Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
11:05 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Law 9.2: Draw by Repetition |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 | | (41) Posted by Valery Liskovets [Tuesday, May 7, 2013 13:16] |
1. Discussing the 3-time repetition rule with respect to e.p. according to new(ly formulated) Art.9.2 (2) of the FIDE Laws we should take into account the second part of OLDer Art.3.1:
"A piece is considered to attack a square, even if this piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack."
(As you see, it is not, explicitly, in terms of "possible" or "legal" moves. Something about pseudo-legality? Well, apparently this could have been reformulated in such terms, it doesn't matter.)
Art.3.1 claims to cover all types of captures including e.p. (3.7.d)! So, in my opinion, "attacks or not attacks, that is the question" three times.
2. I think "move right (or rights)" is, in principle, an intrinsic property of ANY move (not completely trivial for ordinary moves just because of pinning). Well, the Laws uses this word once: "the right to castle". But, this is not a special notion and, naturally, is missing in the Glossary of terms (Appendix H).
3. Generally I dislike the idea of adjusting (orthodox) chess composition to (re)wordings of every current FIDE Laws. In the former Soviet Union we liked an ironic joke about a person who declared to be a convinced firm communist and to hesitate "only" together with the Party's guidelines (cf. Orwell's "1984").
4. Laws are to be written for international usage, not only by English-native persons. It is bad when proper vs improper understanding of rules depends heavily on language nuances. Sometimes at least official comments are desirable.
| | | (42) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Tuesday, May 7, 2013 20:24] |
Nicolas wrote:
QUOTE
But when some conventions are really needed, it seems important for them to go in the same way. Let me give you a practice example, namely a white pawn standing on the first row. This is possible under numerous fairy conditions but it exist at least four different conventions for such a "delocalized pawn":
...
I’m far from being convinced that such diversity is good for fairy chess, to my eyes this is much more a source of trouble and an illustration that fairy theory is not well-structured. It would be one of the missions of a fairy Codex to stipulate a unique convention for delocalized pawns (i.e. to enlarge orthodox rules), even if it would bother some inventors and made some problems unsound.
I agree that standardization in fairy principles can be elegant. The lesson of chess itself is that the combination of a few simple elements can yield prodigious variety. I particularly like Ronald Turnbull's distinction of Constitutional Rights ("you can do it unless you can prove you can't") versus Police-Court Rulings ("you can't do it unless you can prove that you can") as generalizations of the Castling and En Passant conventions respectively. I also generally like Werner Keym's unification of "orthodox" conventions with PRA.
But once irregularities are entrenched, it's very difficult to get rid of them. And I believe that prior composers have a right to the protection of their creations, which were sound at the time. I also find myself believing in the perhaps contradictory right of new composers to operate in a cleaner world. Hopefully the "design space" of fairy chess is so vast that all can dwell there without conflict.
Geir wrote:
QUOTE
Regarding the logic of the rules, I think there could simply be practical reasons for treating castling and en passant differently.
Regarding en passant, it is quite straightforward to determine whether there are any legal en passant captures in a position, and I think the average arbitor will find it more natural to consider only legal captures and not "captures which would have been legal if the king hadn't been in check."
When it comes to castling, it is straightforward to determine whether the kings and rooks have moved previously, while it is not necessarily as straightforward to see whether it will ever be possible to castle in the future.
I think this is basically the point. I love the cheeky White pawn on h7.
Valery wrote:
QUOTE
1. Discussing the 3-time repetition rule with respect to e.p. according to new(ly formulated) Art.9.2 (2) of the FIDE Laws we should take into account the second part of OLDer Art.3.1:
"A piece is considered to attack a square, even if this piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack."
Good find. It looks as if some words are missing from this sentence, but this strange phraseology is retained even into the next set of rules.
The preceding part of 3.1 says: "A piece is said to attack an opponent’s piece if the piece could make a capture on that square according to Articles 3.2 to 3.8." It is odd that the criteria for attacking a piece and a square are different from one another. Why not say: "a piece A attacks another B if it attacks the square B is on."?
And I think there is at least one hole. Suppose WKa1, BPa2, BKa3. WK attacks a2, but does not attack BPa2. Surely this is not the intention? This is because 3.8 explicitly excludes king moves which place the king in check.
Valery goes on to say:
QUOTE
So, in my opinion, "attacks or not attacks, that is the question" three times.
