Forums

I hate the threefold repetition rule

Sort:
Arisktotle
Arisktotle
Jun 20, 2019
0
#61
Numquam wrote:

A reasonable chess player can in practice always see if a position is dead. So FIDE simply doesn't need to give a procedure. It is even hard to compose a position in which you can't easily see that the position is dead or not.

And I don't think it matters how many moves are required to checkmate. The rules explicitly say in any series of legal moves. They don't mention the 75 move rule. 

One of the problems in todays world is that engines do the (half-)death evaluations and they are much worse at it than humans. They replace it with some notion of "insufficient material" which is completely inadequate.

It is hard to compose death-related problems. But composers like hard and they make these problems (see Andrew Buchanans website). As a problemist I require perfect rules, because compositions expressly challenge the borderlines. If FIDE-rules are not perfect they need to be corrected in the Codex for Chess Compositions, a lot of fuss we'd rather avoid.

Edit: A move is not just legal or illegal by its internal geometry but also by the overall game history and board context. Because 75M terminates the game, all moves beyond that point are formally illegal no matter how innocent they look. This is what MARattigan refers to. I'm inclined to be more lenient towards FIDE by accepting what it intended to convey in the rules.

Numquam
Numquam
Jun 20, 2019
0
#62
Arisktotle schreef:
Numquam wrote:

A reasonable chess player can in practice always see if a position is dead. So FIDE simply doesn't need to give a procedure. It is even hard to compose a position in which you can't easily see that the position is dead or not.

And I don't think it matters how many moves are required to checkmate. The rules explicitly say in any series of legal moves. They don't mention the 75 move rule. 

One of the problems in todays world is that engines do the (half-)death evaluations and they are much worse at it than humans. They replace it with some notion of "insufficient material" which is completely inadequate.

It is hard to compose death-related problems. But composers like hard and they make these problems (see Andrew Buchanans website). As a problemist I require perfect rules, because compositions expressly challenge the borderlines. If FIDE-rules are not perfect they need to be corrected in the Codex for Chess Compositions, a lot of fuss we'd rather avoid.

Edit: A move is not just legal or illegal by its internal geometry but also by the overall game history and board context. Because 75M terminates the game, all moves beyond that point are formally illegal no matter how innocent they look. This is what MARattigan refers to. I'm inclined to be more lenient towards FIDE by accepting what it intended to convey in the rules.

No the history doesn't matter for the legality of a move. The 75 move rule even explicitly says that it also applies after 75 moves are made without capture or pawn move:

any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.

In other words if 80 moves are made and the last move was checkmate, the side who checkmates wins. The rule would refer to the 75 move rule if it would matter which it doesn't. It says:

provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

 

 

Arisktotle
Arisktotle
Jun 20, 2019
0
#63
Numquam wrote:

No the history doesn't matter for the legality of a move. The 75 move rule even explicitly says that it also applies after 75 moves are made without capture or pawn move:

Yes, history matters greatly, e.g. when considering an e.p. move, a castling move or any draw claim.

A valid question is: "does it apply to 75M?" IMO we are looking at one of the imperfections MARattigan referred to. Whatever the rule says about >75 moves does not change the fact that you can never get there. Since you can't do 2 moves at once, the game always is exactly at the 75M mark at some point and then is drawn. The draw is not a claim, it is automatic so you can't skip over it. A properly programmed chess-site will terminate your game there and you never get to 80.

Now I favor following FIDE intentions but it is hard to figure out what FIDE refers to here. If the players would need to report for the rule to take effect then it is 100% redundant. After all, they could have reported and claimed a draw from 50M onward. All I can imagine is that FIDE's left and right half of the brain got disconnected and started their own franchises. I am not impressed. The rule only makes sense when it is automatic and that bars you from continuing after 75M. Playing on in an OTB game would be equivalent to post-game-analysis. After all, the game is over and you can no longer be checkmated or lose - irrespective of what the other brainhalf suggests.

