well I'm not going to believe anyone that answers in that nasty way
i hope you don't teach your kids to play chess like that!
Does anyone know of a game that was drawn under the mandatory 75 move rule?
Sort:
Arisktotle schreef:
I think you lost me. Of course I agree with your first statement and it is part of my argument. I do not suggest trying to look for infinite series. Infinity is something you always run into unintentionally. The problem of an algorithm going to infinity is that it cannot interrupt itself and say "what I'm doing is silly, I stop" like a human would. And while it's going to infinity it is shouting at every move: "where is the checkmate, where is the checkmate" hoping to find it. Only we know it never will but the algorithm knows not. It can however continue playing "next moves" forever without a repeat rule to stop it.
The algorithm doesn't go to infinity. It stops when a position has been reached twice in the series of moves. Then we can note that the problem of finding a checkmate from that position is already being solved. The number of positions is finite, so eventually the algorithm terminates. Next we can prove that any possible checkmate is found by this algorithm. We know that each series of moves which leads to checkmate has a finite number of moves. So we just take a series with length N and prove that if it leads to checkmate, then that checkmate is found by the algorithm. If that is true for this series, then it is true for all finite series of moves.
Numquam wrote:
The algorithm doesn't go to infinity. It stops when a position has been reached twice in the series of moves. Then we can note that the problem of finding a checkmate from that position is already being solved. The number of positions is finite, so eventually the algorithm terminates.
Yes! That is precisely what I have attempted to communicate in the past posts. You can stop when the same position is reached twice - in all possible variations not just one. But the algorithm must know this and therefore we must tell it that in the form of some automatically terminating repetition rule!
We know that the number of positions is finite but the system cannot find that out from the inference rules. Technically, the state of the system is determined by the whole game and the system cannot know how the ever changing game history affects the actual move options at some point in the game. We know it's only e.p. and castling right and choose to ignore 3REP and 50M claim options as state deciders (old rules). By this knowledge we can reduce potentially infinite games to finite relevant positions.
I guess we are in line again!
Note that you can always write computer programs to do all kinds of things for you (like detecting repetitions) and not include them in the axioms. At that point you effectively introduce you own intelligence to decide issues in the rules - with the consequence that you must do the same to the chess rules you publish. You must explain in some addendum which intelligent thoughts you had to answer certain questions of chessplayers. That does however make little sense when it is much simpler to include an automatic repetition draw in the chess rules.
this could be compiled into a chess phd thesis
Tooezforme wrote:
this could be compiled into a chess phd thesis
Oops! Isn't this the chess phd site? 
Jul 17, 2019
0
#147
Tooezforme escribió:
this could be compiled into a chess phd thesis
I have a Phd thesis on Soviet Chess on my computer
Arisktotle schreef:
Numquam wrote:
The algorithm doesn't go to infinity. It stops when a position has been reached twice in the series of moves. Then we can note that the problem of finding a checkmate from that position is already being solved. The number of positions is finite, so eventually the algorithm terminates.
Yes! That is precisely what I have attempted to communicate in the past posts. You can stop when the same position is reached twice - in all possible variations not just one. But the algorithm must know this and therefore we must tell it that in the form of some automatically terminating repetition rule!
We know that the number of positions is finite but the system cannot find that out from the inference rules. Technically, the state of the system is determined by the whole game and the system cannot know how the ever changing game history affects the actual move options at some point in the game. We know it's only e.p. and castling right and choose to ignore 3REP and 50M claim options as state deciders (old rules). By this knowledge we can reduce potentially infinite games to finite relevant positions.
I guess we are in line again!
Note that you can always write computer programs to do all kinds of things for you (like detecting repetitions) and not include them in the axioms. At that point you effectively introduce you own intelligence to decide issues in the rules - with the consequence that you must do the same to the chess rules you publish. You must explain in some addendum which intelligent thoughts you had to answer certain questions of chessplayers. That does however make little sense when it is much simpler to include an automatic repetition draw in the chess rules.