It's a good try, but 9.2 has no mention of attacking.
QUOTE
2. I think "move right (or rights)" is, in principle, an intrinsic property of ANY move (not completely trivial for ordinary moves just because of pinning). Well, the Laws uses this word once: "the right to castle". But, this is not a special notion and, naturally, is missing in the Glossary of terms (Appendix H).
Rights appear both in 3.8 and 9.2 in the new rules, and I submit *are* a special notion. They are specific to keeping track of whether the king or rook had moved historically. They have nothing to do with self-check, and have no analogue for any other kind of move. 3.8 distinguishes very well between the right to castle and temporary prevention. Temporary prevention is a broader set of constraints than self-check, and subsumes it.
I looked at the definition of "attack" in the Glossary, and based on that sample I can't face the rest.
QUOTE
3. Generally I dislike the idea of adjusting (orthodox) chess composition to (re)wordings of every current FIDE Laws.
4. Laws are to be written for international usage, not only by English-native persons. It is bad when proper vs improper understanding of rules depends heavily on language nuances. Sometimes at least official comments are desirable.
I agree strongly with both of these points. Genuine changes in the rules are relatively rare. I don't think there has been any actual change in the rules in the area of Draw By Repetition for many years, despite all the ineffectual fiddling around with the rules which has happened. Even as a native English speaker, I find it extremely hard in some places to gather the exact sense of what is being defined in the Laws, and I am full of admiration for the persistence of those for whom English is a non-first language.
I find it very interesting from a retro perspective, on the other hand, where there *is* a genuine change in the rule. Like a bird following the plough.
| | | (43) Posted by Valery Liskovets [Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:13] |
Andrew wrote:
QUOTE It's a good try, but 9.2 has no mention of attacking.
Yes, indeed. But there is the letter of a law and its spirit. From the literal wording of Art.9.2 we conclude that two positions may be considered the same if the sets of attacked squares in both are not the same. For me (and I'm apparently not alone) this is extremely counter-intuitive. "The same" means "the same" with no reservations; rather than something like "with the same set of legal moves". Two mentioned positions are only "pseudo-identical" (or "practically the same").
| | | (44) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Wednesday, May 8, 2013 17:23]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [13-05-08] |
Lol, Valery!
For me (and I'm apparently not alone) your position is extremely counter-intuitive. "The same" means "the same legal moves" with no reservations; rather than something like "with the same set of attacked squares".
Such a tiny hole in the rules to generate so much discussion. :D
In reality I could accept anything, as long as the rules are written clearly. But the naughty rule-writers refuse to be precise, it would seem... :)
| | | (45) Posted by Valery Liskovets [Wednesday, May 8, 2013 21:33] |
Well, Andrew,
the established discrepancy is tiny, indeed, and makes few sense even for (practical) retros. But the very question under consideration is no less than "what precisely is a chess position". Incredibly (laugh or not) it proves not to be closed still... Moreover I think such an elaborate analysis can make more sense for fairy chess composition and its tentative Codex.
| | | (46) Posted by Joost de Heer [Thursday, May 9, 2013 09:40]; edited by Joost de Heer [13-05-09] |
QUOTE
"The same" means "the same legal moves"
 (= 3+1 )
1. Ra7 Kb3 2. Ra1 Kb2
The legal moves in the diagram and after the second move are the same. Yet in the sense of the 3-fold repetition rule they aren't. (Sa8 is there to avoid the discussion about unavoidable castle rights loss).
| | | (47) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Thursday, May 9, 2013 13:00] |
And thus (of course I argument under Andrew III - which IS the
standard interpretation of the rules - too bad that my colleague
didn't answer - obviously he has more important things to judge ;-)
it would be best to rephrase the whole smeg somewhat ugly but
explicite, say like in the sense of:
"...if no castling rights have been destroyed by moving king or rook..."
"...if no e.p. was playable in the first position..."
...throwing all cases of illegal e.p. and unplayable O-O out of
the window.
Hauke
| | | (48) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Monday, May 20, 2013 18:07]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [13-05-20] |
The reason why I started this thread was to get clarity for an article I am writing. Senior Arbiter Stewart Reuben has kindly responded to an email I sent him on this subject. His answer is very interesting, and I will simply give the email in full, saving any responses for later replies.
