Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 04:41:10 03/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2002 at 05:17:55, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On March 06, 2002 at 05:14:57, Bernhard Bauer wrote: > >>Do you really think the Washington Post gave the position in EPD? > >I don't know what the Washington Post gave, but the position >as posted here was not correct. > >If they only have the diagram, it was ambiguous. With a little guesswork you could have got it right. Newspapers normally give diagrams, only, which do neither specify the side to move, nor castling or ep status. The side to move will be stated in the text/stipulation, but castling and ep are normally not mentioned. That is standard for chess problems also in chess magazines. But it also not ambiguous, since (for chess problems) there is a rule for this: if you cannot prove the absence of a castling right (or possibility to capture ep), then you have to assume that right. There are some special cases, which are really complicated, but the above is the general rule, and mostly sufficient. Cheers, Heiner
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.