Arisktotle
Arisktotle
Jun 20, 2019
0
#64

By the way, thinking back to 2014 when these concepts were first introduced I can now see how the current insanities came into existence. The 75M and 5REP rules were not invented for OTB play but for the managers of chess sites to enable them to terminate games without player consent to keep tournaments on schedule. In an attempt to avoid having 2 sets of rules, FIDE created the 75M and 5REP fusion rules. Without specifying there are actually 2 fused rule sets, they hoped that both parties would each pick their own cherry from the plate: the computer people would be interested to stop it at 75M and 5REP, while the OTB players - bad at counting - would be allowed to continue indefinitely. It reminds me again of why I would never sit on any rule making committee or likewise. These guys are all insane. Personally, I am borderline, but that is only because I read too many of their textbooks.

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Jun 20, 2019
0
#65
Numquam wrote:
MARattigan schreef:
 

... A reasonable chess player can in practice always see if a position is dead. So FIDE simply doesn't need to give a procedure. It is even hard to compose a position in which you can't easily see that the position is dead or not.

And I don't think it matters how many moves are required to checkmate. The rules explicitly say in any series of legal moves. They don't mention the 75 move rule. 

You possibly missed the point that moves after the game is terminated can be regarded as illegal or not depending on whether you accept the normal definition of illegal (in which case obviously not) or the FIDE definition which refers to specific articles which don't include arts.5.2.1 and 5.2.2 saying that the game is terminated, in which case there are legal moves following the termination of the game. In the case of 5.2.1 they cannot be played because of other rules. In the case of 5.2.2  it's the rule itself that prohibits them from being played.

But the dead position rule says not that there must be no sequence of legal moves that would result in checkmate (which after the termination of the game under the mandatory 75 move rule would necessarily have to be FIDE defined legal moves rather than the normally understood legal moves) but that neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves, so even with the FIDE defined meaning of "legal move", moves after the mandatory 75 move rule cannot be counted as moves that can be played in such a sequence.

 

With this in mind would you still say, "A reasonable chess player can in practice always see if a position is dead"? You didn't yourself answer the question I posed, "But what if the PC is 140". 

Can reasonable chess players really see that, even in the simple position I gave? (And come to that are arbiters invariably reasonable chess players?) 

I grant that it's hard to compose a dead position that is hard to see is dead under the basic rules and always was because the 50 move rule was never mandatory. Under competition rules the situation is now different because the 75 move rule is mandatory. That means even though a player may have a series of moves leading to checkmate that he may legally play under the basic rules, he cannot necessarily play that sequence under competition rules because the game would be terminated under the 75 move rule before the sequence was complete. So there are many more dead positions under competition rules than there are under basic rules. You cannot determine these simply by looking at the board layout and side to play. You need to know how many ply have elapsed under the 75 move rule.

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Jun 20, 2019
0
#66
Numquam wrote:
Arisktotle schreef:
Numquam wrote:

A reasonable chess player can in practice always see if a position is dead. So FIDE simply doesn't need to give a procedure. It is even hard to compose a position in which you can't easily see that the position is dead or not.

And I don't think it matters how many moves are required to checkmate. The rules explicitly say in any series of legal moves. They don't mention the 75 move rule. 

One of the problems in todays world is that engines do the (half-)death evaluations and they are much worse at it than humans. They replace it with some notion of "insufficient material" which is completely inadequate.

It is hard to compose death-related problems. But composers like hard and they make these problems (see Andrew Buchanans website). As a problemist I require perfect rules, because compositions expressly challenge the borderlines. If FIDE-rules are not perfect they need to be corrected in the Codex for Chess Compositions, a lot of fuss we'd rather avoid.

Edit: A move is not just legal or illegal by its internal geometry but also by the overall game history and board context. Because 75M terminates the game, all moves beyond that point are formally illegal no matter how innocent they look. This is what MARattigan refers to. I'm inclined to be more lenient towards FIDE by accepting what it intended to convey in the rules.

No the history doesn't matter for the legality of a move. The 75 move rule even explicitly says that it also applies after 75 moves are made without capture or pawn move:

any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.

