@Arisktotle
But the self reference could be cleared up as I previously mentione by saying the player could not checkmate by any sequence of moves in the absence of the rule.
I'm interpreting it as "series" as in English, "legal move" as defined. I would credit FIDE with the interpretation rather than myself.
"My conclusion is different. You started on the wrong foot by assuming that the moves in a "series of legal moves" were any different from the series of moves in a game and you therefore ended in an absurd place. I am quite willing to bet all my possessions that FIDE never intended one-colour move series in 5.2.2. It is just anti-chess."
I am certain of that too. They explicitly say the players cannot effect the checkmate in 5.2.2, rather than no series of legal moves leads to checkmate. The players cannot play one-colour series of legal moves because they are prohibited by arts 1.2 and 4. There is no such restriction on a series of legal moves in general.
It's not the FIDE laws I'm objecting to or that lead to absurd situations. It's your proposed wording. You have to make it clear somehow that the sequences you are considering are still subject to at least arts. 1.2 and 4 (as potential continuations) or at least explicitly restrict them to conforming with potential continuations.
You also have difficulties explaining how it could possibly be checkmate after a series of legal moves that are not associated with a potential game continuation, because this is defined in arts 1.4 "The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move" and 1.4.1 "The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game". It is difficult to see how a series of moves that is not a potential game continuation would satisfy those.
What you refer to in 5.2.2. is FIDE's way of dealing with perceived self-reference (I think). And indeed, if you read it that way there is no self-reference. But avoiding self-reference by "not actually playing the moves" does not imply a different process for generating candidate moves. Whether it says so or not in english, I cannot visualize any reason for deviating from the standard alternating move prescription per 1.2.
The sequences I consider as "analytical" (I hope this is what you mean) are straight copies of all sequences generated with the rules selecting or pertaining to legal moves - with the exception of DP-termination. You might say the game is continued on an adjacent board with the same chess rules but without dead positions. The outcome on that board is mapped back to our primary game board (if dead).
Note that I wrote a long time ago that you need an absolute termination point for such a shadow analysis, e.g. a billion move maximum.
In itself article 4 is not that interesting as its operation only commences after the playability of a move is established by other rules such as legality. So the focus is on the latter. Also, nothing can go wrong when playing an analytical move. We need no process, only the outcome of the move.
In my view there are 2 big reasons for not including certain parts and details in the laws: (1) they are not there because they are indeed unwanted (2) they are not there because their resolution is considered self-evident in the light of the other laws and the meta descriptions such as in article 1.
In my view the 2nd point applies to the understanding of phrases such as "series of legal moves". They are to be interpreted in context. You can't get to the bottom of the FIDE laws without a good understanding of what chess is about. For instance, no chess player could ever analyze a position by "playing" 3 white moves in a row, followed by 4 black moves. Their stomachs would turn, they would vomit and get sick. FIDE would never prescribe that to determine a game score. It is not part of the character of chess. And it is so totally obvious that no one would ever think of clarifying such a point in the laws. That is why the laws are not any more precise on this topic than they are right now.
@danielbaechli: The latter paragraph describes precisely what I tried to communicate to MARattigan - strongest in my last post. No chessplayer would ever think something else or read something else in the rules.
@danielbaechli: The latter paragraph describes precisely what I tried to communicate to MARattigan - strongest in my last post. No chessplayer would ever think something else or read something else in the rules.
I think a set of rules for a game is usually intended to communicate how the game is played to someone who does not play the game as well as act as a reference for those who do. It shouldn't require the reader to be a player of the game before it can be interpreted.
I don't see any imprecision in the meaning of "series of legal moves". The definition of "legal move" in the handbook is considerably more precise than, for example, the definitions and postulates/common notions in Euclid's "Elements" - and everyone, chess player or not, knows what a series is.
Nevertheless, many chess players (probably only chess players) often think that "series of legal moves" requires its own definition. This is apparently because the phrase as naturally understood includes series of moves that do not necessarily alternate in colour. This is not actually a problem with the FIDE rules. It comes of the person asking for a definition overlooking art. 4.
You say:
In itself article 4 is not that interesting as its operation only commences after the playability of a move is established by other rules such as legality.
But it's only art. 4 which mandates that series of legal moves that occur during play alternate in colour.
Specifically:
if the player having the move touches on the chessboard,with the intention of moving or capturing:
one or more of his own pieces, he must move the first piece touched that can be moved
one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured
If the player touches an opponent's piece, then he must capture it, which can only be done by a legal move (according to the definition of legal move) if that is a legal move of one of his own pieces. It follows that a series of legal moves that occur in play must alternate in colour.
