In other words they don't realise you're only trying to confuse them. You do seem to be succeeding! 
I hate the threefold repetition rule
Sort:
Where've you been for the past two years? Did you get a two year mute or what?
Nov 27, 2023
0
#344
Optimissed wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
No need to prove anything, since it's rightly a draw according to the rules.
How is it a draw under the rules?
You stated that there was 142 ply since a piece was taken or a pawn moved. That position isn't reachable unless someone is deliberately wasting moves. I don't think there's a win in four moves therefore it will be drawn. Perhaps the others don't know that you're an old expert at saying exactly nothing. I used to watch your discussions with Elroch and they were ridiculous, on both sides.
Don't think you've quite cottoned on to what "a draw under the rules" means old boy.
There may or may not be a win in four (helpmate) depending on the rules in force and the previous moves. See #368.
Trolling again. It is trolling although the others maybe can't work it out. You mentioned nothing about one side or another being about to run out of time.
Old boy. Previous moves are immaterial.
I recall your last trolling extravaganza was in one of tygxc's is chess drawn threads, where you managed to confuse quite a lot of people into believing some invented idea or other was halal. I could only wonder at their gullibility.
Nov 27, 2023
0
#346
Well they can't work things out like you can Optimissed. Don't think they'd want to.
MARattigan wrote:
Good luck. Try and apply it correctly. It's correct in the handbook.
And no - legal moves are legal moves whether they're in a game of chess or not, played out of turn, after the game compltes - whatever. They're defined in section 3 merely as mappings from one diagram to another.
What I'm saying is the players can't checkmate with any sequence of legal moves that exceeds the 75 move threshold. That's the criterion in 5.2.2. Similarly they can't checkmate with any sequence of legal moves that are not played in turn.
5.2.2 does not mention a 75 move threshold. It simply refers to checkmate being impossible by any sequence of legal moves. The only way to reconcile the current wording with a 75 move threshold is by denying legality to any moves beyond move 75. Of course, then you run into the issue of weak arbiters wanting to rule a loss against a player that makes three more moves (plies 151, 153 and 155) citing three illegal moves as the justification for the loss. (over the decades I've seen a lot of weak TDs/arbiters that tie themselves in knots over tortuous interpretations of rules used in extremely unusual situations).
As an arbiter that has worked multiple tournaments awarding norms (including continental championships) and signed off on multiple norms, I have no qualms implementing my interpretation (allowing flags or resignations during the last few moves before the 75-move threshold is reached). That said, I will bounce it off of other (and higher-titled) arbiters when I see them next month.
In general, the common sense interpretation holds sway. I don't think it was a good move for our chess body, the ECF, embracing the FIDE-supported interpretations and rules.
I was somewhat active in British"chess politics". Our Northern Counties were very fed up with the ECF, which was Southern based and which seemed corrupt. There was a strong breakaway movement in the North. It was scuppered by a dishonest ECF chief arbiter, who is now deceased, who went back on his word and actually lied about offers he had made for public debates but I think he was under a great deal of pressure from ECF higher ups who in turn would have been under similar pressure from FIDE, who had seen their chance to rope England into the European-dominated system.
@jetoba @MARattigan
Btw, FIDE is just waking up to questions like these, but the composition community in the WFCC already lived thru a similar storm and came to a surprising decision. Like in game chess there is a fight for power between the dead position rule and e.g. the 75M/5R rules in composition chess as well. Unlike in game chess the power struggle needs no flagging incidents to make it manifest, it is already triggered by common stipulations such as "stalemate in 5 moves" which do not exist in game chess. What happens is that the stalemate may become unavoidable a few moves before it occurs which causes the solution to abort in a dead position before the stipulation is met. Failure! A few years ago a composition tournament was held with a large number of entries using the dead position rule triggers; I think it was the theme. I made an entry with Andrew Buchanan.with a composition I had made earlier. I was on the subject 10 years before anyone in either chess domain.
Because of it an important change was made to the composition Codex. The dead position rule in composition chess is cancelled since the Ostroda Codex of 2015 - except for retrograde compositions. Almost nobody noticed it which is surprising considering there are parallel issues in game chess and composition chess. I still have a prize-winning composition to my name cooked by a dead position abort in a time when nobody had a clue about these things (2005). I reported it 2 days after entering the composition in the competition but was advised to keep it silent since no-one understood it anyway. I laughed and I did and I won. In the composition domain there are other similar power struggles - like premature repetitions and premature 50M draws which yet await formal verdicts. Fortunately for you guys they have no counterparts in game chess - though I may yet discover some as well!