You always need to prove that the algorithm gives the desired result. Some brute-force algorithm which simply goes through all possibilities is not that interesting, because you can't use it in practice. Defining a dead draw by using such an algorithm isn't any better than the definition in the article I linked.
What you really need is a smart algorithm. A human can often instantly see if a position is dead or not. So it should be possible to create an algorithm which finds 100% of all dead positions which appear in practice. If you can keep enough mating material on the board after the next 5 moves and the path to the king isn't blockaded, then you know in practice that the position is not dead. You don't need to find the checkmate. If there is insufficient mating material, then the algorithm should look for ways to restrict the movement of the king with his own pieces such that a checkmate is possible. Also note that the 75M and 5 REP rules are not included in the dead draw rule and it may not be possible to include these rules without going through all possible moves. It would be hard to prove that such a smart algorithm always finds a checkmate when a checkmate is possible, but it can be used in practice. Therefore it may be better to define a dead draw as a position in which that algorithm does not find a checkmate.
SpiderUnicorn kirjutas:
Is this a dead position?
With perfect play, I think in the first position White would win with either side to play.
White to move: bishop at c7 is unprotected and 1.Kxc7 would leave black king to retreat to ...Kf8. (The other legal move, Qh7, would be followed by gxh7, unblocking the white pawn to queen in one.)
With black king retreated to f8, White king can follow up with picking up the knight by 2.Kxc8, which deprotects pawn at a7. Then race to deprotect them: ...Ke8 3.Kb8 Kd8 4. Kxa7 Kc8 5.Kxb6 Kb8
SpiderUnicorn schreef:
Is this a dead position with Black to move?
Jul 23, 2019
0
#151
MARattigan wrote:
narceleb wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
narceleb wrote:
Yes. NGTOC in Norfolk, Virginia, 2017. Fourth round. VERONIKA ZILAJEVA v. SASHA KONOVALENKO.
Thanks @narceleb. Do you know where I can find a record of the game?
@MARattigan No, but I could ask Veronika if you really want it. As I recall, it was K+R vs. K+B.
I would be really interested if it's still available. I'm interested in whether it actually did draw under the 75 move rule or whether it should have been declared dead a ply or two before.
No. It was legit. Two arbiters watching. Chief Arbiter declared the draw.
Jul 23, 2019
0
#152
narceleb wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
narceleb wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
narceleb wrote:
Yes. NGTOC in Norfolk, Virginia, 2017. Fourth round. VERONIKA ZILAJEVA v. SASHA KONOVALENKO.
Thanks @narceleb. Do you know where I can find a record of the game?
@MARattigan No, but I could ask Veronika if you really want it. As I recall, it was K+R vs. K+B.
I would be really interested if it's still available. I'm interested in whether it actually did draw under the 75 move rule or whether it should have been declared dead a ply or two before.
No. It was legit. Two arbiters watching. Chief Arbiter declared the draw.
My point was that if the player with the bishop made the final move, then before she made the move there was already no way for either player to checkmate her opponent within the 75 move rule, so the position was dead and the game already over before she made the move. If the player with the rook made the last move the same would apply unless the last move missed a mate in 1 or the bishop were en prise (and in a few cases, even then).
The result would have been a draw anyway. Its just a question of on which move the draw occurred.
E.g. If after 74 moves by both sides without a pawn move or capture the following White to play position is reached, can either player checkmate his opponent's king with any series of legal moves?
If not, the position is dead already before either player can make the 75th. move.
Jul 26, 2019
0
#153
SpiderUnicorn wrote:
Erm, @Arisktotle @Numquam and @MARattigan what is the conclusion of your debate?
I don't think there was one.
First of all there are two slightly different kinds of position in question.
The first (see post #61) is:
with a ply count of 145 under the 75 move rule.
The second is:
where White has touched the rook.