Rules that actually refer to series of legal moves in the handbook are couched as, "... the player(s) can(not) ... by any series of legal moves". This is intended to mean, and would be taken to mean by almost all readers (chess players or otherwise), "... the player(s) can(not) ... by any series of legal moves, as a continuation of the game under the rules in force (including art. 4)". In that case the series of legal moves would also necessarily alternate in colour.
I think FIDE's approach here is perfectly acceptable. That's why I objected to your rewording.
Having said that, I think art. 4 itself does include several flaws that need fixing.
The term "legal move" is defined in the rules and can be a move by either colour. The term series is not defined, therefore must be taken in its normal English sense. A series of legal moves is hence just one defined legal move, as defined, after another (necessarily a finite number of times because no position is defined after an infinite sequence).
[...]
Just this point. The "series of legal moves" per my understanding must also consider 6.2.1. FIDE rules relate to OTB play only.
"6.2.1 During the game each player, having made his move on the chessboard, shall stop his own clock and start his opponent's clock (that is to say, he shall press
his clock). This 'completes' the move. A move is also completed if:
6.2.1.1 [...]
6.2.1.2 the player has made his next move, when his previous move was not completed."
This rule is looked at literally a problem, as initially in the rules the term "legal move" is defined. To look at a "legal move" intrinsically requires that the action is completed, for it does not make much sense to look at something, which is not completed per my opinion. So as "move" already contains the notion of completeness, it is most distracting to introduce later that a move must also be "completed".
As you say art. 6 must also be be taken into account, but this section interacts with art. 4 which already needs fixing, so I wouldn't like to comment on the implications without that being done.
To start at the beginning: art 4.3 starts "Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard ...". The player having the move is defined in art. 1.3 "A player is said to ‘have the move’ when his opponent’s move has been ‘made’". A player having 'made' a move is (partially only) defined in arts. 4.7-4.7.3.
When the game starts White must move, by art. 1.2 "The player with the light-coloured pieces (White) makes the first move, then the players move alternately, with the player with the dark-coloured pieces (Black) making the next move", but he doesn't have the move as defined in art. 1.3, because at the start his opponent has made no move, so art. 4 doesn't apply and he is free to do all manner of things that his opponent might object to, including moving one of said opponent's pieces.
There is quite a lot more ...
I think, as you say, that art. 6 introduces a second move termination definition and this, confusing as it may be, is deliberate on FIDE's part and designed to cover play with clocks in competition games, but as I said earlier I'll refrain from commenting on the implications.
Per my understanding "series of legal moves" can only be meant as "series of completed legal moves". Then formally such series must be alternating, as completing the move requires the interaction of the opponent. 6.2.1.2 can make things more complicate, but this rule was created with another intention (player making a move without pressing the clock, leaving the board, coming back, making another move for he thinks the opponent moved, see Arbiter's manual) so to evaluate here for me goes too far.
Certainly a series of legal moves would assume the completion of each, because the legal moves available for each place in the sequence depend on the position after the preceding moves. But the position after a series of moves that is not assumed to be played or potentially played would not require interaction with the opponent, nor would it be subject to art. 4. The position after such a sequence would still be well defined, though for some sequences not achievable in game play.
Also checkmate or stalemate positions occurring during a sequence of legal moves would immediately terminate a game were they played, but wouldn't automatically terminate the sequence if it's not assumed to be game play. (In fact I don't think you could talk about checkmate or stalemate for a sequence not in the context of game play.)
Personally, I agree the wording "series of legal moves" is imprecise, but I cannot imagine that ever something else was meant as a series of moves of one player, with existing legal intervening moves of the other player, or just simply a series of moves as in gameplay.
I don't think it is imprecise. See my post #217 above, para 2. In the FIDE rules it is always used to mean what you want it to mean. @Arisktotle's proposed amendment would change that.
@MARattigan:
Of course you are right about the entrance condition for article 4 and I was wrong. Article 4 is entered when the player on move has been established, not the intended move.
In my view, it is article 1.2 which establishes that players move alternately. Article 4 only concerns itself with the execution of one single move, i.e. the move played by the player on move. There is a modern day condition which shows that the content of article 4 must be irrelevant for issues such as legality or move series. It is the computer interface. Almost nothing remains of article 4 when the game is played with an infallible computer-interface. The issues we discussed however, are insensitive to a computer environment. Which means that nothing we do or evaluate in chess with regard to things as legality and move series can ever be dependent on article 4. You cannot expect chessplayers to consult an article with conditions they never meet to draw conclusions about conditions they do meet. Article 4 is in a subspace all of its own for the handling of single moves without reference to "move series".