MARattigan wrote:
I disagree.
The game should be played according to the published laws, not the arbiter's handbook or the intentions of the authors of the laws.
The dead position rule in the published laws is
5.2.2 The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
In the position I posted in #361 it's clear neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves under Competition Rules, Black because it's difficult when you have only a king, White because no sequence of legal moves can produce checkmate before the game terminates under either the 75 move rule or the quintuple repetition rule.
It is possible that that was not FIDE's intention (and clearly not yours) but it is the law.
Tbh, you disagree so many times and in my experience you've misrepresented arguments and states of affairs, that I wouldn't be arguing with you or in any way committed to taking you seriously or trusting you, because I do think that you invent complex situations (without them being a logical necessity) simply to try to tie people in knots. This is by way of a heads up. tygxc's alter ego but you do it on purpose, which is much more interesting, I suppose. He does not seem to do it on purpose.
Nov 27, 2023
0
#351
jetoba wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
Good luck. Try and apply it correctly. It's correct in the handbook.
And no - legal moves are legal moves whether they're in a game of chess or not, played out of turn, after the game compltes - whatever. They're defined in section 3 merely as mappings from one diagram to another.
What I'm saying is the players can't checkmate with any sequence of legal moves that exceeds the 75 move threshold. That's the criterion in 5.2.2. Similarly they can't checkmate with any sequence of legal moves that are not played in turn.
5.2.2 does not mention a 75 move threshold.
Nor does it mention many other rules that it depends on. They're implicit in the clause "a player can checkmate" (my italics) - which would naturally mean within all the rules of the game being played.
My interpretation of the rule is simply if neither side can checkmate in any game continuation that conforms with the rules (whatever those may be) then it's a draw under the dead position rule. E.g. #345 under competition rules.
It simply refers to checkmate being impossible by any sequence of legal moves.
No it doesn't.
It says, "neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves", which implies the sequences must conform with the rules of the game (otherwise the players couldn't checkmate their opponent's king with them).
The only way to reconcile the current wording with a 75 move threshold is by denying legality to any moves beyond move 75.
Not at all.
Part of the problem here is that FIDE defines the phrase "legal move" in art. 3 and they don't define it to mean what you always thought it meant. That means FIDE's meaning should be understood in any articles that use the phrase (including 5.2.2).
Their definition is independent of the state of the game or even if it's in a game. It simply specifies a mapping from a diagram (just the positions of pieces) on the board to appropriate new diagrams. Generally speaking both Black and White pieces will have legal moves in a given diagram.
That means, for instance, that in a White to play position there are usually legal moves for black pieces, possibly contrary to what you always thought "legal move" meant (if that was "potential or actual moves in a game that conform with all the rules in effect").
White can't play the legal black moves because the provisions of arts. 1 and 4 prevent it (or are at least meant to).
So you can't say that moves after the 75 move limit are illegal if they conform with FIDE's definition in art 3.
What you can probably say is that the moves are not part of the game in question because reaching the 75 move rule terminates the game in a draw (though curiously the phrase "this immediately terminates the game" or equivalent that appears for other resolutions is omitted from the 75M/5R arts - but the phrase is arguably unnecessary).
All that being said, I believe taking the phrase "a player can x" to mean a player can x without contravening the rules in force (which after all is what it does sensibly mean) quite adequately "reconciles" the wording of 5.2.2. In the dead position rule as it stands there's no need to list art 9.6 and all the other arts. that may be involved in diagnosing a position as dead (players must alternate moves, players may move only their own pieces etc.). It's already reconciled with all of them (by design, I would say).
Of course, then you run into the issue of weak arbiters wanting to rule a loss against a player that makes three more moves (plies 151, 153 and 155) citing three illegal moves as the justification for the loss. (over the decades I've seen a lot of weak TDs/arbiters that tie themselves in knots over tortuous interpretations of rules used in extremely unusual situations).
I would say such an arbiter is wrong on two counts. Firstly, if the moves comply with art. 3 then they're not illegal according to the FIDE definition, which is the one which should be used. Secondly, the game is already over when 150 ply is reached so a player can render Yankee Doodle on the slide trambone without violating any rules thereafter (up to a point).
