[Retros] the three draw rules in one problem

[Guus Rol]

Hi Roberto,

If I recall well, I once saw the problem you mention and it was a very nice
challenge.

I don't think there was an issue with the admin rules until FIDE decided to
change something about 3R and castling rights. The new rule might be
interpreted as "castling right in relation to 3R requires that there is a
possibility to execute the castling move in the future". This rule
change causes only a minor theoetical issue for chess players  - DR
abortion might prevent future castling affecting the preceding evaluation
of 3R.

The big problem occurs indeed once the conventions are invoked. Whenever
there is a threat of a future "automated draw" (e.g. 50M) there are new
possibilities of a future castling move being frustrated. Which ties in
with the debate on whether "automated draws" are absolutes and replace
"claimed draws". And that is even before we have addressed
the retro-uncertainties yet!

I don't think anyone wishes to redo the conversations that ensued but it is
clear that the new rule causes new confusions in the retro domain. Which is
the main reason why I suggested a "transparancy convention" for the admin
rules. But of course, no such thing will be necessasry if it turns out that
FIDE never intended to have castling rights evaluated on a dynamice basis!

Best wishes, Guus Rol



On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 3:43 PM, <raosorio at fibertel.com.ar> wrote:

>
>
> Hi friends,
>
> Perhaps an example could help to discuss the connection / non-connection
> between the administrative rules.
>
> In fact I think this issue should be taken in the simplest way: rules are
> rules, and they are all in force
>  simultaneously.  I found the tries to make them relative, in the form of
> meta-rules, etc, a bit forced. There
> is no collision in Orthodox chess (I’m focused in that, trying to follow
> what Guus stated some dozens of
> messages ago, “if we can´t agree the things for orthodox chess …..”. I’m
> not dealing here with conventions
>  but just with the administrative rules.
>
> I published some years ago a problem including the three draw rules in the
> contents. It is not the big deal,
>  I just wanted to show this contents which at that time I thought it was
> original. I had to use a sort of
> Conditional presentation,
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 5bk1/4p1p1/p3P1P1/8/p7/P7/2K5/8
> wK made the maximum number of legal circuits c2-c8-c2 starting from a
> position
> identical to the diagram one. How many circuits? Win?
> a) White to play
> b) Black to play
>
> Analysis:
> Each circuit requested 12moves so no more than 4 were legal since there
> were no captures
> or pawn moves during the manouver (50 moves rule). The 4 circuits
> requested 48 moves but
> the location of the pieces had been repeated 5 times and therefore (to
> avoid the triple repetition
> rule) the turn to play had to be changed before completing the 2nd or 3rd
> circuit. This
> tempo increased the moves up to 49 but, since after completing the 4th
> circuit the turn to play had
> to be the same as the starting one, then the wK had to make another tempo
> and therefore
> 50 moves were made during the 4 circuits.
>
> Now we have to consider the legality of the 4 circuits last move from the
> 3rd draw rule point of view:
> Dead Reckoning.
>
> In a), after 50. Kc2 the bK is on h8 and black has the chance to play 50.
>   , a4, avoiding the
> 50 moves rule and therefore the position is not a 'dead' one. This way,
> the 5oth black move
> Kg8 is legal.
> On the contrary, in b) after the 50th black move Kg8 there would be  no
> way to avoid the draw by
> 50 moves rule (wK can't be on b3 to be in contact with the black pawn in
> order to have the chance
> to capture) so the position is a dead one BEFORE the 50th white move Kc2
> and the 4th circuit
> couldn't be completed.
>
> Solution:
> a) 4 circuits. Draw by the 50 moves rule
> b) 3 circuits. White wins.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Retros mailing list
> Retros at janko.at
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://one.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20140623/980229e1/attachment.html>