[Retros] Illegal moves by grandmasters

[Daniel Alfredo Sottile]

Francois Labelle wrote:


> I don't follow your logic. Andrew's chess page shows a problem with 2

> kings and the caption "Who moved last?". The answer is supposed to be

> White, but here's a game

>

> Hermansson Emil (2432) vs Nilssen John Arni (2372), Tvoroyri, 2005

>

> http://chess-results.com/partieSuche.aspx?art=36&tnr=2381&rd=9&weiss=5&lan=7

>

> which shows that it's possible for Black to have moved last. So either

> that game is illegal or Andrew's problem is flawed. I don't see how you

> can have it both ways.

>

>

Under the same rules applied by Andrew Buchanan, in your game the move 78.
Kxh1 is illegal. Then, Andrew`s problem does have a point. The only (fatal)
flaw I see is that the position in Andrew`s problem cannot be reached by a
game of chess (I agree with Guus Rol). It's kind of a contradiction itself.
Doesn't it mean that the problem cannot be considered a Retro one?

Greetings,
Daniel.


On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 07:16, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com> wrote:


> Interesting argument... in that the entire matter is absurd.

>

> At first, I was prepared to agree that games should be published exactly as

> they were played (leave it to editor/annotator/program to note the

> illegality of continuing in dead positions).

> After all, there is some history of illegal moves, and it would seem wrong

> not to annotate the full story of the game.

> But, upon further reflection, I had to abandon this completely absurd

> position (and the unfortunate terms it generated -- such as "fundamental

> rules").

>

> The main flaws are:

> 1) the full story of a game need not necessarily be told in annotation

> (there are comments!), and,

> 2) rules are rules, after all.

>

> Most chess programs today opt to allow movement beyond "dead" positions,

> because it requires an added programming effort to detect dead positions

> (which may -- unnecessarily -- slow the alpha-beta search).

> Besides, there are alternative forms of this game (FIDE has no monopoly on

> rules).

>

> However, when it comes to games in a FIDE tourney, I find no merit for this

> "fundamental rules" argument.

> Suppose my opponent moves after I have delivered checkmate, and I capture

> his King -- should we include the capturing of the enemy King as part of the

> official game score?

> It was played after all, and my opponent and I might easily claim that

> capture of the enemy King is the true form of official termination (the

> "fundamental rule").

> Thus, the extra (illegal) moves (his into check + my capture of his King)

> should be part of the game's annotation.

>

> This is no less absurd than the argument for allowing extra moves (from

> dead positions) to creep into the game score. Even if two super-GMs record

> such moves on their score sheet, it does not make them legal moves.

>

> In my view, such "illegal" moves should be welcomed in comments (as they

> may relay interesting information about the full story of a game);  however,

> they should be excluded (at least in FIDE tourneys, played after the rule

> became official) from the official game score.

>

> That said, I must also admit, I find this argument both misplaced (in a

> problem forum -- and, a retro forum at that!) and misguided (full agreement

> here, either way, would have little impact on published chess games).

>

> Long before we problemists go preaching to chess players about extremely

> trivial matters in their game scores, we are responsible to tend carefully

> to flaws in our own rules.

>

> There are titled problemists who can not even agree about the definition of

> an aim/stipulation/fairy condition (to say nothing of the countless

> disagreements which stem from our ambiguous fairy rules). We can not even

> agree what constistutes a dual (especially in selfmates)!

>

> What gall we problemists have: we lecture the super-GMs about a lose

> shoestring, while our pants are all ablaze.

>

>

> Good show,

> Kevin

>

>

>

>

>

> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Francois Labelle <flab at wismuth.com>wrote:

>

>> I agree that my title is provocative, but I think that the logic behind

>> it is sound, so why not? :)

>>

>> Yefim Treger wrote:

>> > IMO: an illegal move is a move, which breaks fundamental rules of

>> > chess (piece movement, etc.)

>>

>> So according to you, some rules are "fundamental" and others are not,

>> and breaking a fundamental rule would be illegal, but breaking a

>> non-fundamental rule would be called something else (called what?). The

>> FIDE rules make no such distinction.

>>

>> > Mathematically: Imagine the tree of all positions (including dead

>> > ones, etc.). Each position is a vertex,  edges between them are the

>> > legal moves. The Illegal moves do not correspond to any edges.

>>

>> Rephrasing the rules of chess as a graph doesn't change anything.

>> Actually I like it because it forces a black-and-white interpretation of

>> the rules. In that graph, Article 5.2b says that dead positions have no

>> outgoing edges, so playing a move from a dead position does not

>> correspond to an edge and so according to your logic it is illegal.

>>

>> Noam Elkies wrote:

>> > This kind of "illegality" is a fun addition to the arsenal of a

>> > problemist, but doesn't change the outcome of over-the-board games,

>> > as long as "dead" draws are still not affected by the clock.

>>

>> It's true that A1.3/A5.2b/A9.6 don't change the outcome (win/draw/loss)

>> of over-the-board games much, but that's irrelevant. The rules are there

>> so Mamedyarov's 69.Kd4 is illegal. If FIDE had wanted 69.Kd4 to be

>> legal, then those rules would not be there or they would have been

>> written differently.

>>

>> Guus Rol wrote:

>> > The reverse however is not true. The (composed) dead positions

>> > published by Andrew Buchanan are indeed illegal as no legal game

>> > can be construed to arrive at them. The "law" does not allways look

>> > the same in forward and backward direction.

>>

>> I don't follow your logic. Andrew's chess page shows a problem with 2

>> kings and the caption "Who moved last?". The answer is supposed to be

>> White, but here's a game

>>

>> Hermansson Emil (2432) vs Nilssen John Arni (2372), Tvoroyri, 2005

>>

>> http://chess-results.com/partieSuche.aspx?art=36&tnr=2381&rd=9&weiss=5&lan=7

>>

>> which shows that it's possible for Black to have moved last. So either

>> that game is illegal or Andrew's problem is flawed. I don't see how you

>> can have it both ways.

>>

>>        Francois

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Retros mailing list

>> Retros at janko.at

>> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>>

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Retros mailing list

> Retros at janko.at

> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20110511/caf2e620/attachment.htm>