In theory you are right. If you are not acquainted with the law you can pick up a lawbook and read it cover to cover to resolve your legal issue. Ever met someone who did? You would hope that rulebooks for games like chess are better. And they certainly are. But they are still written by authors who played chess all their lives and mostly in possession of college degrees. And a massive mental/neural framework with their advanced understanding of the game. And whatever they try, they don't completely succeed in resetting themselves to the level of newbies when explaining the rules. Some things are so obvious that they miss them by lack of contrast in their own mind. In life these things resolve by communication with likeminded individuals but if you were to study chess from an iglo on Mars, you might go wrong in very unexpected ways. FIDE won't care because you are unlikely to show up at their tournaments!
The remainder of your comment is abacadabra to me. Do you state that the "series of legal moves" for death evaluations alternate between black and white or not?
In fact, article 6 is part of the competition rules. Nothing vital to chess can be in the competition rules because many games are played outside competitions. So whatever article 6 says cannot have implications for the understanding of the rules of the standard chess game.
What you probably intended to write is that you cannot lose a game on the clock when you can't be checkmated. That is true. It is equivalent to a "dead position" and all the issues are the same as for dead positions. Solve them there and they are solved here!
Completion and termination of moves is only relevant within article 4 (and 6 for competitions) but has zero impact on move legality or move series or anything else. The point is that for the other articles you only need to know that a move was completed and not how. The completion of a move changes the side to move next so you always know who is on move.
Things are simple unless you wish to complicate them.
@Arisktotle
"Of course you are right about the entrance condition for article 4 and I was wrong. Article 4 is entered when the player on move has been established, not the intended move."
Agreed. [edit: crap deleted.] Somewhere it should be made clear also that art. 4 applies to the initial move of the game.
"In my view, it is article 1.2 which establishes that players move alternately."
Yes, exactly, but it doesn't establish that they move their own pieces alternately. That is art 4.
"There is a modern day condition which shows that the content of article 4 must be irrelevant for issues such as legality or move series. It is the computer interface. Almost nothing remains of article 4 when the game is played with an infallible computer-interface. The issues we discussed however, are insensitive to a computer environment. Which means that nothing we do or evaluate in chess with regard to things as legality and move series can ever be dependent on article 4. "
Disagree here. Computer simulations of chess are not chess according to the FIDE laws. As you say, almost nothing of art. 4 is emulated (though they do enforce alternation of colours in the moves). I would say instead that the computer interface is irrelevant to a discussion of legality or move series according to the FIDE laws (either in the natural sense or the technical sense defined in the laws).
"You cannot expect chessplayers to consult an article with conditions they never meet to draw conclusions about conditions they do meet."
True. For seasoned chess players or people consulting the FIDE laws find out how to play chess, the FIDE laws will not reliably allow them to draw conclusions about games that don't follow the FIDE laws (whether it be computer simulations of chess or Bezique). I don't expect it.
"The issues we discussed however, are insensitive to a computer environment. Which means that nothing we do or evaluate in chess with regard to things as legality and move series can ever be dependent on article 4. "
Your conclusion appears to me to be a non-sequitur. In drawing conclusions about legality or move series in regard to the FIDE laws, computer emulations which don't conform (all) are definitely irrelevant. Conclusions about legality are, of course, not dependent on article 4 because the conditions for legality are completely contained in article 3. But you can draw conclusions such as "the move series in a game of chess alternate the colours of the pieces moved", from art. 4 (in conjunction with art 1.2).
"You cannot expect chessplayers to consult an article with conditions they never meet to draw conclusions about conditions they do meet."
Well certainly the FIDE laws will not help anyone cope with conditions in the Antarctic, whether they be seasoned chess players or more interested in Badminton. They're not meant to. They're intended only to define FIDE's official version of chess.
'Article 4 is in a subspace all of its own for the handling of single moves without reference to "move series"'
Well, art.4 doesn't mention "series of moves", so I'll just have to believe you there.
"In theory you are right. If you are not acquainted with the law you can pick up a lawbook and read it cover to cover to resolve your legal issue. Ever met someone who did?"
Can't say I did. Ramanujan picked up some elementary mathematics books and come up with some amazing stuff. Never met him either.
"You would hope tha ...ed ways. FIDE won't care because you are unlikely to show up at their tournaments!"
Agreed. There are a number of flaws in the FIDE laws (see e.g. my reply to @danielbaechli).
"The remainder of your comment is abacadabra to me. Do you state that the "series of legal moves" for death evaluations alternate between black and white or not?"
If it is postulated that the series of legal moves is a possible game continuation (the players can ...) then yes (by arts. 1.2 and 4). If it is not postulated that the series of moves is a possible game continuation then not only no, but the definitions of stalemate and checkmate do not work.