My question in both cases was:
Are the positions dead under FIDE laws?
This reduces to the interpretation of the phrase, "the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate the opponent’s king" (arts.1.5 and 5.2.2 in the FIDE laws 2018).
Regarding the first position:
My point in the first case is that I can't see a quicker mate than the one shown and the 75 move rule would prevent either player completing a mate of that length, so the position is dead. Arisktotle would apparently concur.
@Numquam has a different way of applying the rules from mine. Instead of taking the phrase "can checkmate" to mean under the rules in force, he would evaluate the position under 1.5/5.2.2 to mean if the game were continued under only the articles necessary to understand articles 1.5/5.2.2. This would not include art. 9.6.2, so Numquam would say the position is not dead.
I have two objections to that.
1. Everybody else would assume the phrase "a player can checkmate" would mean under (all) the rules in force.
2. Numquam's interpretation would lead to other conflicts with the general understanding of the dead position and other rules.
Because the following article is not required to define arts 1.5/5.2.2.
| 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. |
It follows that the continuation 1.h4 2.h5 3.h6 4.h7 5.h8=N 6.Nf7 7.Nd6 8.Ne8 9.NC7# from the following position would constitute a valid checkmate under Numquam's assumed set of rules and the position is therefore not dead.
Further, if the 75 move rule (art.9.6.2) should be ignored when applying the dead position rule (arts.1.5/5.2.2) then, to be consistent, the rule that the king cannot be left in check (art.3.9.2) should be ignored when applying the knight's move rule (art.3.6) because the former art. is not necessary to understand the latter. The move Nh3 should then be allowable in the following position.
Numquam explains both of these anomalies as problems with the FIDE documentation (#56 and #57). He believes that you have to assume that a series of legal moves must be played by alternate players and FIDE should have made this explicit by a definition of "series of legal moves". He also believes FIDE should have defined arts.3.1 to 3.9 as a "list", by which he means his rule about which articles are to be used in applying an article in the list should be waived.
I don't agree that these are failings in FIDE documentation, they're just problems with his novel approach to interpreting the rules. On a normal reading any series of legal moves can be played only if the players alternate moves because art.1.2 mentioned above is always in effect irrespective of whether it's necessary to understand any particular rule. Similarly on a normal reading all rules constitute a "list" in Numquam's sense. It's therefore not necessary to make these additions
As far as the second position is concerned. I differ from both Arisktotle and Numquam. My opinion is that the rule is self referent and hence misstated. This doesn't usually matter but gives some problems when art.4 is taken into account (described in #88), so I would say it's not possible to say if the position is dead or not according to the FIDE laws. These problems wouldn't arise with Numquam's approach because he feels free to ignore section 4 altogether in connection with the dead position rule.
I have suggested a rephrasing to remove the self reference viz.
1.5 If the position is such that neither player could possibly checkmate the opponent’s king were the game continued ignoring this article, the game is drawn. This immediately ends the game.
Which should strictly be
1.5 If the position is such that neither player could possibly checkmate the opponent’s king were the game continued with only such rules in force as are both already in force and are in 1-1.4.2, 2-5.2.1 or 5.2.3-12.9.9, the game is drawn. This immediately ends the game.
With that change I would say the second position is also dead. Both Arisktotle and Numquam would still disagree, because they are of the opinion that a position should be evaluated as dead only if it occurs on the completion of a move. This may be a common view, but I don't believe it originates in the FIDE laws.
@MARrattigan, my way of reading the rules is the most consistent way used by most people. Let's say you got a book of thousands of rules, then you don't want to read all rules just to be able to interpret one rule. Therefore it is important that rules refer to all other rules which are necessary to interpret that rule. Let's say you got a list of rules where some rules are for game A and other rules are for game B, then you don't use the rules of game A to interpret the rules for game B. Similarly you don't use rules in article 9 to interpret rules in article 5, unless the rule explicitly refers to article 9. Also a rule could use a term explained in an earlier article. (move, checkmate etc.)