In other words if 80 moves are made and the last move was checkmate, the side who checkmates wins. The rule would refer to the 75 move rule if it would matter which it doesn't. It says:

provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.

 

 

That the history doesn't matter in a FIDE regulated tournament game is false. After 5 repetitions of position the game is terminated irrespective of the 75 move rule. 

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Jun 20, 2019
0
#67
MARattigan wrote:
Arisktotle wrote:
Numquam wrote:

No the history doesn't matter for the legality of a move. The 75 move rule even explicitly says that it also applies after 75 moves are made without capture or pawn move:

...

A valid question is: "does it apply to 75M?" IMO we are looking at one of the imperfections MARattigan referred to. Whatever the rule says about >75 moves does not change the fact that you can never get there. Since you can't do 2 moves at once, the game always is exactly at the 75M mark at some point and then is drawn. The draw is not a claim, it is automatic so you can't skip over it. A properly programmed chess-site will terminate your game there and you never get to 80. ...

 

I would submit that you generally can't get to 75 never mind 80 because the dead position rule will terminate the game beforehand. From positions that are not already mate it needs some moves to helpmate. The shortest of these may exceed the 75 move mark, beyond which it is illegal to play the remaining moves. That is, no legal series of moves can be played leading to checkmate, ergo dead position. (The point of my original post.)

 

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Jun 20, 2019
0
#68
Optimissed wrote:

Chess is won by check-mating the opponent, not by winning his rook. Perhaps the OP would also consider sacrifices where a player goes down in material to win as unsportsmanlike.

Can you do that???

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Jun 20, 2019
0
#69
Arisktotle wrote:

...To evaluate checkmate you need to ascertain that the opposing king can be captured at all times. But capturing the king and the preceding self-checking move are illegal to execute so how to interpret the rules? FIDE tried to resolve it by forestalling the idea of "capturing the king" by "attacking the king". And when you ask what "attacking the king" means you end up with "the option to capture the king when it does not move" and we are in the hole in my bucket dear lisa again. ...

 

I would say that FIDE almost get out of that one, barring quibbles. The only definition of "attacking a piece" is:

3.1.2

A piece is said to attack an opponent’s piece if the piece could make a capture on that square according to Articles 3.2 to 3.8.

It doesn't say it needs to be able to capture the piece attacked on the move, only that it could capture on the square according to ar.ts.3.2-3.8.

 

The range of articles doesn't include.

3.9.2

No piece can be moved that will either expose the king of the same colour to check or leave that king in check.

So a piece can attack even opponent's pieces that are not kings without the possibility of capture on the move. nor do they include 

1.4.1 The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack, exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s king is not allowed .

So articles 3.2 to 3.8 don't actually prohibit the capture of the king, but other articles do so you can't actually do it. The part of art.1.4.1 that actually says that capturing the opponents king is illegal is, of course, redundant.

Numquam
Numquam
Jun 21, 2019
0
#70

The history of how the position arrived on the board really doesn't matter for the legality of a move. You can talk about en passent and castling, but those are included in FEN-notation which doesn't use a move sequence. Also a move counter is only necessary for draw claims, not for legality.

The rule about dead position doesn't mention the 75 move rule while in other cases relevant articles are mentioned. Even more it says any sequence of legal moves. So the number of moves really doesn't matter.

And yes you can still make moves after 75 moves without capture or pawn moves. The only ones who can stop you are the arbiter and your opponent. It is possible that you make 5 moves and checkmate your opponent before the arbiter notices. grin.png In that case the rules are clear: You win.  There is no reason to assume that moves after 75 are illegal. Everybody can claim a draw, but if nobody does that the game goes on.

FIDE even defined what an illegal move is:

3.10.2 A move is illegal when it fails to meet the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9
Arisktotle
Arisktotle
Jun 21, 2019
0
#71
MARattigan wrote:

I would submit that you generally can't get to 75 never mind 80 because the dead position rule will terminate the game beforehand. From positions that are not already mate it needs some moves to helpmate. The shortest of these may exceed the 75 move mark, beyond which it is illegal to play the remaining moves. That is, no legal series of moves can be played leading to checkmate, ergo dead position. (The point of my original post.)