As an arbiter that has worked multiple tournaments awarding norms (including continental championships) and signed off on multiple norms, I have no qualms implementing my interpretation (allowing flags or resignations during the last few moves before the 75-move threshold is reached). That said, I will bounce it off of other (and higher-titled) arbiters when I see them next month.
adityasaxena4 wrote:
I think the rule should balance the efforts and capabilities of the winner by material with the smart loser who found the threefold repetition in the first place.
Example : Instead of 1/2 - 1/2 , there should be a system where games are given rating points out of 10 lets say and the person winning by material gets 9 of the 10 points and the person who found perpetual gets 5 out of the 10 points . This gives the loser a draw and the winner a winning accomplishment based on effort .
In my opinion, if we're including half-wins, the one checking in perpetual check gets the half-win.
They are the one chasing the king so they are clearly the one in the dominant postion.
Elroch wrote:
There could be a rule that someone loses if they repeat a position!
Likewise there is no particular reason why stalemate could not be viewed as a loss for the player who cannot move - it is an arbitrary choice that it is a draw.
Overall, chess is simply an arbitrary game with a set of arbitrary rules. It doesn't matter much.
An interesting example from another game is the requirement to capture in draughts/checkers.
Such a rule would not prevent perpetual checking. At most, it would restrict its use.
Because with something akin to a windmill, you could use this rule to effectively force checkmate.
Because there's a greater incentive to do so, it could end up *increasing* the number of games which go to perpetual check.
Stalemate is a draw because stalemate doesn't mean the side that is stalemated is losing or would have theor king captured next move.
I have a feeling the people who want stalemate to be a win are only thinking of things like this:
Stalemate is a draw because the game cannot continue.
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Stalemate is a draw because the game cannot continue.
Not quite. The termination of the game is something else than the scoring of the game. Actually checkmate and stalemate are precisely the same when it comes to termination. They terminate because there is no legal move left (for the side on move). They are called end positions in game theory. There are other end positions as well e.g. dead positions and the 75-move rule positions.
Then a separate decision is made to score the end positions. You can do that any way you like as Elroch wrote earlier. You can use any property in an end position (or the recorded game) to score it. "Chess" has chosen to award "no-move" end positions where the side on move is giving check with a point (checkmate) and the one without check (stalemate) with half a point for both sides. But it could have been the other way round. Chess could have chosen to score these two end positions with 3 points if you had opened the game with e4, 2 points after you opened with d4, and just half a point after any other opening. Or anything else you imagine however "insane".
Just to say that the scoring is not really part of the rules of play. In computer science executing a program is the same as playing a game in chess but the game score is what we call the output of a computer program. It is what we return from the program/game domain to the human domain. Higher level.
Btw, the scoring does affect the strategic move choices of the players as they want to maximize their profits in the "human domain". However you score the end positions does not change the rules of the game.
But the objective in chess it to checkmate the king, not just to make the "last move". And not all stalemate positions mean the king can be taken next move.
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
But the objective in chess it to checkmate the king, not just to make the "last move". And not all stalemate positions mean the king can be taken next move.
I just added a paragraph to my last post!
An objective is a "letter of intent". It has absolutely zero impact on the rules of play or the scoring. It only affects the free strategic choices of the players and the prizes and the rankings of the players in the human domain!
Note that the objective of the game is not a mandatory result. At least one player will not achieve it, often both. You can play a legitimate game of chess without reaching the "objective". So it is in the corner of the "strategies" not the "game rules".
Btw, of course you can debate forever what is fair or reasonable but you can't say "Stalemate is a draw because the game cannot continue." as you did since "draw" is not a self-evident consequence of "stalemate".
One more: Which implies that you can't say that anyone who proposes different scoring is "wrong". Absolutely wrong is only that which is "inconsistent" and therefore leads to contradictions. How you score end positions will not lead to contradictions since the game scoring phase is separate from the game playing phase - the scoring starts after the playing has finished. Though, on a human level, we will object to scoring algorithms we deem unfair!
No need to prove anything, since it's rightly a draw according to the rules.
How is it a draw under the rules?
You stated that there was 142 ply since a piece was taken or a pawn moved. That position isn't reachable unless someone is deliberately wasting moves. I don't think there's a win in four moves therefore it will be drawn. Perhaps the others don't know that you're an old expert at saying exactly nothing. I used to watch your discussions with Elroch and they were ridiculous, on both sides.