Answers.Body: <h2>Castling &amp; En Passant Conventions</h2>
  <p>Here is a simple chess problem:</p>
  <pre><code>[Title &quot;#2 b) +wPh2 - Pieter ten Cate Die Schwalbe 1970&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;r3k3/B5Q1/8/8/8/7p/8/4K2R w - - 0 1&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  <p>a) 1. Rxh3! threat 2. Rh8# 1. ... O-O-O 2. Rc3#</p>
  <ol>
  <li>O-O? h2+!</li>
  </ol>
  <p>b) [with white pawn added on h2] 1. O-O threat 2. Rf8# 1. ... O-O-O 2. Rc1#</p>
  <ol>
  <li>Rxh3? (blocked)</li>
  </ol>
  <p>This fun miniature with no retro content relies on both players being able to castle. And how do we know that neither player's king or rook has moved? Well we don't, but as long as there exists the theoretical possibility that the rights remain, we can assume that either side may castle.</p>
  <p>This is the castling convention, created to stop pesky legality issues from potentially interfering with problem logic , as in the above example.</p>
  <p>Even if a problem doesn't rely on castling rights for soundness, it's still good for the solver to always know whether they should consider castling in their solving.</p>
  <p>The castling convention is not inherently &quot;retro&quot;, since the check that castling rights may remain is usually trivial (and too tedious to put into words). However, this convention (together with a similar one for e.p.), when combined with exact retro logic, still appears in hundreds of retro problems.</p>
  <p>And there is an e.p. convention too, for example</p>
  <pre><code>[Title &quot;#2 Sergii I. Tkachenko Die Schwalbe 1995&quot;]
  [FEN &quot;8/K2p4/n1pBp1n1/PpPkPp2/1p1N4/1N3P2/B1P1Q3/8 w - - 0 1&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  <p>Thematic try: 1. Sxe6? but: 1. ... f4!</p>
  <p>Key: 1. Sxc6! Kxc6/f4/Sxc5/Sxe5/dxc6 2. Sd4#/De4#/Sxb4#/Se7#/Dd3#</p>
  <p>Can White play 1. axb6ep, cxb6ep or exf6ep at the beginning? None of these turn out to be keys, but since we are up in the air as to whether they are legal, the e.p. convention clarifies, that no we cannot play any of these moves.</p>
  <p><strong>Conventions in the Codex</strong></p>
  <p>These conventions aren't FIDE Laws, but they are codified: you will find them in the <a href="https://www.wfcc.ch/rules/codex/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Codex for Chess Problem Composition</a>.</p>
  <div class="s-table-container"><table class="s-table">
  <thead>
  <tr>
  <th style="text-align: center;">Location</th>
  <th style="text-align: center;">Subject</th>
  <th style="text-align: center;">Content</th>
  </tr>
  </thead>
  <tbody>
  <tr>
  <td style="text-align: center;">Art 16.1</td>
  <td style="text-align: center;">Castling convention</td>
  <td style="text-align: center;">Castling is permitted unless it can be proved that it is not permissible.</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
  <td style="text-align: center;">Art 16.2</td>
  <td style="text-align: center;">En-passant convention</td>
  <td style="text-align: center;">An en-passant capture on the first move is permitted only if it can be proved that the last move was the double step of the pawn which is to be captured.</td>
  </tr>
  </tbody>
  </table></div>
  <p>One important subtlety is that castling doesn't become <em>legal</em> under this convention, it becomes <em>permitted</em>. That means that we cannot simply use the convention statically. For example, if the stipulation asks &quot;what is the last move?&quot;, we can't use the castling convention to imply that it wasn't the king or rook that shifted.</p>
  <p><strong>Optimism vs pessimism</strong></p>
  <p>The castling convention is optimistic: it says that if histories exist for either case, we can definitely castle. The en passant convention is pessimistic: if histories exist for either case, we definitely can't capture e.p.</p>
  <p><strong>How these generalize</strong></p>
  <p>In principle, these optimistic/pessimistic conventions can generalize to many kinds of fairy chess: e.g. fuddled men, shrinking men, pocket pieces, etc. They don't apply to retractors (where you can retract anything that may be legal) or proof games (where you must provide a provably unique history for the position).</p>
  <p><strong>Resolving multiple conditional moves</strong></p>
