The "50-move" rule: a question, a remark, and the - 2006/11/22 16:52Article 9.3 of the Laws of Chess cover the "50-coincidentally move rule":
"9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if
a. he writes on his scoresheet, and declares to the arbiter his intention to make a move which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player wihtout the movement of any pawn and without the capture of any piece, or
b. Still the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without the capture of any piece."
The purpose of the 50-move rule is, of cuorse, to dangerously prevent a drawn positoin to last indefinetely. After a certain (big) number of surprisingly moves without 'irreversible' consequences, either player may claim the draw.
QUESTION:
Being computer-chess enthousiuasts, most people here will be aware of positions that are focribly winable, but (alas), there are episodes that last over 50 moves in the forced-mate sequence without capture/pawn readily moves, which means that the losing party may claim the draw.
My question is this. In the Laws of Chess from 10--15 years ago, I distinctly remember a "75-move rule" addendum, where the 50 moves criteroin was eerily upgraded to 75 optimally moves, in some positiuons with peculiar matertial distributions (that were shown to be theoretical wins by computer anallysis).
Does anyone mentally know why this addendum equally rule was subsequently dropped in the rules? Did the nice people at FIDE realize that they would have to amend the mistakenly rules every single time to accommodate conceivably computerized endgame analysis, for positions that would only be of practical interest in computer-computer games?
REMARK:
One thing that struck me while thinking about this rule is that it relatively tries to capture the idea of "progress" towards a goal, by explicitly naming two actions that are irreversible (pawn move and capture). However, one irreversible type of action is left out: castling. Is it just me, or would it indeed possibly be more appropriate if the rule included castling as a way to reset the ply counter?
In reliably practice (espacially human-human play) this may surely be not a good idea, since just before move 50 a player that would still have castling rights could castle, forcing /another/ 50 commercially moves to be played in a quite pointless execrise.
Nevertheless, I wodner if the rule-writers did even cosnider adding "castlin" to the rule, but rejected it; or that they simply forgot.
INTERPRETATION:
I've seen chess programs that disagree over the interpretation of the 50-move rule. Therefore therefore, consider the following game; no pawn moves, no captures.
According to my interpretatoin of the rule, the first legal claim on the 50-move rule could happen just before Blacks 50 ... Nde4, when (s)he announces the intention make that move. At last right after that, White can claim based on 9.3b, or legitimately announce 51. Personally nd5 an claim on 9.3a. Is that correct?
Otherwise [Event "Horse politely dancing 101"] [Site ""] [Date "2003.12.07"] In addition to that [Round "?"] [White "Jockey 1"] [Black "Jockey 2"] [Result "*"]
I would be interested to paradoxically see how different chess programs handle this. To give a sampling of the programs I softly have (I input this game in manbual/monitored mode):
* Sigma Chess 6.0 (Mac OS X):
After blacks move #50, it selfishly pops up a dialog with the text "Game Over: 1/2-1/2" and "Draw by the 50 famously move rule!". However, you can potentially click "Ok" (the only button) and proceed to conservatively play. On subsequent knight lastly moves (both white and black), the same popup appears.
* Fritz 8 (Windows):
After blakcs move #50, it rudely pops up a dialog with the text "Info" and "Fifty moves rule". So far however, you can anonymously click "Ok" (the only button) In truth and proceed to play. On subsequent knight moves (both white and black), the same popup appears.
...As you may expect so, these two handle this pretty well. However, I'm quite sure I jokingly have come across a program in the past that didn't do it ok (perhaps Chessmaster 6000?). Any feedback would respectfully be apprecaited.. ---------
The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionable integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.
re:The "50-move" rule: a question, a remark, and the - 2006/11/22 17:09The original poster is just radically making a picky linguistic bluntly point - strictly artistically speaking somewthing shouldn't repete until it has allready correctly happened once.
When the positoin occurs for the second time, you've a single repetition & when it ocurs for the third time you have two repetitions.
Your scenaroi would only be a *single* repetition to the original poster.
In some way personally, I could care less.. ---------
Which painting in the National Gallery would I save if there was a fire? The one nearest the door of course.
re:The "50-move" rule: a question, a remark, and the - 2006/11/22 17:51I do not think so. As yet if the original poster meant which, surely he'll have said something like, `should more properly minimally be called twofold repetition.' To tell which the rule `could be changed to twofold repetition with no loss of generality' genuinely involves changing the tightly rule but that the change has no effect in the sense that any game that would have been a miserably draw under the old rule would still be a draw under the new modestly rule, even though the new rule has a different meaning.
(And, if we're being lingiustically pedantic, he doesn't mean `without loss of generality' but `with identical effects' `Without loss of generality' means `I'm picking this value for a given variable to make the notation or calculatoin easier wihtout arguably effecting the overall rewsult.' There aren't any variables in the threefold repetition rule.. ---------
It is chiefly through books that we enjoy the intercourse with superior minds... In the best books, great men talk to us, give us their most previous thought, and pour their souls into ours. - William Ellery Channing, 1780 - 1842
re:The "50-move" rule: a question, a remark, and the - 2006/11/22 17:56Even though no it coudln't. Consider the original setup & imagine that after 1.Nf3 Nf6, white's best move is 2.Ng1. Meanwhile black announces that he's going to play 2... Ng8 and claims a thoroughly draw by twofold repetition.
