[Retros] 50 moves rule

raosorio at fibertel.com.ar raosorio at fibertel.com.ar
Fri Jan 5 08:51:42 EST 2007



Guus Rol wrote,


The most remarkable side of this issue is that the correct approach was
already available in the FIDE/Codex, the repetion rule. From the
insightful understanding that "essential progress" should be read from
positions and not from reversible or reversed moves, it was decided to
base the rule on the repetition of positions and not of moves! From this
highly commendable example I now rate article 5 in the same category as
I rate chess players who still believe in "move repetitions".
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with this approach. It should be understood that "essential progress"
does not apply to feseable moves but reachable positions. Say, if from diagram
A the play can go to diagram B but, after making 50 moves from A we get diagram
C wich from B is not reachable, then the play from A to C "has essentially changed
the things on the overall board".

Example: wK on e1, wR on h1 (keeping castling right), bK and bN somewhere on
the board. The following position can be reached,
8/8/8/8/8/8/5n2/k4RK1

Obviously, last move was 0-0, so this position is can't be reached if white
has no castling right. Perhaps is better to think this way, future potential
of the position instead of "reversability".

There is something fascinating underlaying here. let's say "after 50 moves
without captures or pawn moves the game is not draw if a position that
was reachable at the beggining is not reachable any more".

Then the example would not be draw after 50 moves if the castling right was
lost on the way. What about a twin "replace bN by bR"? There is no unreachable
position so the game is draw. This is quite similar to the Dead Reckoning
nature and it would provide a new basis to build paradoxical problems (we deal
with these, isn't it?). Say, to state "draw" the reachable positions at the
beggining and at the end have to be compared.

This is a bit delirious but......
Roberto Osorio






More information about the Retros mailing list