[Retros] Many new examples of Yefim T. 09/03/2004

[Ryan M.]

-----Original Message-----
From: retros-admin at janko.at [mailto:retros-admin at janko.at] On Behalf Of
TregerYefim at aol.com
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:56 AM
To: retros at janko.at
Subject: [Retros] Many new examples of Yefim T. 09/03/2004
 
   Hello from Yefim. Not only discussion (between me and Ryan) but many
new positions to think about.
   
2. Remember my idea about eternally winning position? If you admit that
some heuristic logic is allowed to prevent futility, then you have to
admit that such a position is won instantly (so easy to prove it, FEN
below).
8/b1p5/1pP5/1P6/3p1p1p/2pP1P1k/2P1BP1p/7K w - - 0 1
Really? What if white just plays Bd1-e2 over and over? You see, there
are still two possible outcomes to the game, so the arbiter must not
interfere! If white's flag falls, the arbiter would properly rule that
he does not lose the game, since there is obviously no possible
checkmate for black; the game is drawn.

No, there is only one outcome! If White plays Bd1-e2 eternally, then no
final (unless
you have 50moves rule or 3rep.). It is better to see my new version of
Eternally winning position.
8/b1p5/1pP2p1p/1P3P1P/6B1/4p3/4Pp1p/5K1k w - -
Here White is always capable to mate BK in his move.


But what if white's flag falls? Are you abolishing the clock too? 
I also don't believe you've made a case for abolishing the 3-move
repetition rule. If a player intends to win, he will do everything in
his power to avoid this rule. If the position is so futile that he
cannot avoid it, then the game should be declared drawn. I can't go with
you to this parallel dimension where games just go on and on forever and
ever! To put it to an absurd question, what if white plays Bd1-e2 until
he dies? Is he still 'winning' when he's physically unable to make the
mating move?

   3. What about position necessarily leading to mate independently on
play of sides?
K1k5/P1Pp4/1p1P4/8/p7/P2P4/8/8 w - - 0 1 
Again, two possibilities; white could yield a draw by running out of
time. The arbiter can't rule when there are two possible outcomes. 
   My new example is simpler:
k7/P7/KP6/2r5/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
Suppose, White' s flag is down in this moment. Arbiter should check a
possibility
of mate for Black ... and we have a contradiction! Only one outcome here
is possible,
but I suspect you think it will be awarded as Draw.
It has to be ruled drawn, because black has no possible mate. If white
wanted to win, he should have moved faster!

4. Judgment decision denies a right of player to resign (denies a right
of one player
to wait for other to resign:); denies a hope:((.  
In the example you gave (locked pawns on their own 4th ranks), there is
no hope for either side to checkmate the other. Nothing is being taken
away from the players except the right to gain a cheap victory by
running the opponent's clock down in a position they could never win
over-the-board. And somehow I can't see players protesting their loss of
right to resign drawn positions :-P. 
  Below is dead position 
6k1/7P/5PK1/7Q/8/B7/8/8 b - - 0 1
in which a) Black's lost on time; b) resigns! What is the result? What
is superior:
loosing on time, resigning or dead draw rule? Let's see rules:
A1.3:
If the position is such that neither player can possibly checkmate, the
game is drawn. 
A5.1.b: 
The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This
immediately ends the game. 
     Again, i.m.o. it is a contradiction: (the game is drawn and the
game is won!)
May be the word "immediately" can help?
The result should go to what is done first. If black resigns without a
claim of a draw being made, he has forfeited his right to a draw. I've
seen drawn games resigned before! In the USA, once a scoresheet is
signed by the resigning player, that result is final, and cannot be
overturned even by the position. In other words, be careful about
resigning!

5. You think that "dead position is rare occurrence". 
Not quite - I said that dead positions that are 'deep' (requiring some
analysis to tell that they are dead) - are rare. Obvious dead positions
such as K+B v. K happen quite often. Therefore, the examples below are
moot, for they are obviously dead positions. Any seasoned player could
tell at a glance that they are dead. The calculations are meaningless,
because math isn't the best approach to evaluate these positions
What about position WK+B  against BK+R 
(FEN: 8/8/3r4/4k3/4B3/4K3/8/8 w - - 0 1)
and Black lost on time. "Any seasoned player could tell at a glance that
White cannot win?!" You know, I played Black with master who tried after
my flag's down to construct a win position with his pieces almost 5
minutes. Of course, you do not believe it, because there are almost 6
million positions with these pieces (approx. 64*31*55*60). He used some
heuristic logic :)
Sounds like you had a case of Stubborn Master! But the proof is too
simple. There only three types of mates: mid-board mates, edge mates,
and corner mates. The first two lack the black self-blocks necessary for
white to mate, while the last does not have the right kind of
self-blocker (namely, a black Knight or Bishop). You may do your
multiplication all you want, but there are only 3 possible positions
worth considering!

6. Thank you for example of Buchanan
Bb1k1b2/bKp1p1p1/1pP1P1P1/1P6/p5P1/P7/8/8 w - - 0 1
  Plain language: this example is based on idea of passing move's turn.
We all
know another example:
8/8/8/8/4n3/8/7p/5K1k b - - 0 1
Can Black win if WK moves only on f1- f2?  It is CDP (conditionally dead
position). And if you admit then "sometimes judgment call is needed" for
dead
position, why it is not needed for CDP?
Because there are two possible outcomes. White can still blunder with a
move like Ke2?? But if he does not, he had better hope the 50-move or
3-move rules are still in effect, in case black decides to keep 'playing
for a win'.

Next time I will go to the tournament with a list of dead positions and
math-logic
encyclopedia:))


Well, you certainly have the problemist's penchant for provocative
positions...
-RM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20040903/13468c61/attachment.htm>