  <p>What happens if there are multiple conditional moves on the board? There are two main protocols for resolving this situation: RS (Retro Strategy) &amp; PRA (Partial Retro-Analysis). A loose analogy might be to quantum theory: RS is analogous to the Copenhagen Interpretation, while PRA is like the Multiple Worlds Hypothesis.</p>
  <p><strong>RS</strong></p>
  <p>RS says the person to move can make any optimistic move. Then the set of possible histories is reduced to those in which the optimistic move (typically castling) was legal. Normally, pessimistic moves can never be made under RS.</p>
  <p><strong>Example (1) of RS</strong></p>
  <p>An example is that if White &amp; Black castling are mutually exclusive due to some complicated dependencies in the position, then whichever player castles first will prevent the other from ever castling themselves. This common special case of RS is called &quot;mutual exclusion&quot; (or “mutex”).</p>
  <p><strong>Example (2) of RS</strong></p>
  <p>Suppose that we know that Black’s last move was a double hop by c pawn or e pawn, but we don’t know which. So we may know that White can definitely capture ep with wPd5. But under RS White can make neither of these captures, even if White has no other legal moves. So RS is not a helpful paradigm if you want to progress this position. On the other hand it is an interesting corner-case: a position which is not stalemate but there are no playable
  moves.</p>
  <p><strong>PRA</strong></p>
  <p>PRA says we divide the problem into sub-problems (twins) according to the different interpretations of the conditional moves. So if there are three conditional moves, either of which might be allowed or disallowed, then we have 2^3 = 8 possible interpretations. However we discount (1) those which are an illegal combination (2) those where we could be more optimistic or pessimistic as appropriate. For any twin, all the legal rights are sorted out once and for all, before a move is played.</p>
  <p><strong>Example (1) of PRA</strong></p>
  <p>Suppose we have a position where two castlings C1 &amp; C2 are in doubt, and we know that they cannot be both legal. So we start with 4 possible parts: {C1,C2}, {C1}, {C2}, {} where each bracket denotes a set of permitted moves. We can remove {C1,C2} from consideration because it's not a legal combination. We can also remove {} because by optimistically applying the castling convention, this could be improved to {C1} (or equivalently to {C2}). So the problem has two parts {C1} &amp; {C2}.</p>
  <p><strong>Example (2) of PRA</strong></p>
  <p>Suppose we have a position where castling, C, and e.p., EP, are in question, and if e.p. is not permitted, the castling cannot be permitted either. Then the 4 candidates are {C, EP}, {C}, {EP} &amp; {}. We are told that {C} is impossible, so discount it. But consider now {EP}. We could improve that to {C, EP} by the castling convention, or to {} by applying the e.p. convention. Thus we can discount {EP} too. So we are left with two parts: {C, EP} &amp; {}.</p>
  <p><strong>Which applies, RS or PRA?</strong></p>
  <p>These days, PRA is taken to be the default, and if that doesn’t work, then RS is assumed. Yes the judgement whether PRA works out for a problem might be difficult to formalize for a computer program, but that is currently the case.</p>
  <p>This idea that PRA is the default over RS I describe as the “meta-meta-convention” (MMC) which in truth it is.</p>
  <p>This principle dates from 2007 and replaced an earlier idea that RS was always the default, while PRA had to be mentioned by name. So if you come across an older problem, it may be RS without directly saying.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-10T15:17:25.313Z
Answers.Text: And why does RS need any special indication at all? The method does not use anything that requires any agreements.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Элси Ринген
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-10T16:19:12.173Z
Answers.Text: PRA & RS don’t need to be annotated but when there is AP I prefer to add if the protocol is RS
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-10T17:08:04.937Z
Answers.Text: That, by the way, is for nothing. Not all AP tasks have the ability to be proved by the RS method (only those where the ability to make an optimistic move does not depend on making a pessimistic move). And in Vasilenko's problem, your proof directly contradicts the RS principle. Because the proof of RS must be possible in the reality that it excludes.
  