It looks like you still don't understand what I meant with a list of conditions. The list I mentioned is not just any list. It is a list of conditions and if all these conditions are satisfied, then the move is legal. In general if all conditions in a list of conditions are met, then you either can or cannot do certain actions. There are two possibilities: either the conditions are all met or they are not all met. So you cannot put all rules in one list of conditions.
Jul 27, 2019
0
#155
Numquam wrote:
@MARrattigan, my way of reading the rules is the most consistent way used by most people.
... We obviously disagree on both those points so there's probably not much further discussion possible.
Let's say you got a book of thousands of rules, then you don't want to read all rules just to be able to interpret one rule. Therefore it is important that rules refer to all other rules which are necessary to interpret that rule.
... There are two possible meanings to interpreting a rule here. There is (a) interpreting what the rule means independently of a particular game and (b) interpreting how it applies during play. In neither case need the rule explicitly refer to the other rules necessary for its interpretation. For example art.3.6 defines the knight's move. For an (a) interpretation of this rule you need to know what a knight is. This is defined in art 2. and not explicitly referred to in art 3.6. It is sufficient that the rules in force define a knight somewhere (if you accept that all rules apply for the duration of the game).
Similarly it is not necessary for an (a) interpretation of
|
1.1 |
The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces on a square board called a ‘chessboard’. |
to refer to art 2. It is however necessary that art.2 applies during play for a (b) interpretation of the rule. (Otherwise you could move your dragon onto the board which attacks every square. Art.2 says you haven't got one.) Again you have to accept that all rules apply for the duration of the game .
Also a rule could use a term explained in an earlier article. (move, checkmate etc.)
As I said in an earlier post the FIDE laws neither state nor conform with a convention that only articles preceding any article are necessary for that articles interpretation (in either sense). Arts.1.1 and 2 are an example of out of sequence articles.
Let's say you got a list of rules where some rules are for game A and other rules are for game B, then you don't use the rules of game A to interpret the rules for game B. Similarly you don't use rules in article 9 to interpret rules in article 5, unless the rule explicitly refers to article 9.
If games A and B have rules in common then those rules apply in both games. In this case the FIDE laws define two games. One game is the game defined by all the articles. The other is the game defined by only the articles occurring under Basic Rules. According to your last sentence game A would be the former and game B the latter. It is naturally true, as you say, that if you're playing game B then you don't apply rules of game A that are not common. In particular in a "friendly" game you would not use article 9 for a (b) interpretation of articles in 5. Nobody has ever disputed that. The discussion is about game A when article 9 is in force. If you accept that all rules in force apply for the duration of the game then you do need to take article 9.6.2 into account for a (b) interpretation of 1.5 and 5.2.2.
It looks like you still don't understand what I meant with a list of conditions. The list I mentioned is not just any list. It is a list of conditions and if all these conditions are satisfied, then the move is legal.
There is no distinction made in the FIDE laws between the list (arts.3.1-3.9) you mention and any other articles. There is no necessity for such a distinction except with your method of applying rules, which to my mind is aberrant.
Certainly I wouldn't call the move definitions "conditions", nor the rules of play 3.1-3.1.2 and 3.9.2. I've taken the fact that you need to understand them as a "list of conditions" to mean only that, contrary to your usual approach to interpreting articles, these particular articles should all apply irrespective of whether they're implicitly or explicitly referred to in the articles to be interpreted. This is a necessary tweak to your approach otherwise some very basic things fall apart as in post #61.
Whether this is or is not a correct understanding of what you mean by "a list of conditions" is, I think, not too relevant, because the original question was about the FIDE laws and the concept is not mentioned there.