I do not disagree with that. Deciding the overall operation of FIDE rules requires first understanding the rules and concepts in isolation. In part of my reply to Numquam I only addressed the question of whether or not you can exceed the 75M mark as Numquam appears to believe - encouraged by weird formulations in the rules. See my last post on how I believe the weirdness came about.

Applying it to dead positions is yet another matter. I can imagine that FIDE intended to suspend the 75M, deadness, and repetitions rule while evaluating whatif scenarios for the same rules. Their rules are not recursion-proof and not always orthogonal (workable in all combinations) and therefore in some cases ambiguous or contradictory. Even with the intentions understood, I'd still say they need to make better rules to make issues formally decidable. This requires a different approach for instance a distinction between legal, illegal and modular moves (my term). Modular moves are (almost) contextfree and most useful to build higher level semantic decisioning.

The checkmate issue is short - just 2 plies - but complicated. I could comment if I understood all you said but I don't. You wrote "the range of articles does not include ..." followed by an article that is included in the rules. What do you mean? One point I do understand: I see no difference between capturing a piece on square X and capturing on square X since all capturing necessarily involves a captured piece. I do know the human mind has 2 different concepts because it already knows what FIDE is trying to do and unconsciously emulates its intentions. But actually, these concepts are much better identified by what I described in the previous paragraph as the modular moves besides legal and illegal moves.

To be continued (I suppose).

Numquam
Numquam
Jun 21, 2019
0
#72

I think the rules are more clear than you think. A bigger issue is that people misunderstand the rules and don't read everything. I mean it is like 100% clear that 75 move does not apply to the dead position rule. They defined what they meant with legal and illegal in the rules. So there is no doubt about that. There may be rules which are not so clear in all cases, but none of you gave any good example.

If the rules were that 75 moves without capture or pawn move is always a draw, they would say something like: "If more than 75 moves without capture or pawn move are made than the game is a draw regardless of who wins after those moves" The fact that checkmate is mentioned means that the rule is like I explained earlier.

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Jun 21, 2019
0
#73

@Arisktotle

The handbook says the king is attacked if you could capture it according to arts 3.2 to 3.8. You can capture it under those rules. They have no objection.

You cannot capture according to all of the rules because of art. 1.4.1 which does object. 

Art.3.9.1 defines check as the king is attacked. Art.1.4, which I forgot to include defines checkmate as the king is attacked and has no legal moves. Legal moves are defined as those satisfying arts.3.1 to 3.9 - note the extended range. Art 3.9.2  stops the kings from moving into check in the first place and art. 2.3 says they don't start off in check.

So I think the hole in Lisa's bucket is plugged by applying a subset of the rules to define check and then making it illegal to ever be in a position where the king is in check when it's the other side to move.

Ignore the business about squares in my original post I shouldn't have put that in. Apologies.

Jenium
Jenium
Jun 21, 2019
0
#74
DaveRochelson wrote:
Picture this: you're beating another player by 5, 10, 15 points. But if he can put you in some cheap check and toggle it back and forth three times (sometimes to stall and increase his time, sometimes to force a draw), that can end the game, and squeeze your points out of you? When I was a kid we used to call that "cheap" -- maybe technically legal, but not very sportsmanlike. It's a profoundly stupid rule and should be struck from the rule book.

If you're not able to mate your opponent then you were never "beating" him/her in the first place. There isn't something as being "5,10,15 points up" and winning by points in chess.

 

Arisktotle
Arisktotle
Jun 21, 2019
0
#75
Numquam wrote:

I think the rules are more clear than you think. A bigger issue is that people misunderstand the rules and don't read everything. I mean it is like 100% clear that 75 move does not apply to the dead position rule. They defined what they meant with legal and illegal in the rules. So there is no doubt about that. There may be rules which are not so clear in all cases, but none of you gave any good example.

