Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
23:05 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General 50 move rule in n# |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (1) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Apr 21, 2024 13:21] | 50 move rule in n#
Do you actually know a n# problem which would be incorrect
under the 50 move rule? (Tempo loss manouvres are usually
shorter than 50 moves, in fact, offhand I don't know any...)
| | | (2) Posted by Olaf Jenkner [Monday, Apr 22, 2024 00:17] |
You can find a lot stuff investigating the endgame tablebases.
| | | (3) Posted by Joost de Heer [Monday, Apr 22, 2024 08:34] |
Any database win with a DTC > 50.
| | | (4) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Apr 22, 2024 08:48] |
In Chess we have the rules of the game which define the board, the pieces, the movements of the pieces, capture, promotion, check, checkmate, stalemate, castling, en passant.
Then there's the rules of play, which are all about the conduct and functions of players, arbiters, directors, spectators and the organisation and running of matches and tournaments.
As the processes of composing and solving don't involve playing chess, then problemists aren't bound by the rules of play.
So we ask: Is the 50-move rule a rule of the game or a rule of play?
I think we can safely put it in the latter category, as it's obviously designed to make sure that games don't overrun and delay the start of the next round of the tourney.
If this is the case, then the answer to your question is that no problems can be rendered incorrect by the 50-move rule.
| | | (5) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Apr 22, 2024 10:19] |
@everybody: Tablebases per se are no chess problems - even if there were positions
with 50 Nunn-"!!" and no capture/pawn moves (offhand I know none), this still
wouldn't constitute a chess problem (whether you can declare it as a study,
depends). Under circumstances, it might, take best judgement before publishing ;-)
The tempo loss manouvre in the famous Petrovic problem takes
25 moves or so, so I would be surprised to find one. The also famous
Karl Fabel [?] problem with the long knight walk, how long takes that?
Can't dig it up...Can one at the Schwalbe PDB have "stip > somenumber"?
Don't think so - feature request! :-)
Otherwise, I'm with Neal, obviously - we problemists may differ in our
conventions from OTB play. The "n" in the "n#" is already the biggest
difference one can think of :-)
| | | (6) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Monday, Apr 22, 2024 10:45] |
The real study based on 50 moves rule is
Noam Elkies
The Internet, Nov 1991
 (= 8+6 )
=
See https://www.yacpdb.org/#330633,
but correct ending is
50. Ke7 Qd6+ 51. Ke8 Ke6 52. Sc2!! 1/2-1/2
| | | (7) Posted by Joost de Heer [Monday, Apr 22, 2024 11:22] |
According to the codex (https://www.wfcc.ch/rules/codex/) the 50-move rule does not apply to chess problems except for retro problems or explicitly stated:
QUOTE
Article 17 – 50 Moves-Rule
Unless expressly stipulated, the 50 moves-rule does not apply to the solution of chess compositions except for retro-problems.
So in the form that Goergy Evseev gave Noam Elkies' study, it's unsolvable since it doesn't explicitly state that the 50-move rule is in place.
[And as a sidenote: I don't like the default enablement of the 50 move rule for retro composition, since, as Neil stated, this, together with the 3-move repetition, is a PLAYING rule. Retros deal with legality, and continuing after the 3rd repetition or after the 50 move rule starts to apply is perfectly legal]
| | | (8) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Apr 22, 2024 12:00] |
Re the 3-move repetition - there was an amusing incident in the 13th round of the Candidates.
Nakamura knowingly played the three-fold repetition, but deliberatly didn't claim - leaving Nepo to be the one who chickened out by calling the arbiter!
| | | (9) Posted by Joose Norri [Monday, Apr 22, 2024 13:02] |
Neal, could Hikaru really have made the claim - what about the en passant on c6? (How many times did they repeat again, I'm not sure...)
| | | (10) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Monday, Apr 22, 2024 13:15] |
@Joost
>>> it's unsolvable since it doesn't explicitly state that the 50-move rule is in place.
Yes, currently the declaration is required (I am not sure that it was necessary in 1991), but I thought that the course of discussion obviously pointed that this rule is in effect here.
| | | (11) Posted by Joost de Heer [Monday, Apr 22, 2024 13:49] |
QUOTE
Neal, could Hikaru really have made the claim - what about the en passant on c6? (How many times did they repeat again, I'm not sure...)
Nakamura couldn't have made the claim, since the position with Se5 and Qg5 and no ep rights occurred only for the second time, while the position with Sf3 and Qg5 and no ep rights occurred for the 3rd time. Nepomniachtchi didn't need to play this move however, it would've been enough to claim he wanted to play Sf3.
| | | (12) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Monday, Apr 22, 2024 15:07] |
The idea to distinguish between basic rules of chess and tournament rules is a sensible one but it doesn’t actually exist. Magic the Gathering does have such a formal distinction. Moreover, if the Laws were divided into basic rules and tournament rules then that would be an incentive to write the basic rules down unambiguously enough that the arbiters would not need the power to interpret them.
