Does anyone know of a game that was drawn under the mandatory 75 move rule?

EndgameStudier

 It should be 100 moves, with castling or double checks also resetting the move count.

NihontoEurope

Hello!

I think Magnus Carlsen had a game where that rule was engaged. Pretty recently.

/Martin

 

MARattigan
NihontoEurope wrote:

Hello!

I think Magnus Carlsen had a game where that rule was engaged. Pretty recently.

/Martin

 

Thanks.

But I couldn't find any terminated by the 75 move rule in the chess-db database for Carlsen since 2017. So I'm still interested to find one.

Arisktotle
Numquam wrote:

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.

In fact, 2 sides of logical reasoning come together here. When playing a game on a human level, as much smartness should be used as can be found anywhere. But we are not discussing the intelligence of playing, but the use of rules we play by. Those rules should be as stupid as possible in order to avoid us wasting our brains on figuring out the legality of chess decisions instead of the performance power of our chess choices. We have massive problems in our western societies with enterprising people for no other reason than that they are incessantly frustrated by dealing with ambiguous and incomplete laws while the activities of their real interest are marginilized. Making bad laws should be a high crime.

The discussion we are waging is very similar to the discussion on relational databases 40 years ago. Those who liked it said they were great because of the transparency of concepts and those who disliked them argued the amount and size of table products would be impossible to manage computation wise. The concept people were right, as they almost always are. Why? Well, the fact that the relational model permits the human brain to conceive of enormous amounts of rows and colums and objects and attributes does not imply that they need to be generated on a computational level. Every clever shortcut can be and is used to reduce the number of manipulations required to get to the required result, as long as it conforms to the relational scheme - which is the human angle in the story. The simple relational model provides the grounding of all database activity, while the actual database engine may be as complex as you like

So it is with the dead rule. The proper definition of deadness should be as simple and stupid as possible, while the algorithmic implementation may be as intelligent as you describe - as long as it fully complies with the simple and stupid definition. The ultimate in chess stupidity is prove by move which requires no heuristics or understanding of meta-conclusions.

This makes it appear as if the discussion is completely redundant. When 2 roads - the stupid and intelligent one - lead to the same outcome why argue about it? Answer, when people get smart, they will make mistakes. Much of formal mathematics was designed to guard against overconfident intelligence. Nothing is more stupid than a formal mathematical proof, it's just an endless series of trivial inferences not even an idiot would dare to argue with. When people are confronted with it's conclusions - like the Gödel sentence - they often go mad trying to be intelligent about it. Some are even known to assert that the Gödel sentence is true, and they are unfortunately so numerous that attempts to lock them all up so far failed wink.png

The remaining elements are better presentable in a context of molecular moves which removes issues such as self-reference and paradoxicality regarding legal moves. Note that the simple approach of a game is dead as soon as checkmate is no longer possible does not provide you cover against the application of 75M and 5REP as factors in that evaluation. I know you believe that the distinction of basic and competition rules will help you out but that depends on sanitizing the definition of the legality of moves which in turn depends on its context in a molecular move.

I'll leave it here until I have a post on the molecular moves.

Arisktotle
SpiderUnicorn wrote:

Erm, @Arisktotle @Numquam and @MARattigan what is the conclusion of your debate?

We are like the prosecutor and defense attorney in a court case, likely to disagree from beginning to end. Judgement will only be passed by the authoritative body in chess FIDE - if they ever catch up on the discussion.

Note that my goal is in the future. The issues of game chess, problem chess, retrograde chess and archetypal chess (such as chess960) can only be resolved in their entirety. It requires a more conceptual and generic approach to a number of rules which I cannot all discuss here.

 

danielbaechli
MARattigan wrote:

Just that.

Just that:

Topalov vs Nakamura, 2016
Yudasin vs Erenburg, 2017
Firouzja vs Demchenko, 2019

All drawn after exactly seventy-five moves each without capture and pawn move.

Srimurugan108

That's terrific 

Arisktotle
danielbaechli wrote:
MARattigan wrote:

Just that.

Just that:

Topalov vs Nakamura, 2016
Yudasin vs Erenburg, 2017
Firouzja vs Demchenko, 2019

All drawn after exactly seventy-five moves each without capture and pawn move.

Surprising! They were obviously fooling around ignoring repetition and 50M claimables but still they somehow decided to go thru the motions. I don't know about the time incrementals at that stage. if really small they might have decided to sit it out knowing that the interface would interfere to save them.

danielbaechli
Arisktotle wrote:

[...]
Surprising! They were obviously fooling around ignoring repetition and 50M claimables but still they somehow decided to go thru the motions. I don't know about the time incrementals at that stage. if really small they might have decided to sit it out knowing that the interface would interfere to save them.

All games with two seconds increments per move as it seems:

Topalov vs Nakamura, 2016 - guess 5+2
Yudasin vs Erenburg, 2017 - guess 15+2
Firouzja vs Demchenko, 2019 - guess 15+2 or 10+2

 

MARattigan
danielbaechli wrote:
MARattigan wrote:

Just that.

Just that:

Topalov vs Nakamura, 2016
Yudasin vs Erenburg, 2017
Firouzja vs Demchenko, 2019

All drawn after exactly seventy-five moves each without capture and pawn move.

Thanks for that.

For reasons previously mentioned I think the first one actually terminated in a dead position half a move before the 75 move rule was reached.

Arisktotle

Yep and it appears that Andrew Buchanan agrees to that view as well. He has done a lot of work on dead reckoning - a term he avoids these days - mainly in the composition field. The situation is way more complicated there due to the factor of uncertain pasts and the composition conventions.

It's still possible though that FIDE one day decides that it was all a big misunderstanding and that the 75M termination was supposed to be invisibe to the DP (dead position) rule. Just as the 5R and 75M rule explicitly exclude mutual visibility by their conditions.

Interestingly, the Topalov Nakamura game almost should have terminated 2 half moves earlier - for instance if the white rook had been on a8.

 

lincolnpeters

I didn't even know that existed!