[Retros] Illegal moves by grandmasters

[Daniel Alfredo Sottile]

Sorry guys, I think I misunderstood the statement of Andrew's problem. It is
a Retro one, and a nice one to help understand such FIDE rules.

Daniel.


On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:59, Daniel Alfredo Sottile <daniel.sota at gmail.com

> wrote:



> Francois Labelle wrote:

>

>> I don't follow your logic. Andrew's chess page shows a problem with 2

>> kings and the caption "Who moved last?". The answer is supposed to be

>> White, but here's a game

>>

>> Hermansson Emil (2432) vs Nilssen John Arni (2372), Tvoroyri, 2005

>>

>> http://chess-results.com/partieSuche.aspx?art=36&tnr=2381&rd=9&weiss=5&lan=7

>>

>> which shows that it's possible for Black to have moved last. So either

>> that game is illegal or Andrew's problem is flawed. I don't see how you

>> can have it both ways.

>>

>>

> Under the same rules applied by Andrew Buchanan, in your game the move 78.

> Kxh1 is illegal. Then, Andrew`s problem does have a point. The only

> (fatal) flaw I see is that the position in Andrew`s problem cannot be

> reached by a game of chess (I agree with Guus Rol). It's kind of a

> contradiction itself. Doesn't it mean that the problem cannot be considered

> a Retro one?

>

> Greetings,

> Daniel.

>

>

> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 07:16, Kevin Begley <kevinjbegley at gmail.com>wrote:

>

>> Interesting argument... in that the entire matter is absurd.

>>

>> At first, I was prepared to agree that games should be published exactly

>> as they were played (leave it to editor/annotator/program to note the

>> illegality of continuing in dead positions).

>> After all, there is some history of illegal moves, and it would seem wrong

>> not to annotate the full story of the game.

>> But, upon further reflection, I had to abandon this completely absurd

>> position (and the unfortunate terms it generated -- such as "fundamental

>> rules").

>>

>> The main flaws are:

>> 1) the full story of a game need not necessarily be told in annotation

>> (there are comments!), and,

>> 2) rules are rules, after all.

>>

>> Most chess programs today opt to allow movement beyond "dead" positions,

>> because it requires an added programming effort to detect dead positions

>> (which may -- unnecessarily -- slow the alpha-beta search).

>> Besides, there are alternative forms of this game (FIDE has no monopoly on

>> rules).

>>

>> However, when it comes to games in a FIDE tourney, I find no merit for

>> this "fundamental rules" argument.

>> Suppose my opponent moves after I have delivered checkmate, and I capture

>> his King -- should we include the capturing of the enemy King as part of the

>> official game score?

>> It was played after all, and my opponent and I might easily claim that

>> capture of the enemy King is the true form of official termination (the

>> "fundamental rule").

>> Thus, the extra (illegal) moves (his into check + my capture of his King)

>> should be part of the game's annotation.

>>

>> This is no less absurd than the argument for allowing extra moves (from

>> dead positions) to creep into the game score. Even if two super-GMs record

>> such moves on their score sheet, it does not make them legal moves.

>>

>> In my view, such "illegal" moves should be welcomed in comments (as they

>> may relay interesting information about the full story of a game);  however,

>> they should be excluded (at least in FIDE tourneys, played after the rule

>> became official) from the official game score.

>>

>> That said, I must also admit, I find this argument both misplaced (in a

>> problem forum -- and, a retro forum at that!) and misguided (full agreement

>> here, either way, would have little impact on published chess games).

>>

>> Long before we problemists go preaching to chess players about extremely

>> trivial matters in their game scores, we are responsible to tend carefully

>> to flaws in our own rules.

>>

>> There are titled problemists who can not even agree about the definition

>> of an aim/stipulation/fairy condition (to say nothing of the countless

>> disagreements which stem from our ambiguous fairy rules). We can not even

>> agree what constistutes a dual (especially in selfmates)!

>>

>> What gall we problemists have: we lecture the super-GMs about a lose

>> shoestring, while our pants are all ablaze.

>>

>>

>> Good show,

>> Kevin

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Francois Labelle <flab at wismuth.com>wrote:

>>

>>> I agree that my title is provocative, but I think that the logic behind

>>> it is sound, so why not? :)

>>>

>>> Yefim Treger wrote:

>>> > IMO: an illegal move is a move, which breaks fundamental rules of

>>> > chess (piece movement, etc.)

>>>

>>> So according to you, some rules are "fundamental" and others are not,

>>> and breaking a fundamental rule would be illegal, but breaking a

>>> non-fundamental rule would be called something else (called what?). The

>>> FIDE rules make no such distinction.

>>>

>>> > Mathematically: Imagine the tree of all positions (including dead

>>> > ones, etc.). Each position is a vertex,  edges between them are the

>>> > legal moves. The Illegal moves do not correspond to any edges.

>>>

>>> Rephrasing the rules of chess as a graph doesn't change anything.

>>> Actually I like it because it forces a black-and-white interpretation of

>>> the rules. In that graph, Article 5.2b says that dead positions have no

>>> outgoing edges, so playing a move from a dead position does not

>>> correspond to an edge and so according to your logic it is illegal.

>>>

>>> Noam Elkies wrote:

>>> > This kind of "illegality" is a fun addition to the arsenal of a

>>> > problemist, but doesn't change the outcome of over-the-board games,

>>> > as long as "dead" draws are still not affected by the clock.

>>>

>>> It's true that A1.3/A5.2b/A9.6 don't change the outcome (win/draw/loss)

>>> of over-the-board games much, but that's irrelevant. The rules are there

>>> so Mamedyarov's 69.Kd4 is illegal. If FIDE had wanted 69.Kd4 to be

>>> legal, then those rules would not be there or they would have been

>>> written differently.

>>>

>>> Guus Rol wrote:

>>> > The reverse however is not true. The (composed) dead positions

>>> > published by Andrew Buchanan are indeed illegal as no legal game

>>> > can be construed to arrive at them. The "law" does not allways look

>>> > the same in forward and backward direction.

>>>

>>> I don't follow your logic. Andrew's chess page shows a problem with 2

>>> kings and the caption "Who moved last?". The answer is supposed to be

>>> White, but here's a game

>>>

>>> Hermansson Emil (2432) vs Nilssen John Arni (2372), Tvoroyri, 2005

>>>

>>> http://chess-results.com/partieSuche.aspx?art=36&tnr=2381&rd=9&weiss=5&lan=7

>>>

>>> which shows that it's possible for Black to have moved last. So either

>>> that game is illegal or Andrew's problem is flawed. I don't see how you

>>> can have it both ways.

>>>

>>>        Francois

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> Retros mailing list

>>> Retros at janko.at

>>> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>>>

>>

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Retros mailing list

>> Retros at janko.at

>> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>>

>>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20110511/ccf67ec2/attachment.htm>