A legal move is specifically defined in 3.10.1 but that is only a definition, not a rule of play. It's required for (a) interpretations of rules that contain the term. It is also distinct from what I'll call a "legitimate move", meaning a move in accordance with the rules in force. A legitimate move must always be legal, but not all legal moves are legitimate, e.g. the side not to move has legal moves and attacks pieces and squares, but the moves and captures on attacked squares are not legitimate. This distinction relies on applying
| 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. |
to (b) interpretations of the articles in 3 even though it's not implicitly or explicitly referred to in those articles.
In general if all conditions in a list of conditions are met, then you either can or cannot do certain actions. There are two possibilities: either the conditions are all met or they are not all met. So you cannot put all rules in one list of conditions.
I don't understand at how you arrive at your conclusion here, but as I said before, I don't think it's so relevant to the discussion.
@MArattigan
Consider these two refund policies:
Policy 1
1.You may refund a product, if you return it within 14 days
2.You may refund a product, if it is in its original state
Policy 2
1.You may refund a product, if both:
a) You return it within 14 days
b) The product is in its original state
Do you think that both these policies are the same? I do not think so. FIDE's rules 3.2-3.9 are formulated like policy 1, but from the context it is clear that it should be read like a list of conditions. What I mean with conditions is for example a) and b) in policy 2. Either both these conditions are met and you may refund a product or they are not both met and you cannot refund a product. That is what I mean with two possibilities in my previous post. If a company would formulate its refund policy like policy 1, then I am sure that people would try to refund products when only either condition a) or b) is met.
Jul 28, 2019
0
#157
@Numquam
The way I believe everyone reads rules of any game is that an action is permissible iff it accords with all the rules. I think FIDE formulated their laws on that assumption (as do the writers of rules for any game). This corresponds with b).
You don't have to make any assumptions about article 3 based on context unless you have an idiosyncratic way of applying the rules. I don't think there is anything lacking in the FIDE laws in this respect.
MARattigan schreef:
@Numquam
The way I believe everyone reads rules of any game is that an action is permissible iff it accords with all the rules. I think FIDE formulated their laws on that assumption (as do the writers of rules for any game). This corresponds with b).
You don't have to make any assumptions about article 3 based on context unless you have an idiosyncratic way of applying the rules. I don't think there is anything lacking in the FIDE laws in this respect.
So do you think both policies are the same?
MARattigan schreef:
@Numquam
Of course not.
Why not? That is your way of thinking, you read multiple rules at the same time and apply one rule in another even though that is not explicitly mentioned. So following that line of thinking, we can use rule 2 in rule 1. You don't have a consistent way of interpreting the rules yourself.
And I fully agree with: "The way I believe everyone reads rules of any game is that an action is permissible iff it accords with all the rules." I have already explained multiple times, that I also read all rules. It seems that you consistently refuse to try to understand what I am saying and then you make it seem like I disagree with something everything would agree with. I'll repeat it again. I read all rules too, but only one at a time. That is what everybody would do. Simply check one by one if an action is permissible by that rule. After you went through all rules, you can say if an action accords with all rules.
Now consider these two policies:
Policy 1
1. You may refund a product, if you return it within 14 days
....
1000. You may only refund a product, if it is in its original state
Policy 2
1.You may refund a product, if you return it within 14 days, unless article 1000 does not allow it.
....
1000.You may only refund a product, if it is in its original state
If you would only compare the first article in each policy, you would think they are different. Only after reading all 1000 articles can you see that they are exactly the same. Clearly policy 2 is much better formulated than policy 1. I am not sure if policy 1 would hold in court, because it is deceptive. Similarly the FIDE rules 3.1-3.9 are deceptively formulated. It should be easy to determine what a rule means without going through every single other rule. However we can still adjust our understanding of the rules after reading everything. It is relatively simple to see that the rules 3.1-3.9 are a list of requirements for legal moves, because of the ordering and 3.10.
Hello, on chess.com in normal dailies, is it a 30 move rule or a 50 move rule? I better find out before I have a turn.