  In general, the inability to prove RS is not a problem for AP tasks.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Элси Ринген
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-10T17:46:17.037Z
Answers.Text: Eureka! I finally realized one brilliant thing. In all AP tasks, the exclusion of an alternate reality is simply NOT REQUIRED. The legality of the reality in which we are performing the task is enough.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Элси Ринген
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-11T10:30:42.690Z
Answers.Text: It seems that the only case of a true Retro Strategy is only the case of the interdependence of white and black castling. Because there really is a strategy there. By making a legal move (castling), deprive the other side of the right to castling. In all other cases, although other realities are eliminated, the situation is different. The elimination of other realities happened along the way. And it was not required to complete the task. To complete the task, it was only necessary to make a legal move (castling). One rule 16.1 is enough for us to do this.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Элси Ринген
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-11T10:54:20.313Z
Answers.Text: While castling & e.p. are the only optimistic & pessimistic moves, then this, but if we generalize then it's different. For example 50 Move Rule & 3 Rep moves are optimistic, and the right does not disappear if not used immediately
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-11T12:19:35.187Z
Answers.Text: Well, this is how it is in a real game of chess. In the retro game, the game stops automatically. Not everyone understands this.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Элси Ринген
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-06-30T07:42:51.283Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-07-11T08:05:05.677Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2024-07-11T08:05:05.677Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.Body: <p>Here is a generalization attempt, since the difference between the two isn't limited to chess, let even castling/e.p.!</p>
  <p>To let pRA/RS rear their pretty head, we only need a) a game, b) a goal set by a composer, c) info about the game state, d) this info is incomplete. As a non-chess example, think of a Go position given to you, you shall win...but where was the last Ko?</p>
  <p>We now have some Schrödinger cat state. Where and how do we fetch the missing information? Two possibilities:</p>
  <p>a) pRA - We don't. We only know that we are able to (finitely) list all states of our Schrödinger cat, and by convention we know that in all states we can reach the goal. The solution is then listing all goal completions. Think of it as Everett Many-World - the wavefunction never collapses.</p>
  <p>b) RS - We force. We make a measurement instead. E.g. by castling, the wavefunction collapses to the state where castling was possible. And we can make it collapse only by measurement, so this is &quot;needed&quot; to &quot;prove&quot; castling was possible at all.</p>
  <p>Thus, the difference between pRA and RS is exactly the difference between Everett and Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics!</p>
  <p>Example from QM to underline my logic: Your goal is to produced some  state |j&gt;+|-j&gt;. You are given some pure |J&gt; on the Bloch sphere, alas, the direction isn't given. You have a Veeblefetzer gate (pat. pend.) turning any |J&gt; into |J&gt;+|-J&gt;.</p>
  <p>pRA: Implement Veeblefetzer by Hadamard+Pauli-X. Goal reached. But you still don't know |J&gt;...but you don't need to either!</p>
  <p>RS: Make a measurement projecting out some preferred |j&gt; (say, |z&gt; is Castling) which you now know. Apply a Hadamard gate. Done.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-01T10:16:19.290Z
Answers.Text: Good to know that we have solved physics. The thing that makes me most cheerful is the thought one can extend RS/PRA to the rest of game state. I wonder if "who has the move" is cleanly part of the rest of state, or like gravity it stubbornly resists incorporation with the other forces
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-01T16:25:01.873Z
Answers.Text: @Laska: "Who has the move" is even FEN part. (I still miss 50 move and threefold indicator, although the latter would be hell to implement.) I wonder if there is at all a retro problem where threefold can play a role. For example, game starting position but after 4 halfmoves, where you can help-draw in less moves than from the "real" starting position.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-01T17:48:19.007Z
Answers.Text: Who has the move is certainly part of FEN but we have Codex Article 15 to handle it as a special case
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-07T14:00:24.963Z
Answers.Text: I note that this is basically a misinterpretation of the PRA Convention itself. The PRA does not consider ALL possible states, but only those where there is a reason for losing an optimistic move or getting a pessimistic one. Plus, the rights must be interdependent, and all parts are mutually exclusive. There are a lot of conditions. Not all partial tasks actually fall under the PRA Convention.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Элси Ринген
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-07T14:05:53.973Z
Answers.Text: In general, this description fits the method of dividing the problem into parts and sequentially solving each part separately. But it is better to call the method itself not PRA, due to the fact that not all cases of such tasks are included in the Convention.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Элси Ринген
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-08T07:07:31.553Z
Answers.Text: @ЭлсиРинген: Correct, but I only gave the basic idea. Chess isn't physics, you can't code "Castling is allowed until proven otherwise" into a wavefunction. You would have to prepare a state <+c+e|+<-c-e> beforehand explicitely. Analogy valid except where not :-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-07-01T10:04:35.310Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-07-01T10:04:35.310Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Hauke Reddmann
Answers.Body: <p>The history of some chess positions can be determined with certainty and some cannot. 
  PRA looks at each alternative history and finds their different solutions.  These typically revolve around if the right to castle exist, then you have some solution; or if last move allows en-passant then another solution exists.</p>
  
