Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 11:41:02 06/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 13:06:20, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On June 17, 2003 at 12:45:03, Thomas Mayer wrote:
>
>>Hi Martin,
>>
>>[Event "Test game for Andreas"]
>>[Site "Virtually in my head"]
>>[Date "2003.06.17"]
>>[White "Left part of my head v31"]
>>[Black "Right part of my head v31"]
>>[Result "1/2-1/2"]
>>[TimeControl "endless"]
>>1. h3 h6 2. Rh2 Rh7 3. Rh1 Rh8 {in fact this is the first repetition, because
>>of changed castling rights, Quark would think that it is NO repetition}
>>
>>> This is definitely NO repetition because same position means same moving
>>> rights.
>>
>>just a note from the FIDE Chess laws book:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>9.2 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when
>>the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by sequential
>>repetition of moves)
>>
>>a) is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and
>>declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
>>
>>b) has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
>>
>>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.
>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>>so far it would mean that I am right...
>
>How. Re-read (b). Possible moves are the same. But castling is not possible
>in one. So how can that mean you are "right"???
Good grief! Why didn't you read the rest of his post before responding? The key
words he used above that you seem to be ignoring are "so far", then he continues
to quote after the ">>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>" below.
>
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>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
>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
from which he concludes 4 lines further down from here:
>>
>>
>>but the next one declares that I am wrong... so all fine with me, because Quark
>>is doing it correctly... :)
Where he includes what you have redundantly pointed out. Yes?
>>
>>Greets, Thomas
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.