[Retros] 50 moves rule

[Rol, Guus]

Hi Roberto,

Nice to meet you on this forum! We may be able to discuss some of our
issues here. I have written a long answer to Tom Volet and I am now out
of breath. Some of my views on your comments however are also in that
piece so you may want to read it. I will also mail you privately later
this week.

Best! Guus


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] Namens
raosorio at fibertel.com.ar
Verzonden: vrijdag 5 januari 2007 14:52
Aan: retros at janko.at
Onderwerp: [Retros] 50 moves rule



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

 

_______________________________________________
Retros mailing list
Retros at janko.at
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros