[Retros] 50-moves rule and mate

[Rol, Guus]

Hi Tom, I'm in shock! About 4 years ago I launched a query on the
subject of automaticity with the Codex committee. Not about the 50-moves
rule but about repetitions (codex article 18). My view that "premature
double repetitions" would block the road towards any other (drawn)
position in a proof game, was upheld by the committee as the standard
application of article 18. From that verdict I naturally assumed - how
stupid can one get by being smart - that the same would apply to the
50-moves rule or any other claim related condition. Michel Caillaud and
I published some compositions in Probleemblad using automatic
terminations in repetitions as well as in 50-moves conditions. One of
Caillauds problems was even awarded! Imagine how surprised I am now to
learn from your remarks and from rereading the FIDE handbook and codex,
that there is indeed no automaticity provided for the 50-moves rule!
 
Well, if anything, this confirms the accuracy of my perception on the
rule corruption process described in my first post. No one looking at
the basic subject of "claims versus automaticities" could have ever
arrived at the decision to amend the repetition rule and leave it there.
No, such lack of analytical skills is only explainable from a misplaced
attempt to satisfy the demands of an incident driven rule inquiry. And
from the misconception that a rule system improves when individual rules
are improved which is hardly ever the case. Not rules rule, but
consistency of concept does.
 
On the practical side I will re-investigate what has been produced under
the heading of "50 moves rule" from this new perspective. On recall, I
am pretty sure to find quite a number of compositions that are at odds
with the FIDE/Codex prescriptions as they stand. I will report back on
this.
 
Guus Rol.
 

	
	-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
	Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at]
Namens Pastmaker at aol.com
	Verzonden: woensdag 10 januari 2007 6:46
	Aan: retros at janko.at
	Onderwerp: Re: [Retros] 50-moves rule and mate
	
	
	
	
	Friends,
	
	The rules, of course, are all quite arbitrary, but my
composition presenting the purported clash of two rules was intended as
amusement -- the clash is a fake because under the FIDE rules for
over-the-board play only the player on the move can claim a draw.  The
checkmating move is unassailable under that regime because the other
player (i) is not on the move when the checkmating move is played, and
so must remain mute while the move is played, and (ii) never regains the
move, as the play of the checkmating move ends the game.  It is
precisely the priority given to the moving player, or, if one prefers,
the subordination of the non-moving player, that establishes the result
under those rules.
	
	Castling is not considered in these remarks, which pertain only
to over-the-board play.  (I believe that problemists can do whatever we
want in our compositions.)
	
	However, if the rule were that a 50-move draw could be claimed
at any time by either player (or if it was automatic), I believe that
the clash of checkmate and draw would be real, as each player claims its
desired result simultaneously with the play of the checkmating/100th
move (or the conflicting automatic results occur simultaneously).  
	
	But in any case, I entirely agree with Guus that the policy
behind the draw rule would suggest that it yield to the checkmate (in my
view under any of the proposed regimes).  That is essentially why in a
claim-of-draw regime (whether by the player on the move or by either
player) the claim must (at least I hope it must, not having checked the
rule) be made in the midst of the sequence (and not, for example, after
a pawn move that follows 120 non-P move, non-capturing moves).  In an
automatic-draw regime, the player checkmating on the 100th move would
argue that he was entitled to his full 50 moves to do something decisive
before the draw occurs. (I suspect we could easily fashion a position in
which a player is faced with the choice of either a checkmating move
that is not a P-move or a capture, or a collection of losing moves each
of which is a P-move or capture (thus freeing his opponent from the
draw), and in an automatic draw regime in which the checkmate does not
predominate, it seems to me that such a player really does not get the
full use of his 50 moves.)
	
	If the claim of draw were not limited to the player on the move
(or if the draw occurred automatically), and one agreed with the
"checkmate predominates" policy articulated by Guus, the rule should
contain the necessary proviso.  For the claim of draw regime: "Draw can
be claimed at any time by either player if the most recently played 100
(or more) moves did not include a capture or a pawn move unless the last
such move played was a checkmating move."  Automatic draw regime: "Draw
occurs upon the 100th consecutive move without pawn move or capture
unless the 100th such move gives checkmate".  
	
	Regards,
	Tom Volet 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20070110/51fe3782/attachment.htm>