Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:38:00 06/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2003 at 13:14:46, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Bob, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 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"??? > >sorry, excuse my bad english, but the above part that was what I remember about >castling rules, I am not an organized chess player, I just play it for fun, so I >am definitely not too competent in rules... so keep patience... -> in my opinion >up to here I would have been right, because the "possible moves of all pieces of >both players are the same" - Castlings are not possible, NOT in this position... OK... I see your confusion. I've never seen the rule interpreted that way, although apparently it has happened for the rule to be changed to explicitly mention castling status... >But seems that those which wrote the rules have had equal thoughts then I and >for that they added the following chapter to stop confusion... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 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 >>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > >>> but the next one declares that I am wrong... so all fine with me, because >>> Quark is doing it correctly... :) > >so can you tell me now what I where my fault is in my statemant - as a concluson >I DID write that I am wrong... -> or was it you who did not read the entire >posting ? > >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.