[Retros] Retros: Eternally winning position and 50moves rule YefimT 08/25/2004
TregerYefim at aol.com
TregerYefim at aol.com
Wed Aug 25 11:36:59 EDT 2004
Example 6 from Yefim T about 50 move rule.
Here is the interesting example 6 of "eternally winning position":
FEN Notation (but please check it by algebraic notation below too):
1b6/2p5/1pP5/1P6/3p1p1p/2pP1P1K/2P1BP1p/7K w 0--1
Or: White:Kh1,Be2,pp:b5,c2,c6,d3,f2,f3
Black: Kh3, Bb8,pp:b6,c3,c7,d4,f4,h2.h4 White to move.
It is clearly, that if White does not deliver mate then game follows very
simple eternally (suppose there was no 50 moves rule).
Somebody has already constructed "eternally winning position" (with Rg2 and
Bh1 as a battery…). My example is simpler because it illustrates arrangement of
positions in a tree. Really, we have four positions with Bishops on
a7,b8,d2,e1 (cyclic graph or group) and from one of them you may mate what means go to
the final position of the graph.
Now. I am offering the following. Eliminate the rule of 50 moves (by the way
why 50 moves no more no less…) and set up the following rule:
Upon obtaining "eternally winning position" game is stopped with result White
(resp. Black) won. Or versions:
If one side can prove that only one result in position is possible, then this
result is effective immediately, that is (here) White won. Or maybe someone
wants to offer interesting other versions? (it will be in my new book…)
I have other arguments in my defense. Here they are:
There is no position in graph with result "Draw" upon the rule 50 moves. The
"Draw" positions in one and only tree are only Stalemate positions!
(I correct myself: there are final and not final positions in a tree; only
final positions in my opinion constitute a purpose of a game; values for others
of them are given by human and do not reflect math properties properly…)
Only human gave this strange rule to get rid of eternity but he ran into the
conflict problem: the position above may have only one possible final so why
Draw?! And if we need to save ourselves from infinity better to have the rule
above (I think a proof here is more simple than counting of number of moves).
I have already prepared many such examples and will be very appreciated to
have even more to choose one for publishing…
Thank you, Yefim T. 08/25/2004 P.S. May I use next time a smile? Look at
the phrase: "to get rid of infinity" Is it something pessimistic; :( or :) ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20040825/b3245a47/attachment.htm>
More information about the Retros
mailing list