible for White to play 1.Nb6, then Black could take on b6, then White could move the queen away allowing Black to ...0-0. So it is not the same as my example because in the original position there is the real possibility for Black to play ...0-0 at some stage in the future. A near miss to solving our problem conclusively by precedent. (So close it is tempting to conclude they were going for my type of scenario and made a mistake. If that is true that would also end the debate.)

I still feel in all that's there that a smidgin of technical ambiguity remains in applying this to my example, e.g.:


"The position is considerd the same if pieces of the same kind and color occupy the same squares and if the possible moves of all pieces are the same, including the right to castle or to take a pawn en passent."

Still ambiguous if casting is "possible" or exists as a "right"


Firstly the words : "if the possible moves of all pieces are the same."
The rest of the sentence is unnecessary unless the following sentence has additional meaning.
The additional meaning of the second sentence is to do with the words "including the right to castle".

Additional meaning could be there to clarify that possible moves includes possible future moves not just possible present moves.

It would, however, be a very brave DOP to award the draw IMHO. If it ever happened and the DOP did award the draw, the appeal would be interesting ...

PHAT
31-07-2004, 07:13 AM
It does, as has been suggested, all hinge on the interpretation of the phrase "right to castle".

1. From the opening position the RTC is in force.
2. That right exists completely until it is revoked perminantly by a K or relavent R move.
3. However, the "ability to castle" may change from yes to no/no to yes an unlimited number times.
5. The intention and spirit of the rules is that "repitition of position" means that exactly the same set of possible continuations is encountered.
6. Therefore, the Ke2, Kd1 example should not be ruled as a repetition.

Is this now the concences?

Rincewind
31-07-2004, 08:36 AM
I agree in my example, but in Kevin's example the possibilities for moving the pieces are exactly the same in both the original and repeated position. The problem I think is to nail down what is meant by "right to castle". Does is simply mean king has not moved and the relevent rook(s) have not moved? Or does it mean that castling could be a possible move in the future. In Kevin's example, the first definition sticks but the second does not.
I'm believe it means the later.
As such there is no draw in Kevins example.

Now I'm confused. If you believe the nitentino is the latter, then there IS a draw in Kevin's position, is there not? Castling is completely impossible at any time in the future from the original position.

Rincewind
31-07-2004, 08:40 AM
It does, as has been suggested, all hinge on the interpretation of the phrase "right to castle".

1. From the opening position the RTC is in force.
2. That right exists completely until it is revoked perminantly by a K or relavent R move.
3. However, the "ability to castle" may change from yes to no/no to yes an unlimited number times.
5. The intention and spirit of the rules is that "repitition of position" means that exactly the same set of possible continuations is encountered.
6. Therefore, the Ke2, Kd1 example should not be ruled as a repetition.

Is this now the concences?

It seems it might be the consensus with everyone but me. ;)

I still allow for the possibilities of other moves permanently changing castling rights. I taking castling rights to be synonymous with "at least one castling move included in thet set of all sub-games beginning from the present position". This might sound unweildy but I think it is logical.

Bill Gletsos
18-08-2004, 01:34 PM
Now I'm confused. If you believe the nitentino is the latter, then there IS a draw in Kevin's position, is there not? Castling is completely impossible at any time in the future from the original position.
Some how I missed this query of yours at the time and only now discovered it when I was about to comment on Geurt Gijssen's comments on this very issue in his August 2004 Arbiter's NoteBook Column.

I really messed up my reply.
What I was thinking and what I typed bore no resemblence.
I think that the rules only consider your first option and based on that then Kevin's position is not a draw but in my opinion your second optionis the way it should be interpreted.



Now In his latest column someone asks Geurt the very issue being discussed in this thread but only provides an example similar to yours in the first post.
Geurt's reponse is:
I had this discussion just a few weeks ago in Holland and came to the following conclusions. Article 3.8a.ii.(1) has to be changed as follows:

(1) The right for castling has been lost:
a. if the king has already moved, or
b. with a rook that has already moved

Furthermore the words “temporarily or permanently” must be deleted from Article 9.2. When you reread these two articles, you will see that everything is now OK

This would seem to reinforce your first option.