Checkmate:
Art. 1.4 The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move.
Art 1.4.1 The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game.
Without alternation of move colours (only provided by arts. 1.2 and 4, which don't apply to a series of legal moves except as occuring in a game or postulated game continuation) , in most cases moving the mating piece back where it came would be a legal move that could continue series. But in any case the player that is supposed to have no legal move doesn't even have the move because he's not assumed to be playing. Neither has his opponent placed him in that position because he's not assumed to be playing either; the position is simply the result of a series of moves applied to a position that has occurred in play.
Stalemate:
Art. 5.2.1 The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check
So if nobody is assumed to be playing, whose move is it? A player "has" the move, when his opponent's move has been "made". But his opponent isn't playing either.
@Arisktotle @danielbaechli
I just remembered that there is one rule that refers to 'series of legal moves' and is not of the form "... the player(s) can(not) ... by any series of legal moves".
This is art. 3.10.3 A position is illegal when it cannot have been reached by any series of legal moves
From my reading that is exactly Arisktotle's analytic series. There is no implication that the moves are actually or potentially played under the rules.
This has little impact, because, having defined the term "illegal position" they don't use it in any rule of play or any definition used in rules of play so it has zero effect on how the games are defined.
(Strictly speaking they don't define "illegal position" because they nowhere define "position" used in this sense and there could be many interpretations. They only define when a position is illegal. So if, in someone's view, a hairy long nosed armadillo is classed as a position then it would be an illegal position.)
The term "illegal position" is subsequently used once in in an arbiter's rule for rapid play chess.
Art A.4.4 If the arbiter observes both kings are in check, or a pawn on the rank furthest from its starting position, he shall wait until the next move is completed. Then, if an illegal position is still on the board, he shall declare the game drawn.
This rule itself strikes me as rather strange no matter how you take 3.10.3.
Of course FIDE is free to define terms however they like, but I don't think 3.10.3 is exactly what they intended to define.
I never knew of the rule change, I always thought it was 50 moves without a capture or pawn move.
I never knew of the rule change, I always thought it was 50 moves without a capture or pawn move.
It used to be 50 moves and still is for games played under competition rules. The 50 move rule has disappeared for games not played under competition rules. But the 50 move rule is only a draw if somebody claims it. There is a new 75 move rule for games played under competition rules and that rule is automatic, you don't claim it the game just stops.
But you probably can't find any computer interfaces that implement it correctly. They generally stop the game after 50 moves willy nilly.
Hi guys what shold we do
@MARratigan only on 3.10.3:
Yes, illegal positions are non-algorithmic targets. You can't get there thru the production rules of the game, only by entering the complementary space of the system which is defined by the language. The same is true for the famous Gödel sentence.
The language space is irrelevant for game play because in games you can only get to where you can get. Many chess players have no clue about illegal positions until you bring it to their attention because they will never see them in their games. But it is different for compositions. Positions in random diagrams are parachute landings at midnight. You have no clue whether you are on or off target, all you can do is try to find out. And I have no clue why these places are in the FIDE game rules because game players have no parachutes!
Btw, essentially the same applies to "illegal moves". Article 4 is designed to protect us from ever having to deal with an illegal or incomplete move in any other article. To achieve that, article 4 needs to address actions and conditions which relate to phases in moves and which I often describe as "subatomic" when completed moves are considered "atomic" though this is obviously a metaphor. When you leave article 4, the move is complete and legal - aside from discussions about the difference between legality and playability. The point in this context is that the number of different transgressions outside the approved move space is potentially infinite and article 4 can only address corrections to some of them to avoid blanket verdicts like "if you do anything wrong you lose the game".
@MARratigan only on 3.10.3:
Yes, illegal positions are non-algorithmic targets. You can't get there thru the production rules of the game, only by entering the complementary space of the system which is defined by the language. ...
The language space is irrelevant for game play because in games you can only get to where you can get. ...
Exactly. (There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.)
Here you use "illegal position" with its natural meaning in English
Since FIDE define the meaning of "legal" and "illegal" (of moves and positions) for use in the laws and these don't correspond with the natural English meanings, can I suggest that we use the terms "licit" and "illicit" to refer to the natural meanings (different for each game defined).
FIDE then couldn't use the terms "licit move" or "licit position" within those articles in the laws that are rules of play for the reasons you state.
This is, I think, why FIDE restricted "legal move" to a limited set of articles that don't themselves contain the term.
Btw, essentially the same applies to "illegal moves". Article 4 is designed to protect us from ever having to deal with an illegal or incomplete move in any other article.
