Random Dog Tournament: Round 1 Match (evert823 v Marks1420)

Spectators, please do not comment on the game. The conversation is between evert, Drom, and I

In this position, after Bxh4, TTxg2 looks perfectly legal. The TT can see where the bishop came from before and after the move. In the position quoted in post 39, the TT cannot see where the bishop came from before and after the move.

I think the final and best way to phrase this question is: Is the TT required to see the square where a piece moved from BOTH before and after that piece moved from the square to be able to execute its postponed capture?

As far as I can tell, this question is not answered in the rules you linked.

Yes that's what I am saying. To be more precisely, we must these steps in this order:

1. Consider the position before Bxe4

2. Answer the question: can the TT see the Bishop in this position yes or no?

3. Answer from step 2 is yes

4. Do move Bxe4 so Witch is now gone

5. You can take back wit TTxg2 because of step 3 answer is yes

In the rules it is written that:

If an enemy piece is in reach of the Time Thief, and does a move, the Time Thief can as response revert the entire move and then capture the piece.

I agree that I never gave an example with a Witch on the board that is getting captured. But already from this sentence, to me, it is obvious, that you need to judge the position before the piece, which the TT wants to capture, did the move.

Pls have a look at post #7 of the very same topic:

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/the-time-thief-explained-v2#comment-44784014

This post ends with this sentence: "Whether the Time Thief sees square i7 or not, is to be judged before black moves the pawn."

That confirms the explanation that I'm giving now for this situation with the Witch.

In all honesty, I tried rendering a verdict as the gamehost when I may not have been the most fit to do so. First, I said, yes. Then, I said no. After that, I was exactly where I first started: unsure.

I don't blame Marks: I tried making a decision that was valid and unvalid both ways!

If anything, I should have just let Evert speak his decision (this is, after all, his Bulldog creation!) and left it at that.

I have crossed out my earlier post rendering my unfinal verdicts. Please carry on.

I am by the way interested in having the rules consistent and elegant. I don't know if there's a problem with this game now, but I am not interested in getting an advantage in this game, because Marks has a different reading of the rules.

My opinion about how the rules actually are though is very strong

And, they make sense.

To me, it really is just a matter of what the Creator says.

Chess variant Innovators and Inventors, including myself, come across this all the time: unforeseen holes and/or conflicts in our rules pop up at times when we wish we saw it earlier.

(I won't begin explaining what a dread the process of inventing my Deserted Empire variant is!)

Anyways, Evert, much kudos and appreciation for putting an end to this mystery and clarifying for us.

Please carry on with the match, folks.

I can see how it might come across that I think that TTxg4 shouldn't be allowed, but actually I was just trying to be clear on the rules. The game is in good standing to me- I'll think about a different move and make one soon

12... h6

i3

13... 0-0-0

MM to attack mode

14... i5

TTe2

MMi7

Long castle, so my King ends on c1

16... Bxa2

TTa6