  <p>RS involves 'mutual dependency', for example if a pieces existence on a square can mean either one side can't castle or the other side can't castle; Then the first to castle proves the other couldn't.</p>
  
  <p>There is also the AP (a posteriori) convention, which is controversial as the variations can involve moves motivated more toward proving if certain moves are legal than by real chess motivations.</p>
  
  <p>Tim Krabbé's book Chess Curiosities covers these things.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-06-14T18:45:35.337Z
Answers.Text: Thanks for this - can you be specific, please?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Laska
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-06-14T17:54:22.750Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-06-14T17:54:22.750Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Ywapom
Body: <p>Castling &amp; en passant are often called &quot;conditional moves&quot;. In the chess problem world, we frequently hear about the castling &amp; e.p. conventions. What are these exactly, and how are they used? Particularly what does one do if there are multiple conditional moves in the same position.</p>
  <p>Please start off with the basics, and maybe take it as far as explaining the difference between Partial Retrograde Analysis (PRA) and Retro Strategy (RS), two rather intimidating terms that I understand are important for handling multiple conditional moves.</p>
  <p>That seems like the right scope.</p>
  <p>And please put in as many real examples as possible!</p>
  
Tags: <problems><castling><retrograde-analysis><en-passant><a-posteriori>
Title: What are the castling & e.p. conventions, and how are they used?
ThreadText: # What are the castling & e.p. conventions, and how are they used?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-06-12)
  
  Castling & en passant are often called "conditional moves". In the chess problem world, we frequently hear about the castling & e.p. conventions. What are these exactly, and how are they used? Particularly what does one do if there are multiple conditional moves in the same position.
  
  Please start off with the basics, and maybe take it as far as explaining the difference between Partial Retrograde Analysis (PRA) and Retro Strategy (RS), two rather intimidating terms that I understand are important for handling multiple conditional moves.
  
  That seems like the right scope.
  
  And please put in as many real examples as possible!
  
  **Tags:** problems, castling, retrograde-analysis, en-passant, a-posteriori
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_0 on 2024-06-30. Score: 1 | Accepted answer
  
  ## Castling & En Passant Conventions
  
  Here is a simple chess problem:
  
  ```
  [Title "#2 b) +wPh2 - Pieter ten Cate Die Schwalbe 1970"]
  [FEN "r3k3/B5Q1/8/8/8/7p/8/4K2R w - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  a) 1. Rxh3! threat 2. Rh8# 1. ... O-O-O 2. Rc3#
  
  1. O-O? h2+!
  
  b) [with white pawn added on h2] 1. O-O threat 2. Rf8# 1. ... O-O-O 2. Rc1#
  
  1. Rxh3? (blocked)
  
  This fun miniature with no retro content relies on both players being able to castle. And how do we know that neither player's king or rook has moved? Well we don't, but as long as there exists the theoretical possibility that the rights remain, we can assume that either side may castle.
  
  This is the castling convention, created to stop pesky legality issues from potentially interfering with problem logic , as in the above example.
  
  Even if a problem doesn't rely on castling rights for soundness, it's still good for the solver to always know whether they should consider castling in their solving.
  
  The castling convention is not inherently "retro", since the check that castling rights may remain is usually trivial (and too tedious to put into words). However, this convention (together with a similar one for e.p.), when combined with exact retro logic, still appears in hundreds of retro problems.
  
  And there is an e.p. convention too, for example
  
  ```
  [Title "#2 Sergii I. Tkachenko Die Schwalbe 1995"]
  [FEN "8/K2p4/n1pBp1n1/PpPkPp2/1p1N4/1N3P2/B1P1Q3/8 w - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  Thematic try: 1. Sxe6? but: 1. ... f4!
  
  Key: 1. Sxc6! Kxc6/f4/Sxc5/Sxe5/dxc6 2. Sd4#/De4#/Sxb4#/Se7#/Dd3#
  
  Can White play 1. axb6ep, cxb6ep or exf6ep at the beginning? None of these turn out to be keys, but since we are up in the air as to whether they are legal, the e.p. convention clarifies, that no we cannot play any of these moves.
  
  **Conventions in the Codex**
  
  These conventions aren't FIDE Laws, but they are codified: you will find them in the [Codex for Chess Problem Composition](https://www.wfcc.ch/rules/codex/).
  
  | Location | Subject | Content |
  | --- | --- | --- |
  | Art 16.1 | Castling convention | Castling is permitted unless it can be proved that it is not permissible. |
  | Art 16.2 | En-passant convention | An en-passant capture on the first move is permitted only if it can be proved that the last move was the double step of the pawn which is to be captured. |
  
  One important subtlety is that castling doesn't become *legal* under this convention, it becomes *permitted*. That means that we cannot simply use the convention statically. For example, if the stipulation asks "what is the last move?", we can't use the castling convention to imply that it wasn't the king or rook that shifted.
  