If the rules were that 75 moves without capture or pawn move is always a draw, they would say something like: "If more than 75 moves without capture or pawn move are made than the game is a draw regardless of who wins after those moves" The fact that checkmate is mentioned means that the rule is like I explained earlier.

The rules are written for humans and pretty clear to humans because they make adjustments by overlaying them with an understanding of intentions, workability and practicality. I can live with that. Computer programmers cannot. They need precise flowcharts to support their decision processes and can't tell their computer to "understand intentions".

Occasionally, the rules are not so clear as in the phrase "at least 75 moves" and even humans do not quite know what is intended. When chessplayers start taking different sides, you know it's time to reevaluate the clarity of the rules.

MARattigan
MARattigan
Show your flair!
Jun 21, 2019
0
#76
Numquam wrote:

I think the rules are more clear than you think. A bigger issue is that people misunderstand the rules and don't read everything. I mean it is like 100% clear that 75 move does not apply to the dead position rule. They defined what they meant with legal and illegal in the rules. So there is no doubt about that. There may be rules which are not so clear in all cases, but none of you gave any good example.

If the rules were that 75 moves without capture or pawn move is always a draw, they would say something like: "If more than 75 moves without capture or pawn move are made than the game is a draw regardless of who wins after those moves" The fact that checkmate is mentioned means that the rule is like I explained earlier.

The 75 move rule is art.9.6. It says:

9.6

If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:

9.6.1

the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.

9.6.2

any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.
   

 

That doesn't say 75 moves without capture or pawn moves is always a draw but it does say that the only exception is when the 150th ply (the last move under the 75 move count) is checkmate. There is no "after those moves" in the game, so what you say about winning after those moves is nonsense. The game has finished.

The definition of legal move is 

3.10.1 A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.

 

arts 3.9-3.9 do not, as you rightly point out,  include the 75 move rule, so I would agree with you that there exist sequences of legal moves in competition play that extend beyond the termination of the game under the 75 move rule.

The dead position rule says

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.

 

Had it said instead,"The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which no sequence of legal moves exist that result in the checkmate of either king", I would agree with you that the dead position rule and the 75 move rule are not connected. But it doesn't. It says, "neither player can checkmate the opponent's king with any series of legal moves". Since the 75 move rule terminates the game that situation can exist because of the 75 move rule. The players may not be able to complete a  sequence of legal moves that result in checkmate because the game terminates prior to the completion of any such sequence. In that event the requirement of the dead position rule is met. 

Lord_Hammer
Lord_Hammer
Show your flair!
Jun 21, 2019
0
#77

OP, this is your dumb fault. You blundered. 

Numquam
Numquam
Jun 21, 2019
0
#78
Arisktotle schreef:
Numquam wrote:

I think the rules are more clear than you think. A bigger issue is that people misunderstand the rules and don't read everything. I mean it is like 100% clear that 75 move does not apply to the dead position rule. They defined what they meant with legal and illegal in the rules. So there is no doubt about that. There may be rules which are not so clear in all cases, but none of you gave any good example.

If the rules were that 75 moves without capture or pawn move is always a draw, they would say something like: "If more than 75 moves without capture or pawn move are made than the game is a draw regardless of who wins after those moves" The fact that checkmate is mentioned means that the rule is like I explained earlier.

The rules are written for humans and pretty clear to humans because they make adjustments by overlaying them with an understanding of intentions, workability and practicality. I can live with that. Computer programmers cannot. They need precise flowcharts to support their decision processes and can't tell their computer to "understand intentions".

Occasionally, the rules are not so clear as in the phrase "at least 75 moves" and even humans do not quite know what is intended. When chessplayers start taking different sides, you know it's time to reevaluate the clarity of the rules.

