[Retros] 50-moves rule and mate

[pastmaker at aol.com]

Please don't think that I intended any complaint or misgivings about any publications or awards. Not at all!  As I mentioned, I was writing only about forward play.
 
In fact, as to codices and the like as they purport to apply to chess composition, I am more or less an anarchist.  The history of retroanalysis shows what I consider an unfortunate sense of constraint among early composers to produce positions that could incorporate conventional stipulations (e.g., "Mate in 2.").  Imagine what Hundsdorfer might have given us had he been comfortable with "Resolve the position"?  (In fact, a creditable argument can be made that any other stipulation in an orthodox retro unfairly includes the stipulation as part of the composition....)
 
My apologies to those who labor on the rules.  Perhaps my viewpoint is colored by having practiced law for over 30 years.  This is supposed to be fun!
 
Best regards to all.
 
Tom Volet
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: G.A.Rol at umcutrecht.nl
To: retros at janko.at
Sent: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Retros] 50-moves rule and mate


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 predomi
 nate, 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 
_______________________________________________
Retros mailing list
Retros at janko.at
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20070110/1ce975a3/attachment.htm>