From: richardr@sco.COM (Richard Robinson)
Subject: Re: Castling and Check
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:15:22 GMT


In article <1992Jul20.235847.14002@husc3.harvard.edu> elkies@ramanujan.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) writes:
>In article <92202.193309U13054@uicvm.uic.edu>
>U13054@uicvm.uic.edu (Howard Wachtel) writes:
>:>Fortunately, opposing players are no
>:>longer able to promote their Rook Pawns to Rooks of your color, so the
>:>question of whether you could thereafter castle with these new Rooks is
>:>now moot.  (It was an amusing puzzler for some time way back when.)
>
>E.g. White Kh5,Rf7,g7; Black Kh7,Rh8: White to mate in 1.
>
>:    Really?  Was there ever a time when it was legal to promote a pawn to
>:a piece of the _opposite_ color?
>
>Apparently so, according to Hooper and Whyld's _Oxford Companion to Chess_.
>I don't remember when they say this rule was finally abolished, but I'd
>expect it was well before the rules were first codified by FIDE.  Krabbe's
>_Chess Curiosities_ mentions this too, and does not give an example of
>an occurrence in serious play (as he does for promotions to B and R, and
>castling on the 46th move), so presumably none is known.
>
>:>Also, you may not castle super-long with a newly-promoted Rook on your
>:>own King 8.
>:
>:   Right, but once I read a problem in which such "super-long castling"
>:was involved in which the author incorrectly claimed that it _was_
>:legal to do so.
>
>Probably when the problem was composed it was in fact legal, or at
>least not clearly excluded by the official rules.
>
>:Can you find it in the rulebook?  Answer: in article I.7.A.2:
>:
>:   "...the king is transferred from its original square two squares
>:toward either rook on the same rank; then that rook is {...}"
>:                               ^^^^
>:   The use of the word "rank" in this rule seems to be the only
>:place in the rulebook that would eliminate the possiblity of "super-
>:long" castling.
>
>...and according to Krabbe' was only inserted into the rulebook after
>the composer of the problem had pointed out the gap.  [I posted a
>mate-in-two requiring 1.e8=R and 2.mate by "super-long" castling
>not too long ago, but it was clearly labeled as a joke.]
>
>"   Since they're working on a new rulebook now, is anyone in favor
>"of changing the rules to allow pawn promotion to the opposite color, or
>""castling" with a promoted Rook at your K8 square?  :-)
>
>No.  On the other hand they would do well to plug another recently
>discovered hole, this one concerning the definition of check: as the
>rules now stand, you're in check if you king is attacked by 1 or 2
>pieces, but not if attacked by 3 or more.  Thus Norman claims a White
>win in the position WKf6,Qe5,g5/BKh8,Rb7,Bh5,Nb8 with 1.g6?! Nd7+ 2.Kf7+
>N:e5++ 3.g7+!!? (Kf7 is no longer in check!) Kh7 4.g8Q+ Kh6 5.Qg7#,
>and Dinort goes one further suggesting that for instance with
>WKf5/BKe8,Qd8,Bf8,Ng8 White mates in two with 1.Ke6 and 2.Ke7!!?
>
>--Noam D. Elkies (elkies@zariski.harvard.edu)
>  Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University



If the rulebook does not use 'exactly 1 or 2' pieces, or synonymous language
I would think that being attacked by 3 or more pieces is still being attacked
by 1 piece.  That is, they are not ruling out the case of being attacked
by more than one piece.  My default interpretation would be that 'attacked 
by 1 piece' should be equivalent to 'attacked by at least one piece'.

richardr
...uunet!sco!richardr


-- 
blah blah