I think you and I would like to see Article 3.8a.ii.(1) read:
(1) The right for castling has been lost:
a. if the king has already moved, or
b. with a rook that has already moved
c. once a position is reached where it is impossible to castle by any sequence of legal moves

However it would be interesting to see Geurt's response if he was presented with Kevin's position.
Perhaps Kevin would be good enough to respond to Geurt's answer by submitting his postion and suggesting my above wording.

Rincewind
18-08-2004, 05:30 PM
I think you and I would like to see Article 3.8a.ii.(1) read:
(1) The right for castling has been lost:
a. if the king has already moved, or
b. with a rook that has already moved
c. once a position is reached where it is impossible to castle by any sequence of legal moves

Actually, I think I would leave Article 3.8.ii.(1) alone and append an article 3.8.ii.(3) to read:

(3) The right for castling on a particular side has been lost once a position is reached where it is impossible to castle on that side by any sequence of legal moves.

Then the last paragraph of Article 9.2 might need a tidy up to read:

Positions as in (a) and (b) 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 on either side has changed (Refer Art 3.8.ii.(3)).

As the last "temporarily or permanently" clause only adds confusion.

I agree that Guert's opinion of Kevin's position would be most interesting as it really isolates the issue with the greatest clarity.

Kevin Bonham
18-08-2004, 06:13 PM
I am doing this and I have used Barry's wording. I've also given another example position which I think makes the issue even more clear:

4k3/7P/q7/8/8/P7/8/4K2R b - - 0 1

Black plays 1...Qe6+ 2.Kf2 Qf6+ 3.Ke1 Qe6+ 4.Kf2 Qf6+ 5.Ke1 and writes 5...Qe6+ on his scoresheet and claims a draw.

[EDIT: fix mistake]

In the position after 1...Qe6+ White has not yet moved his king or rook yet has to move his king next move to escape the check.

I actually now think I would award the draw in this position - to argue that a player has a right to castle in a position where his king is in check and must be immediately moved strikes me as a bit of a joke.

Garvinator
18-08-2004, 06:17 PM
I am doing this and I have used Barry's wording. I've also given another example position which I think makes the issue even more clear:

4k3/7P/q7/8/8/P7/8/4K2R b - - 0 1

Black plays 1...Qe6+ 2.Kf7 Qf6+ 3.Ke8 Qe6+ 4.Kf7 Qf6+ 5.Ke8 and writes 5...Qe6+ on his scoresheet and claims a draw.

In the position after 1...Qe6+ White has not yet moved his king or rook yet has to move his king next move to escape the check.

I actually now think I would award the draw in this position - to argue that a player has a right to castle in a position where his king is in check and must be immediately moved strikes me as a bit of a joke.
is the notation an error?

Bill Gletsos
18-08-2004, 06:47 PM
Actually, I think I would leave Article 3.8.ii.(1) alone and append an article 3.8.ii.(3) to read:

(3) The right for castling on a particular side has been lost once a position is reached where it is impossible to castle on that side by any sequence of legal moves.
I doubt Geurt wouldnt like you rejecting his wording of 3.8.ii.(1). ;)

Seriously I thing removing the word illegal as he has done and replacing it by right to castle makes it clearer.

Therefore I'd still go with:
(1) The right for castling has been lost:
a. if the king has already moved, or
b. with a rook that has already moved
c. on a particular side once a position is reached where it is impossible to castle on that side by any sequence of legal moves.

Even though c covers a and b I feel that wording spells it out for all players not just people like you, me and Kevin. ;)



Then the last paragraph of Article 9.2 might need a tidy up to read:

Positions as in (a) and (b) 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 on either side has changed (Refer Art 3.8.ii.(3)).
I'd leave out the "(Refer Art 3.8.ii.(3))".

Rincewind
18-08-2004, 06:48 PM
I am doing this and I have used Barry's wording.

NB The words were Bill's, I just rearranged them but I didn't add enough to call them mine.


Black plays 1...Qe6+ 2.Kf7 Qf6+ 3.Ke8 Qe6+ 4.Kf7 Qf6+ 5.Ke8 and writes 5...Qe6+ on his scoresheet and claims a draw.