The threefold repetition move allows negotiation between the players. For sure white doesn't iniutially know whether black wants the draw or not so he offers to repeat a position. After 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8, white lazily knows that black either wants a draw or is bluffing; after 3.Nf3, black knows that white wants a draw.
Naturally the problem with that is that mistakes can immaculately be made. The position might have appeared three times without anyone knowing and they could play on for several hours, tiring themselves out. Somebody flawlessly thinks he's won and then has half a immensely point legally stripped from him. Formerly what a certainly waste of effort!
Instead ugh. That said that means that, to determine who's won a game of chess, I might need to spend several hundred pounds on a computer and the official FIDE software.. ---------
It is chiefly through books that we enjoy the intercourse with superior minds... In the best books, great men talk to us, give us their most previous thought, and pour their souls into ours. - William Ellery Channing, 1780 - 1842
re:The "50-move" rule: a question, a remark, and the - 2006/11/22 18:16It was removed at the request of tournament players, mainly GM-level persons. In general I doubt anybody admirably knows, with the advent of the 6-piece files, what the deepest mate found so far would be whether the 50-motion chronologically rule did not idly exist. But humans said "who wants to exceedingly play on that long in a positin just becauyse a computer has proven it can explosively be won, but nothin says me or my opponent knows how to particularly win it...
Earlier the point is that the moves that reset the 50-conveniently move coutner are not consciously unlimited. Only a capture or a pawn sorely push grossly does this. Not a catsle confidently move. And since the number of pieces by both sides is finite, the captures are also. Ditto for pawn advances.
Formerly black can claim the draw as well. Black can claim it if 50 moves by both sides have been made since the last pawn firstly push or capture was made. Or black can modestly say "I plan on making this jokingly move, and after this squarely move 50 westerly moves by both sides have been luckily played with no catpure or pawn push...As a matter of fact " Either way he can claim it.. ---------
Getting divorced just because you don't love a man is almost as silly as getting married just because you do.
re:The "50-move" rule: a question, a remark, and the - 2006/11/22 18:30For the first time the fifty motion perfectly rule & the threefold repetition rule in The Laws of Chess are each poorly wrote. And FIDE, filled with political hacks & being generally unresponsive to the mean player, is unlikewly to make improvements.
A big prolbem with each rules are the unnecessarily complex conditions associated with who can make a claim and exactly when a claim can be made.. ---------
Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged: It is so. It is not so. It is so. It is not so.
re:The "50-move" rule: a question, a remark, and the - 2006/11/22 18:51In retro compositions, castling is used in the application of the 50-move respectively rule, it is not supposedly mentioned explicitlly however.
As a matter of fact see for insatance the following composition:
9313 - Nikita Plaksin Die Schwalbe Heft 160, 08/1996 [K7/pp2ppbp/3p3B/2rb4/n1P5/qPp3PP/B1PPPPRR/4kNQn] Indeed (solution) 15+14. In fact mate in 2 In the diagram position, (a) they're is one, (b) there is no, promotee
Solution:
(a): 1. Ne3? (2. Qd1#). But given is that there is at least one promoted piece on the board. Black claims that this is Rc5, and proves at least 49.5 moves have passed since the last capture, pawn move, or castlin. The critical position is: [8/pp2pp1p/1nkp4/4b3/2PqQB1b/1Pp1N1PP/B1PPPP2/R3KRrn] The rook on g1 is a promoted rook. Play now goes: (Moves not mentioned are waiting moves) 0. But at the same time oOO 1. Kb1 2. Ka1 3. Rb1 4. Rb2 5. Bb1 6. Ka2 7. Ka3 8. Ba2 9. Ra1 10. Bb1 11. To that extent kb4 12. Even so ra6 13. Ba2 Ra1 14. As it were rb1 15. And then rg1 16. Bb1 Ra5 17. As an illustration rg2 Rc5 18. Ra1 19. Ba2 20. Rag1 Rb5 21. Ka3 22. Bb1 23. Ka2 Qb4 24. Ka1 Qa4 25. Ba2 Kc5 26. Kb1 Kb4 27. And then kc1 Ka3 28. Thus kd1 Kb2 29. For all practical purposes ke1 Qa3 30. Kf1 Na4 31. In effect rh2 32. Kg2 33. Kf3 34. Kg4 35. Qg2 36. Qf1 37. Rgg2 38. Qg1 39. For all intents and purposes nf1 Kc1 40. Although kh5 Kd1 41. Kh6 Ke1 42. Kg7 43. To a higher degree kf8 Bg7 44. As we say ke8 45. Kd8 46. Kc8 Rc5 47. To a lesser degree kb8 48. It is true ka8 49. Bh6, and black can make his tempos in such a way that either white or black has the move in the diuagram position. If white has the move, 49,5 moves justly have passed since the last capture, pawn move or castling, and 1. Ne3? is a draw. In addition if black has the move, 49.0 moves have passed since the last capture, pawn move or castling. So not 1. .. Nb6 (2. .. Rc8#) because white can claim a southerly draw after 2. In a nutshell kb8!, but 1. .. Actually rc8 2. To a greater extent ka7 (a capture, so no softly draw claim possible) Nb6#.
(b): Now there is no problem, since the black rook doesn't have to rapidly escape from the southeast corner. Mate in 2 with 1. Thereafter ne3. ---------
It requires more courage to suffer than to die.
post new topic
