Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:34:46 06/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 14:41:02, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>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.
Why don't you read what I wrote?
His "so far it would mean that I am right" was not correct.
I have no idea why you don't follow that...
It doesn't matter about the "so far". Because the statement to the "so far"
is already wrong...
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>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?
Nope. At the point of his "so far" he is already wrong, which was all I was
pointing out. The requirement "same moves" is enough. Castling status is
not even a point in light of that since losing the right to castle changes the
possible moves in a position...
>
>>>
>>>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.