Well... Gijssen is a tad old to play right now... 82 or 83, I think?
Draw or Loss?
Sort:
Teddyhead wrote:
@Aman: I'm not saying your logic isn't plausible, but your argument is incomplete without showing that the conclusion doesn't violate any of the rules. In this case it doesn't, since it's possible to consider that touching a piece changes the position. But then again, it's also possible to consider that touching a piece does not change the position. Thus the argument is not conclusive.
As Gijssen himself said, it's a matter of opinion.
No, IDK what rules say. Rules in the rulebook of Fide keep changing. PRINCIPLES (or logic) don't. I make my arguments on principles not rules labelled with weird sounding decimal numbers.
Please don't quote me on my first sentence. I mean current rules in the FIDE book.
My logic makes sense to the layman. It is much more than plausible. It is what any person with some common sense would say. It is written in simple English and is not quoting the Fide rulebook, which, I mentioned, keeps changing.
Aman, logic is what mathematicians use to get from A to B.
For what we are doing here, looking at the rules gives us the starting point A :-)
Chess rules are made to make sense. Of course it is nice when you feel that they also make sense intuitively to the layman.
But of course what the layman feels may vary a lot individually, or may not be useful for chess.
Just for example when a layman feels differently about details of how to castle or how to take en passant or how to move the knight, this of course does not mean that this should take precedence over the rules that simply tell you how it is done --- in order to start to play chess, also a layman will start by learning the rules, and in order to start to play tournament chess, a chess player will start by learning the FIDE rules, or whatever rules he needs for the tournament in his federation.
Teddyhead wrote:
Here's a layman counter-argument, if you insist:
The piece was touched, which doesn't mean anything, because the game ended before the move was made. A position can't obviously occur until the move producing it is made. The final position was clearly such that it was possible for White to win (especially as Black was in time pressure). Black ran out of time, so they deserved to lose. Therefore, White won.See, different principles can have different outcomes. And one thing about "principles" is that you can make them up from the thin air if it suits you. That's why the result should be determined by rules.
Simple question:
After black touches the rook, what legal series of moves can force a white win? None. Unless you count Bg7, which is not a legal move anymore. In a touch-move game, any moves with a piece besides that which you are touched are considered illegal- that's just plain logic.
ilmago wrote:
Aman, logic is what mathematicians use to get from A to B.
For what we are doing here, looking at the rules gives us the starting point A :-)
Chess rules are made to make sense. Of course it is nice when you feel that they also make sense intuitively to the layman.
But of course what the layman feels may vary a lot individually, or may not be useful for chess.
Just for example when a layman feels differently about details of how to castle or how to take en passant or how to move the knight, this of course does not mean that this should take precedence over the rules that simply tell you how it is done --- in order to start to play chess, also a layman will start by learning the rules, and in order to start to play tournament chess, a chess player will start by learning the FIDE rules, or whatever rules he needs for the tournament in his federation.
There is a degree of sense with castling and enpassnt.
Castling is used to get your king out of the centre, leading to a much more interesting and long game. How do you want to get your rook into play.
Of course there is, Aman. But would you think a layman could guess all the details about castling, or en passant, or knight movement, ... correctly by not looking at the rules at all, just by trying to feel where there might be a degree of sense? Of course he will just have to learn the rules in order to be able to do it.
Of course not, ilmago, but if one reads the rules of chess, they should make perfect sense. Take the starting position of a non-960 game:
White's knights can come into the game easily, the bishops, queens and rooks need only a pawn move to get out. All the 2nd rank pawns are defended by 2 pieces, except f7 and f2, which are defended once. Ever wonder why it's so hard to develop in 960? Because the starting position isn't optimal.
All rules in our beautiful game are made logically. That's why I love chess in the first place.
aman_makhija wrote:
Of course not, ilmago, but if one reads the rules of chess, they should make perfect sense.
Of course they should make sense.
In an imperfect world, FIDE is trying to make the rules as simple and clear as possible and as detailed as necessary, and arbiters are trying to apply these rules as well as they can, and players try to read these rules and understand them as well as they can, and rely on arbiters to make the decision whenever necessary.
And I think chess is being quite successful, and things are working quite well this way.
Pls read post 78
Feb 1, 2016
0
#71
|
PREFACE |
|
|
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view. |
Read post 78, I think I explained my point well there.
Feb 1, 2016
0
#73
The laws of chess describe when a move has been made. Simply touching a piece doesn't mean the move has been made even if there is only one possible square it can go to.
What Gijssen argues is that if any part of a move is made, the whole move is made if we know that it has only one legal square to move to. But the rules clearly state that the game ends only when checkmate appears on the board. The move is not complete until it rests on its final square and the hand has been removed from it:
| 4.7 |
When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move. |
And 5.7 uses the past tense to describe checkmate:
| 5.1 |
|
| 4.7 |
When, as a legal move or part of a legal move, a piece has been released on a square, it cannot be moved to another square on this move.
|
Feb 1, 2016
0
#74
I agree with Gijssen's own words here:
Conclusion Never declare a game won for a player who has overstepped the time limit. Check the position as to whether the opponent can possibly win the game if it were to be continued. If he cannot win, declare the game drawn. If it is completely certain that the player touched a piece just before the flag fall, take this into consideration.
SmyslovFan wrote:
What Gijssen argues is that if any part of a move is made, the whole move is made if we know that it has only one legal square to move to.
No he doesn't.
Touching the piece does not create the position B that appears in the future after the move has been made.
Touching the piece changes the position A in the present, from this position A1 with all pieces being allowed to move, to this position A2 with only moves allowed with the touched piece.
edit: Teddy was faster again, making the same point above with other words :-)
Teddyhead wrote:
aman_makhija wrote:Simple question:
After black touches the rook, what legal series of moves can force a white win?
Simple answer: in that line of argument that touch doesn't count, so Bg7 gives White the opportunity to win. (The win doesn't have to be forced, by the way.)
By what legal series of moves can white force a win?
Bg7 is as good as illegal, once you touched the rook. THat's logical, it won't be allowed. If the rules say something else, they should be changed.
Feb 1, 2016
0
#77
royalprobe wrote:
And what would be the result if the situation is "slightly" changed: Now it would be a loss because black could play Bg7 which would allow white to win this game with a series of legal moves.
But what if Black touches his rook on g2 and then he runs out of time (before moving it to g7). After touching the rook the only possible move is Rg7(#). So still a draw?
Ok, Gijssen's not wrong, you are. Gijssen used the example of the player touching a Knight to rule that a position that would otherwise be won is a draw. You are using his argument to state that a position that is otherwise lost is a draw because he touched the R. I disagree.
Black has not completed the move, and therefore must lose the game in this situation.
SmyslovFan, when you are accepting that touching the piece makes a change in the one case, why shouldn't it just as well make a change in the other case?
TeddyHead, it is NOT relevant whether the position changes. You guys are saying win based on technicalities. White obviously deserves the half-point if he touched the rook. Be fair and don't win based on technicalities. BYE!
Aman, do not say technicalities when we are just having a close enough look.
Example:
When you cannot castle because your king has moved before, that is not a technicality, that is just how the rules are.
It is nice when your intuition agrees with what the rules say. People and arbiters will agree on applying the rules. They will be much less likely to agree on your intuition alone, that is not a foundation for everyone to act on.
Btw, Gijssen's an important authority, but he's not god. Many players have complained that Gijssen doesn't really understand tournament chess as it's played because he doesn't play enough.