QUOTE
Geurt Gijssen and I differ over the repetition rule and castling. His view will continue to hold sway for the new version (probably now no change until 1 July 2013).
Position Qa4 Ka1. ke8, rh8. The laws state that the right is not lost to castle until the king moves. Thus 1...kf7 2 Qf4 ke8 2 Qa4 is a new position. I think that is wrong. We can look into the future and know black will never castle.
But Rh2 Pg2 Kf1. ka2 pf4. 1 g4+ Kh3 2 Rh3+ Ka2 3 Rh2+ is the same position. Black could never capture en passant. To my mind this is illogical. The two posisilities should be the same.
But it is the law and I have no idea whether it has ever arisen. So I do not care too much.
Stewart Reuben
From: Andrew Buchanan
To: Stewart Reuben
Sent: Thu, May 9, 2013 8:35 pm
Subject: rules question
Dear Mr Reuben,
I am writing an article on Draw by Repetition (...) but we are confused as to the precise ruling for over the board play.
Of course the confusion centres on the treatment of en passant and castling. We might as well take the wording from the new Laws becoming valid July 1, 2013. The phrasing has changed and become a bit clearer, and I don’t think the intention has altered.
QUOTE
Positions are considered the same only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:
a. at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant.
b. a king or rook had castling rights, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.
Can the following White to move positions repeat?
(i) 4k3/8/8/r2pP2K/8/8/8/8, where the last move was 0... d7-d5.
(ii) 4k3/8/8/8/8/8/8/4K2R, where WK & WR have never moved.
(iii) 4k3/8/8/8/8/8/7p/4KB1R, where again WK & WR have never moved.
To my mind the answers are clear:
(i) Yes. En passant right now is rendered impossible by threat of self-check. So the position can be replicated.
(ii) No. White has kingside castling rights now, but must immediately lose them by the next move.
(iii) Yes. White has kingside castling rights now and can retain them indefinitely. The fact that White can never actually castle is irrelevant.
But some others have different interpretations of fragments like “possible moves” “could have been captured” and “castling rights”, which lead to different conclusions.
My suggested approach:
Position is characterized as diagram + whose move + castling rights + en passant file.
Castling rights all set to “yes” at the beginning of the game, but becomes “no” when K or relevant R moves.
En passant set to a file if some en passant capture onto that file is a completely legal move right now, otherwise “nil”.
Not looking for an arbitration here, but your authoritative conclusion, please, based on knowing the intention of those who compile the rules.
Thanks so much for your time,
Andrew.
  |
| | | (49) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Monday, May 20, 2013 18:31]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [13-05-20] |
First, here is my interpretation of what Stewart Reuben has said. At the risk of putting words in Mr Reuben's mouth, I think there remains a need for some "clarifying remarks", which I have added in square brackets:
QUOTE
Geurt Gijssen and I differ over the repetition rule and [how] castling [should be treated. But there is agreement about how the rule does work today, and that no changes are required to the treatment of en passant.] His view will continue to hold sway for the new version (probably now no change [to the draft statement of the rules] until 1 July 2013 [when these draft rules will become operational, and then probably run until around 30 June 2018.]).
Position Qa4 Ka1. ke8, rh8. The laws state that the right is not lost to castle until the king moves. Thus 1...kf7 2 Qf4 ke8 2 Qa4 is a new position. I think that is wrong. We can look into the future and know black will never castle. [But Guert thinks that considering the future of the position is irrelevant, so the two positions are different.]
But Rh2 Pg2 Kf1. ka2 pf4. 1 g4+ Ka3 2 Rh3+ Ka2 3 Rh2+ is the same position. Black could never capture en passant. To my mind this is illogical[ly inconsistent with the treatment of castling.] The two possibilities should be the same. [So keep the en passant clause and change the castling clause.]
| |
| | | (50) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Tuesday, May 21, 2013 19:41]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [13-05-21] |
So the current view by the two most senior FIDE arbiters appears to be that position is determined by castling rights (not current or future capability) and e.p. capability (not "e.p. rights"). It happens to correspond with what I had originally argued, but I don't care about that. What matters to me in this tiny debate is that there is a definite answer: because how can one launch into the subjective chaos of the conventions without a firm bedrock in the rules, valid at least for the current period in time?
| | | (51) Posted by Joost de Heer [Tuesday, May 21, 2013 20:26] |
I still think it's fundamentally wrong to treat ep and castling different, but I guess I'm alone in this.
