Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:35:51 06/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 13:20:22, Uri Blass 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"???
>
>
>castling was never a legal move in one of the positions.
>
>You can claim that
>"The possible moves of all the pieces" include possible future moves that are
>impossible in the position, but it is not something clear from the sentence.
>
>It is clear that they meant to say it only from what comes later in the rules.
>
>
OK. It was clear to me from the first sentence what was meant. The
clarification is redundant IMHO, which was my point...
>Uri
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.