Author: KarinsDad
Date: 16:51:18 08/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 1999 at 18:36:05, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On August 24, 1999 at 18:10:21, Scott Ludwig wrote: > >>The standard rules of chess that I've read say the 50 move rule gets reset to 0 >>after "non-reversible moves" - pawn moves and captures. I've always wondered why >>castling is not included in that definition. I've seen some older engines (SCP) >>that actually treat castling as a resetting move, but the majority of engines do >>not. >> >>Anyone know the history of this? > >To answer your last question first, no I don't know the history of this, and I >would like to. > >I think that if I were asked to give an explanation of why castling doesn't >reset the 50-move counter, I would suggest that the issue is not reversibility, >it is progress. > >Progress is demonstrated, in absence of perfect knowledge, by a captures, which >lead to simpler positions, and pawn moves, which eventually lead to queening. >It is not considered to be demonstrated by other moves. > >Using endgame databases It is possible to prove progress, and even optimal >progress, for a period of 50 consecutive moves, and yet the game is still drawn. > This is because FIDE wants to accomodate the characteristics of human players, >which include fallibility and the desire to eat dinner before midnight. FIDE >doesn't want to extend games because of freakish cases that only a computer can >play, which poses a problem if you are a computer. > >I think that a case where castling on the 50th non-reversible move is the only >winning path is freakish enough that including castling as a move that doesn't >reset the 50-move counter is perfectly fine. > >bruce I don't know. I would bet that there is a simpler explanation. Castling almost always occurs WAY before the 50 move rule will normally get invoked. My guess is that the originators of the 50 move rule just did not consider that castling may be important. And quite frankly, it probably rarely is, but it could be. Any other move on the board COULD be zugzwang and lead to loss of material or lead to mate (e.g. Kf1), so I could see a situation where one would want to castle and since this activates the rook, it could change the position drastically towards progress (and hence by your idea, it would be a valid reason to reset the counter). KarinsDad :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.