The phrase at least 75 moves suggests that situations may occur when more than 75 moves are played. And if you think about it, that is true. The arbiter can't be everywhere, so such a situation may occur. Otherwise the formulation would be really stupid. In any case the rule can't be interpreted any other way unless you refuse to use the definition of legal move like defined in the rules. The clarity of the rule is fine, but it is counter-intuitive for some people.

Arisktotle
Arisktotle
Jun 21, 2019
0
#79
MARattigan wrote:

@Arisktotle

The handbook says the king is attacked if you could capture it according to arts 3.2 to 3.8. You can capture it under those rules. They have no objection.

You cannot capture according to all of the rules because of art. 1.4.1 which does object. 

Art.3.9.1 defines check as the king is attacked. Art.1.4, which I forgot to include defines checkmate as the king is attacked and has no legal moves. Legal moves are defined as those satisfying arts.3.1 to 3.9 - note the extended range. Art 3.9.2  stops the kings from moving into check in the first place and art. 2.3 says they don't start off in check.

So I think the hole in Lisa's bucket is plugged by applying a subset of the rules to define check and then making it illegal to ever be in a position where the king is in check when it's the other side to move.

Ignore the business about squares in my original post I shouldn't have put that in. Apologies.

Ah, that clarifies your post and you are right! I didn't actually read the recent editions of the handbook on the "king issues" but I noticed they have considerably improved to the point that I have no issues with them now. Effectively, FIDE first constructed the "modular move subset" in the articles 3.2 - 3.8 and then upgraded it with semantic notions of legality and illegality.

IMO, something similar can be done with analytical moves for dead/75M/5REP evaluations by temporarily suspending termination conditions in order to permit the analytical continuation of the game with "legal moves". If so desired of course as it depends on how you want it to be. I am sure that 75M and 5REP will be (if not already) disposed of for all composition types. The ones that want competition rules already have effective 50M and 3REP rules and the ones that didn't want 50M do not wish for 75M either. In effect, death evaluations will not be affected by the new rules though they may be affected by the existing automated versions of 3REP and 50M. In fact I know they are because I am one of its victims.

Numquam
Numquam
Jun 21, 2019
0
#80
MARattigan schreef:
Numquam wrote:

I think the rules are more clear than you think. A bigger issue is that people misunderstand the rules and don't read everything. I mean it is like 100% clear that 75 move does not apply to the dead position rule. They defined what they meant with legal and illegal in the rules. So there is no doubt about that. There may be rules which are not so clear in all cases, but none of you gave any good example.

If the rules were that 75 moves without capture or pawn move is always a draw, they would say something like: "If more than 75 moves without capture or pawn move are made than the game is a draw regardless of who wins after those moves" The fact that checkmate is mentioned means that the rule is like I explained earlier.

The 75 move rule is art.9.6. It says:

9.6

If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:

9.6.1

the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.

9.6.2

any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.

   

 

That doesn't say 75 moves without capture or pawn moves is always a draw but it does say that the only exception is when the 150th ply (the last move under the 75 move count) is checkmate. There is no "after those moves" in the game, so what you say about winning after those moves is nonsense. The game has finished.

The definition of legal move is 

3.10.1 A move is legal when all the relevant requirements of Articles 3.1 – 3.9 have been fulfilled.

 

arts 3.9-3.9 do not, as you rightly point out,  include the 75 move rule, so I would agree with you that there exist sequences of legal moves in competition play that extend beyond the termination of the game under the 75 move rule.

The dead position rule says

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.

 

Had it said instead,"The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which no sequence of legal moves exist that result in the checkmate of either king", I would agree with you that the dead position rule and the 75 move rule are not connected. But it doesn't. It says, "neither player can checkmate the opponent's king with any series of legal moves". Since the 75 move rule terminates the game that situation can exist because of the 75 move rule. The players may not be able to complete a  sequence of legal moves that result in checkmate because the game terminates prior to the completion of any such sequence. In that event the requirement of the dead position rule is met. 

The sequence isn't played out by the players. So the 75 move does not apply automatically. The only requirement is that the moves are legal. Unless specified otherwise no additional requirements are automatically made. The rules have to be taken literal.