Instead the distinction made in the Codex is that certain laws (from memory 1-5 & 9.1-2) are included. This means that 3Rep and 50M are included. We still need some adaptation since the basic concepts are blurred by the tournament mechanisms. We also need (as with all moves in chess problems) an idea of how to decide what a human would do). We further need (as with castling & en passant) conventions as to what we can assume about the history. Basically from my perspective 3Rep and 50M are basic rules although they do require tournament specifications.
The current 50M convention is appallingly worded, but it does allow us to protect conventional forward studies from the 50M rule, and allow retro problems to assume by default that it does apply, which benefits many hundreds of retros. However there are exceptional cases. Some retros would be broken by the 50M rule and some forward problems require it. I think that a properly crafted 50M convention would protect retros but generally we need a cultural change where exceptional problems that require non-standard conventions are not considered to be unsound. These are the problems celebrated as Golden Age. If a problem is sound at one point in its history then it will always be regarded as sound, as the rules and conventions change over the millennia past and to come. So Noam’s problem
Is perfectly sound.
I don’t know if Noam, who is careful about these things, originally included a statement in the stip. Probably not, but databases are notoriously sloppy about not respecting the composer’s exact stipulation. This partly because often a different stipulation is required for the engine. But I think we need some happy sophistry whereby the problem itself defines which conventions apply to it. This may seem frightening but honestly it’s no more than happens with PRA vs RS today.
| | | (13) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Apr 22, 2024 19:32] |
Hey, after having the YACPDB link, in 5 seconds I found this problem by Zigman:
 (= 9+12 )
https://www.yacpdb.org/#302736
This is an explicit example of a #52 invalid under 50 move rule.
I simply lacked imagination - instead of tempo loss (not much pawn moves),
White might need his snail of a king to win (much more moves), as in
Noams study.
It's even in Milans ECP! Source says "Special Prize Mat (Beograd), 1976" -
does anyone have discussion/judge comment/... to the problem?
| | | (14) Posted by Joose Norri [Tuesday, Apr 23, 2024 00:24] |
I will just throw in my two penny: it is absurd that a massacre proofgame could be considered unsound because of the dead position rule. I have not read Andrew's post yet, or others, I decided not to. I will.
I think it is a fundamental error in the codex. All these game related rules are in fact fairy rules, as strange as it might sound at first. They should not be the default in retros either.
Or, in this specific case: proofgames are not retros. Yes, the age old question.
| | | (15) Posted by Joose Norri [Tuesday, Apr 23, 2024 02:30] |
Nepo would actually have forfeited his right to claim a draw had he played the move on the board. (Surely they haven't changed that?) He had to write it down, not make the move, then call the arbiter. I expect he/they didn't really call the arbiter.
| | | (16) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Saturday, Apr 27, 2024 22:17] |
I *knew* I remembered correctly! Accidentally I found it today:
 (= 11+11 )
Fabel/August, Am Rande des Schachbretts 1947
Here more than 50 moves without pawn move or capture are needed too.
| | | (17) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Apr 29, 2024 15:36] |
I think 50-move has the exception that it will not apply to positions where more than 50 will be theocratically required. All more movers/studies will be automatically exempt
| | | (18) Posted by Joost de Heer [Tuesday, Apr 30, 2024 10:50] |
QUOTE
9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, if:
9.3.1 he/she indicates his/her move, which cannot be changed, by writing it on the paper scoresheet or entering it on the electronic scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his/her intention to make this move which will result in the last 50 moves by each player having been made without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
9.3.2 the last 50 moves by each player have been completed without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.
The exceptions (it used to be 100 for some and 75 for others, I think) are no longer present in the FIDE rule.
There is also the following rule:
QUOTE
9.6 If one or both of the following occur(s) then the game is drawn:
9.6.1 the same position has appeared, as in 9.2.2 at least five times.
9.6.2 any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.
So there is a '75 moves == automatic draw', just like DP.
And the relevant Codex articles:
QUOTE
Article 17 – 50 Moves-Rule
Unless expressly stipulated, the 50 moves-rule does not apply to the solution of chess compositions except for retro-problems.
Article 17A – Dead Position Rule
Unless expressly stipulated, the rule of dead position does not apply to the solution of chess compositions except for retro-problems.
| | | (19) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Saturday, May 4, 2024 03:51] |
Oh.. thanks Joost. I was unaware of the 75 move rule, which alone I think is relevant for chess problems (since for 50 move rule, player has to claim)
| | | (20) Posted by Marko Klasinc [Sunday, May 5, 2024 21:36] |
Re post no. 13:
Fortunately, I own all issues of Mat magazine but I had to find some time to research it.
The problem is not correctly or fully specified in yacpdb. WinChloe correctly lists it as 158244.
The full stipulation is:
a) #52
b) after the 1st white and black moves: #59
Comment from the author of these paradoxical solutions when the problem was published:
In position a) 50 moves have already passed without captures, but the position is not a draw, as this is the only way for White to win, so it is allowed to make more than 50 moves without captures, and White is not forced to capture Pe3 as it would have been only in 51st move.
In position b) after 49 moves White can and must capture on e3, as otherwise the position is a draw. This prolonges the solution.
This is one of the most ingenious problems of my very good friend Matjaž Žigman (1947 - 1992).
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum General 50 move rule in n# |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