  **Optimism vs pessimism**
  
  The castling convention is optimistic: it says that if histories exist for either case, we can definitely castle. The en passant convention is pessimistic: if histories exist for either case, we definitely can't capture e.p.
  
  **How these generalize**
  
  In principle, these optimistic/pessimistic conventions can generalize to many kinds of fairy chess: e.g. fuddled men, shrinking men, pocket pieces, etc. They don't apply to retractors (where you can retract anything that may be legal) or proof games (where you must provide a provably unique history for the position).
  
  **Resolving multiple conditional moves**
  
  What happens if there are multiple conditional moves on the board? There are two main protocols for resolving this situation: RS (Retro Strategy) & PRA (Partial Retro-Analysis). A loose analogy might be to quantum theory: RS is analogous to the Copenhagen Interpretation, while PRA is like the Multiple Worlds Hypothesis.
  
  **RS**
  
  RS says the person to move can make any optimistic move. Then the set of possible histories is reduced to those in which the optimistic move (typically castling) was legal. Normally, pessimistic moves can never be made under RS.
  
  **Example (1) of RS**
  
  An example is that if White & Black castling are mutually exclusive due to some complicated dependencies in the position, then whichever player castles first will prevent the other from ever castling themselves. This common special case of RS is called "mutual exclusion" (or “mutex”).
  
  **Example (2) of RS**
  
  Suppose that we know that Black’s last move was a double hop by c pawn or e pawn, but we don’t know which. So we may know that White can definitely capture ep with wPd5. But under RS White can make neither of these captures, even if White has no other legal moves. So RS is not a helpful paradigm if you want to progress this position. On the other hand it is an interesting corner-case: a position which is not stalemate but there are no playable
  moves.
  
  **PRA**
  
  PRA says we divide the problem into sub-problems (twins) according to the different interpretations of the conditional moves. So if there are three conditional moves, either of which might be allowed or disallowed, then we have 2^3 = 8 possible interpretations. However we discount (1) those which are an illegal combination (2) those where we could be more optimistic or pessimistic as appropriate. For any twin, all the legal rights are sorted out once and for all, before a move is played.
  
  **Example (1) of PRA**
  
  Suppose we have a position where two castlings C1 & C2 are in doubt, and we know that they cannot be both legal. So we start with 4 possible parts: {C1,C2}, {C1}, {C2}, {} where each bracket denotes a set of permitted moves. We can remove {C1,C2} from consideration because it's not a legal combination. We can also remove {} because by optimistically applying the castling convention, this could be improved to {C1} (or equivalently to {C2}). So the problem has two parts {C1} & {C2}.
  
  **Example (2) of PRA**
  
  Suppose we have a position where castling, C, and e.p., EP, are in question, and if e.p. is not permitted, the castling cannot be permitted either. Then the 4 candidates are {C, EP}, {C}, {EP} & {}. We are told that {C} is impossible, so discount it. But consider now {EP}. We could improve that to {C, EP} by the castling convention, or to {} by applying the e.p. convention. Thus we can discount {EP} too. So we are left with two parts: {C, EP} & {}.
  
  **Which applies, RS or PRA?**
  
  These days, PRA is taken to be the default, and if that doesn’t work, then RS is assumed. Yes the judgement whether PRA works out for a problem might be difficult to formalize for a computer program, but that is currently the case.
  
  This idea that PRA is the default over RS I describe as the “meta-meta-convention” (MMC) which in truth it is.
  
  This principle dates from 2007 and replaced an earlier idea that RS was always the default, while PRA had to be mentioned by name. So if you come across an older problem, it may be RS without directly saying.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: And why does RS need any special indication at all? The method does not use anything that requires any agreements.  
  > **username_0**: PRA & RS don’t need to be annotated but when there is AP I prefer to add if the protocol is RS  
  > **username_1**: That, by the way, is for nothing. Not all AP tasks have the ability to be proved by the RS method (only those where the ability to make an optimistic move does not depend on making a pessimistic move). And in Vasilenko's problem, your proof directly contradicts the RS principle. Because the proof of RS must be possible in the reality that it excludes.  In general, the inability to prove RS is not a problem for AP tasks.  
  > **username_1**: Eureka! I finally realized one brilliant thing. In all AP tasks, the exclusion of an alternate reality is simply NOT REQUIRED. The legality of the reality in which we are performing the task is enough.  
  > **username_1**: It seems that the only case of a true Retro Strategy is only the case of the interdependence of white and black castling. Because there really is a strategy there. By making a legal move (castling), deprive the other side of the right to castling. In all other cases, although other realities are eliminated, the situation is different. The elimination of other realities happened along the way. And it was not required to complete the task. To complete the task, it was only necessary to make a legal move (castling). One rule 16.1 is enough for us to do this.  
  > **username_0**: While castling & e.p. are the only optimistic & pessimistic moves, then this, but if we generalize then it's different. For example 50 Move Rule & 3 Rep moves are optimistic, and the right does not disappear if not used immediately  
  > **username_1**: Well, this is how it is in a real game of chess. In the retro game, the game stops automatically. Not everyone understands this.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2024-07-01. Score: 2
  