Let's do something fun with this rule: fairy chess!
 (= 2+2 )
One-way chess (No piece may move in the direction it last came from)
How many times can this position be repeated until the 3-fold position repetition rule kicks in? I'd say 2*8^4+1=8193 times (each piece has 8 different 'states', where one move isn't possible due to the previous move, and each of these combined states can be repeated twice).
I guess you could increase this with something like rokagogo, where sometimes castling is possible, sometimes it isn't.
| | | (52) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, May 21, 2013 23:03]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [13-05-21] |
Here you have also a strange case :
http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1369169690&app=forum&act=posts&fid=xshowf&tid=598
"...The same position occurs then for the 3rd time with black to move !! This proves the rule of draw by triple repetition of the position to be irrelevant in Kriegspiel.
The moves would have been :
4…Ba1 5.Rg8 Bb2 6.Rg6 Ba1 7.Rg8 Bb2 8.Rg6 Ba1 9.Rg8 Bb2 and, yet, this manoeuvre is needed for white to win !!"...
| | | (53) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Wednesday, May 22, 2013 17:41] |
QUOTE
I still think it's fundamentally wrong to treat e.p. and castling different, but I guess I'm alone in this.
I don't think you are alone, Joost. Valery here agrees with you, and more importantly for the long term, so does Stewart Reuben. But the point is that these are rules of the game, not conventions. As problemists, the most we can reasonably ask for is that the rules cover all cases. Why can only pawns capture en passant? Why can only pawns *be* captured en passant? Why has a pawn only got the option for a double hop on its first move? Why can pawns only move up rather than down? Why can pawns only capture diagonally? Why can't a pawn promote to a king? Etc. For any of these things you could complain they show the current rules are "fundamentally wrong" but if you change all these rules then are we really any better off? Where do you stop?
From a retrograde analysis point of view, I think it's amusing that there are a couple of over-complicated rules which can only be seen in difficult to engineer situations. But for this, we need the rules to cover all cases.
QUOTE
Let's do something fun with this rule: fairy chess!
Kb7 Qe7 - Kg2 Qd2 (2+2)
One-way chess (No piece may move in the direction it last came from)
Yes, let's!
Question: how do we handle the uncertainty of not knowing the history of the game? :D
| | | (54) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Wednesday, May 22, 2013 18:45] |
QUOTE
Here you have also a strange case :
http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1369169690&app=forum&act=posts&fid=xshowf&tid=598
"...The same position occurs then for the 3rd time with black to move !! This proves the rule of draw by triple repetition of the position to be irrelevant in Kriegspiel.
The moves would have been:
4…Ba1 5.Rg8 Bb2 6.Rg6 Ba1 7.Rg8 Bb2 8.Rg6 Ba1 9.Rg8 Bb2 and, yet, this manoeuvre is needed for white to win !!"...
What an extraordinary composition! Thank you for sharing this, and the associated thread is fascinating too.
So how should we adapt the rules for a fairy format?
In orthodox chess, there is a set of "state" variables which together with the diagram characterize the "position". But in Kriegspiel defining the state is very hard. We might say the state includes all the players could know about the disposition of the opponents' pieces, given optimal reasoning. But shouldn't it also include what the players know about what their opponents know about the disposition, and what the players know about what their opponents know about what they know? Argh - to avoid madness we must jettison Draw By Repetition in Kriegspiel.
| | | (55) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Wednesday, May 22, 2013 19:37] |
Indeed, it is a good question how to handle draw by repetition in Kriegspiel. Perhaps a possible rule could be that you can claim a draw if you can be 100% sure that a repetition is achieved? I bet you could make some good problems based on that rule - at what point can White claim a draw by repetition?
| | | (56) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, May 26, 2013 15:15] |
In the 15# shown above, black can solve the problem too. Then they will know, for sure, what white will play. Then in the first moves they can play say Ba1-b2-a1-b2-a1-b2-a1... Would their draw claim be acceptable ?
| | | (57) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Friday, Jun 7, 2013 04:43] |
Black may have a good idea what White might optimally choose to play, but a claim of draw by repetition as Jacques would still be speculative If speculative claims are allowed in Kriegspiel, then the failure of such a claim does provide a small amount of information to the claimant.
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net Forum General Law 9.2: Draw by Repetition |
|
|
|
ISC 2024