As per Garvin's message above, do you mean Kf2-Ke1-Kf2-Ke1 ?

Bill Gletsos
18-08-2004, 06:48 PM
is the notation an error?
Yes.

Bill Gletsos
18-08-2004, 06:51 PM
NB The words were Bill's, I just rearranged them but I didn't add enough to call them mine.
Let's call them ours.
Your changes certainly made it clearer.


As per Garvin's message above, do you mean Kf2-Ke1-Kf2-Ke1 ?
I'm sure he does.

Rincewind
18-08-2004, 06:55 PM
Seriously I thing removing the word illegal as he has done and replacing it by right to castle makes it clearer.

The reason I prefer to separate the two sub-articles is I see it has separate issues. One is to define when one can and cannot castle. So in keeping with the current structure the propose of each sub-article is as follows:

Art.3.8.ii
(1) defines permanent impediments to castling,
(2) defines temporary impediments, and
(3) my proposed new amendment simply defines the term "right to castle".


I'd leave out the "(Refer Art 3.8.ii.(3))".

I can live with that. ;)

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2004, 02:05 AM
As per Garvin's message above, do you mean Kf2-Ke1-Kf2-Ke1 ?

Yes. I was working off a board turned upside down.

I'll edit it above. Haven't sent the thing to Geurt yet, will do so in a few days.

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2004, 02:17 AM
Might use Bill's revised version of Barry's revision of Bill's wording instead. :D Anyway I'll leave it for a few days to see if there are more comments.

Kevin Bonham
16-12-2004, 07:16 AM
Geurt has finally discussed this issue in his most recent column. It appears that he and Reuben have a difference of opinion on this question. In the case where castling has been permanently prevented with any series of legal moves, but where the king and rook have not yet moved, Reuben thinks the positions are identical and the draw should be awarded while Gijssen thinks otherwise, and the situation is being referred to the Rules Committee. Despite this Gijssen "answers" my question and our suggestion that the rule should be clarified by saying that the issue is already covered. :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
16-12-2004, 12:23 PM
Geurt has finally discussed this issue in his most recent column. It appears that he and Reuben have a difference of opinion on this question. In the case where castling has been permanently prevented with any series of legal moves, but where the king and rook have not yet moved, Reuben thinks the positions are identical and the draw should be awarded while Gijssen thinks otherwise, and the situation is being referred to the Rules Committee. Despite this Gijssen "answers" my question and our suggestion that the rule should be clarified by saying that the issue is already covered. :rolleyes:
I'm inclined to agree with Stewart.
As for Geurt's response to you, it was no answer at all.
If it was clearly covered there would be no need to refer the situation to the Rules Commission for a definitive ruling.

arosar
16-12-2004, 12:33 PM
This Gijssen bloke is just Gijssen. Yet there are some people who write to him who sound like they would genuflect to the bastard.

AR

Kevin Bonham
17-12-2004, 12:57 PM
As for Geurt's response to you, it was no answer at all.
If it was clearly covered there would be no need to refer the situation to the Rules Commission for a definitive ruling.

I completely agree.

True_Falcon
27-12-2004, 11:32 AM
What is meant by "right to castle," a term which occurs only once (Article 9.2) in the Laws and is nowhere defined?

The word 'right' seems to suggest to many people some sort of court-awarded privelege. I submit that the term should be replaced with 'possibilities of castling.'

In article 3.8.ii, it should be stated that each player may castlie only once per game and at the outset there are two possibilites for castling for each player.

3.8.ii.1 needs some clarification. I propose something along these lines:

a king move reduces possibilities to zero.

each king rook move reduces possibilities by one.
each queen rook move reduces possibilities by one.

3.8.ii.2 A temporary prevention of castling does not reduce the number of possibilites. However, if it can be positively demonstrated that either or both of the possibilities "cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves' even though the king or rook(s) have not moved, then those possibility(s) shall immediately be deemed as lost.

During the game each player can have 2, 1, or 0 possibilites ways to castle. For the purpose of position repetition, it should be stated that these numbers must be the same for each player at each alleged repeat position.

This is the same as stating that the "set of all possible sub-games from that point forward are equal" - no more, no fewer, and none modified.

:)