  Here is a generalization attempt, since the difference between the two isn't limited to chess, let even castling/e.p.!
  
  To let pRA/RS rear their pretty head, we only need a) a game, b) a goal set by a composer, c) info about the game state, d) this info is incomplete. As a non-chess example, think of a Go position given to you, you shall win...but where was the last Ko?
  
  We now have some Schrödinger cat state. Where and how do we fetch the missing information? Two possibilities:
  
  a) pRA - We don't. We only know that we are able to (finitely) list all states of our Schrödinger cat, and by convention we know that in all states we can reach the goal. The solution is then listing all goal completions. Think of it as Everett Many-World - the wavefunction never collapses.
  
  b) RS - We force. We make a measurement instead. E.g. by castling, the wavefunction collapses to the state where castling was possible. And we can make it collapse only by measurement, so this is "needed" to "prove" castling was possible at all.
  
  Thus, the difference between pRA and RS is exactly the difference between Everett and Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics!
  
  Example from QM to underline my logic: Your goal is to produced some state |j>+|-j>. You are given some pure |J> on the Bloch sphere, alas, the direction isn't given. You have a Veeblefetzer gate (pat. pend.) turning any |J> into |J>+|-J>.
  
  pRA: Implement Veeblefetzer by Hadamard+Pauli-X. Goal reached. But you still don't know |J>...but you don't need to either!
  
  RS: Make a measurement projecting out some preferred |j> (say, |z> is Castling) which you now know. Apply a Hadamard gate. Done.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Good to know that we have solved physics. The thing that makes me most cheerful is the thought one can extend RS/PRA to the rest of game state. I wonder if "who has the move" is cleanly part of the rest of state, or like gravity it stubbornly resists incorporation with the other forces  
  > **username_2**: @username_0: "Who has the move" is even FEN part. (I still miss 50 move and threefold indicator, although the latter would be hell to implement.) I wonder if there is at all a retro problem where threefold can play a role. For example, game starting position but after 4 halfmoves, where you can help-draw in less moves than from the "real" starting position.  
  > **username_0**: Who has the move is certainly part of FEN but we have Codex Article 15 to handle it as a special case  
  > **username_1**: I note that this is basically a misinterpretation of the PRA Convention itself. The PRA does not consider ALL possible states, but only those where there is a reason for losing an optimistic move or getting a pessimistic one. Plus, the rights must be interdependent, and all parts are mutually exclusive. There are a lot of conditions. Not all partial tasks actually fall under the PRA Convention.  
  > **username_1**: In general, this description fits the method of dividing the problem into parts and sequentially solving each part separately. But it is better to call the method itself not PRA, due to the fact that not all cases of such tasks are included in the Convention.  
  > **username_2**: @username_1: Correct, but I only gave the basic idea. Chess isn't physics, you can't code "Castling is allowed until proven otherwise" into a wavefunction. You would have to prepare a state <+c+e|+<-c-e> beforehand explicitely. Analogy valid except where not :-)  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2020-06-14. Score: 2
  
  The history of some chess positions can be determined with certainty and some cannot.
  PRA looks at each alternative history and finds their different solutions. These typically revolve around if the right to castle exist, then you have some solution; or if last move allows en-passant then another solution exists.
  
  RS involves 'mutual dependency', for example if a pieces existence on a square can mean either one side can't castle or the other side can't castle; Then the first to castle proves the other couldn't.
  
  There is also the AP (a posteriori) convention, which is controversial as the variations can involve moves motivated more toward proving if certain moves are legal than by real chess motivations.
  
  Tim Krabbé's book Chess Curiosities covers these things.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks for this - can you be specific, please?  
  
  ---
  
  