Yes, though the term "illegal move" is, in fact, used in many other articles. In particular 5.2.2.
I personally think these other uses would all be better dropped. E.g.
5.2.2 The game is drawn if neither player could be mated in any continuation from the position, were this article ignored. The game is said to end in a 'dead position'. This immediately ends the game.
The apparent self reference here is illusory. The remaining articles could be explicitly listed. Note that I've also dropped the phrase "provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 — 4.7" as redundant. (If the reference were necessary, arts. 1.2 and 1.3 at least should have also been mentioned.)
To achieve that, article 4 needs to address actions and conditions which relate to phases in moves and which I often describe as "subatomic" when completed moves are considered "atomic" though this is obviously a metaphor. When you leave article 4, the move is complete and legal - aside from discussions about the difference between legality and playability.
Yes (with some flaws in the FIDE wording corrected).
The point in this context is that the number of different transgressions outside the approved move space is potentially infinite and article 4 can only address corrections to some of them to avoid blanket verdicts like "if you do anything wrong you lose the game".
I'm not sure that art. 4 is intended to address any transgressions. I think if you play the piano on your pieces when it's your turn, for example, that's OK, just so long as you finish up making a legal move with the first key.
If you touch one of your opponent's pieces and release it on a square (whether that would constitute a legal move for the piece or not) that's also OK, but your move is not 'made' until you have released one of your own pieces on the starting square and removed said opponent's piece from the board or, if that is not possible, returned it to it's starting square and 'made' another legal move.
It is unusual for us to have so much consensus on FIDE law issues! Roberto Osorio once identified a number of transgressions requiring correction or completion as per article 4 and he designed a system to make the intermediate phases and the corrections available to composers. He called it MDR - minumum deviations of the rules. Unfortunately I haven't seen MDR in action anymore lately.
Anyway, article 4 is indeed primarily about the procedures for the correct execution of (the phases of) the move. The handling of transgressions is a necessary evil to accompany them - at least in OTB play.
Transgressions are typically diagnosed when a player pushes the clock per the competition rules. He claims he legally completed the move but his actions on the board say he did not. It's a contradiction which cannot pass uncorrected. I'm in favor of introducing a "completion clock" when there is no ordinary chess clock active in an OTB game. It is pushed only to assert completion not to manage your time. That facilitates identifying the point where an arbiter might step in and the correction or completion steps should commence.
Btw, I'll be back on the issues around "legal moves" when aswering your earlier post.
"The remainder of your comment is abacadabra to me. Do you state that the "series of legal moves" for death evaluations alternate between black and white or not?"
If it is postulated that the series of legal moves is a possible game continuation (the players can ...) then yes (by arts. 1.2 and 4). If it is not postulated that the series of moves is a possible game continuation then not only no, but the definitions of stalemate and checkmate do not work.
I pick up the issues point by point, otherwise the comments are too long.
The reply you give here is a court case reply. It serves to defend a client by creating maximum confusion. But the reply is fake. I pose a fully defined question about a fully defined and common situation in chess games. And your answer is "If........" (the rest is irrelevant) pretending that somebody should resolve this situation for you. Nobody will of course. If you knew the answer was somewhere in the rules, then you should have given it. By not doing so your actual statement is that you consider the situation undecidable - with the current rules in hand. Now that is a weird statement. The only thing article 5.2.2. aims to do is to provide a procedure to answer that question and you state that is does not. Not only in one instance but in probably every instance since no process survives your undecidibility. Which can only mean one thing. You didn't understand what FIDE tries to achieve with this article, not even the first decimal. If you al least understood it you could have identified the parts of the law which are imprecise or missing and suggest the required corrections to make the article workable - as you did in other cases. And then you could also answer my question unconditionally and unambiguously. So that is where we are. You can't figure out how chess works from an imperfect but not all too complex handbook. How did you ever get to understand a book of law?
Ah, you don't find 5.2.2. unclear apart from the self-reference. But that is precisely what I have been addressing as unclear! You can verify that in the comments preceding our current discussion. It has everything to do with the definition and distinction of analytical moves and legal moves!
If you wish to subscribe to an unworkable system with your interpretation of a "series of legal moves" you are free to do so. You yourself pointed out the issues it raises with regard to your own example diagrams. I suppose it is common in the field of law to take everything literally until you land in a spot of trouble and then start resolving the remaining issues. Lawyers and judges do this because it is the only way to go for them. They lack the authority to address the legal source of the problems. I am not in need of such restrictions. I know for sure that certain things happen unintended and I need not comply with absurdities. In fact, I know for sure as well that arbiters will not comply with these absurdities. This is a warm human domicile, not a cold courtroom.