Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 12:00:51 04/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2001 at 12:57:13, Peter Berger wrote:
>Article 9 ( "The drawn game" ) and Article 12 ( "The conduct of the players") of
>the FIDE "Laws of Chess" have been posted and discussed in the thread "Subject:
>Re: Gambit Tiger 2.0: 6 seconds on K6-2 450" recently . This derived out of a
>discussion about the proper way of announcing mates.
>
>The principle ones IMHO are 12.1 and 12.5 :
>
>12.1 High standards of etiquette are expected of the players.
>12.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever;
>this includes the persistent offer of a draw.
>
>I never read these rules before and didn't know some little tricky ones although
>I played competitive chess for a few years - I wasn't surprised to learn that I
>followed them nevertheless .
>
>Unless you are a chess arbiter I think all those rules are of little importance
>; the players have subsets of the rules in their minds which are sufficient to
>follow all of them ; there are also some unwritten ones ( about what is the
>gentleman way to do it and about what is an exception which is tolerated but not
>appreciated ) .
>
>Let's have a look at three of them : 9.1 ( Draw by agreement ) , 9.2 ( 3rd
>repetition ) , 9.3 ( 50 moves rule ) .
>
>A.) Draw by agreement
>
>In general this is a rather peaceful situation - one offers , the other one
>accepts or rejects .
>
>IMHO this is a very important feature for a chessprogram and I am happy if a
>chessprogram can handle draw offers and can offer draw itself - it feels more
>like a real chessplayer then .
>
>What's the proper way of doing it ?
>
>9.1 A player can propose a draw after making a move on the chessboard. He must
>do so before stopping his own clock and starting his opponent's clock.
>
>Period .
>
>Rest of the article only deals with what to do if it wasn't done properly - why
>not do it in the right way right away ( 12.1 +12.5 )?
>
>No commercial chessprogram does it properly !
>
>Between human players when someone offers draw while it's his/her move a common
>answer would be : " Please show me your move first ."
>
>B.) Draw by repetition
>
>A much trickier one - in fact nearly all rule disputes I observed were about
>this one .
>
>The situation is different from the one in a.) : one player tries to win - the
>opponent tries to draw . Else they could simply agree on a draw , shake hands
>and walk away - so following 12.1 and 12.5 is even more important here .
>
>The principal idea here is : when it's my move I am allowed to act ; if it's the
>opponent's move I sit there silently ( and won't tick or babble like Fritz 5.32
>) and won't disturb my opponent .
>
>When it's my turn I can either make a move or I can make a claim - when it's my
>opponent's move I should do _nothing_ .
>
>9.2 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when
>the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by repetition of
>moves)
>
>a.) is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and
>declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
>b.) has just appeared.
>
>Period .
>
>As the situation is calling for discussions anway there is no need to behave
>badly or choosing an exception way of behaviour also covered by the rules -
>simpy do it as expected ( 12.1 and 12.5 again ) .
>
>Note : " ...by the player having the move ..." : a player is not allowed to do
>_anything_ while it's the opponent's turn .
>
>So if I am the one who wants to claim 3rd repetition :
>
>i.) either I note that I can reach the draw position by making a move :
>
>Then I write this move down , say : "I want to play this move and claim this is
>a draw!"
>
>ii.) or I note the drawn position has just been reached by the last move of the
>opponent
>
>Then I claim draw by pointing out that this has happened and I want to claim
>draw .
>
>
>This is the correct way of doing it - no commercial chessprogram does it
>properly !
>
>So in Uri's little example 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.Ng1 Ng8 3.Nh3 Nf6 4.Ng1 Ng8 the white can
>claim draw - it's their turn and a 3rd repetition has just happened . The Black
>can't claim anything - it's not their turn (12.1 + 12.5 ) . They _could_ have
>claimed draw by saying : " We want to play 4. ..Ng8 and claim draw " but they
>didn't .
>
>C.) The 50 moves rule
>
>In fact this is very similar to B - I hope the general idea is already clear and
>I don't won't to repeat everything I have written in the part about the
>repetition rules .
>
>9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if
>
>a.) he writes on his scoresheet, and declares to the arbiter his intention to
>make a move which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each
>player without the movement of any pawn and without the capture of any piece, or
>b.) the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the
>movement of any pawn and without the capture of any piece.
>
>Period .
>
>Please note again : " ... by the player having the move ... " .
>
>Again this is a fighting situation anyway : one player tries to reach a draw ,
>the other one tries to escape - the chessprogram should behave well ( 12.1 and
>12.5 ) .
>
>And again : no commercial chessprogram does it properly !
>
>Do you read this , Christophe :-) ?
Yes I have read this carefully, and as far as I know my chess program does not
behave incorrectly when it announces draw by repetition or draw by the 50 moves
rule.
I'm not very concerned by the fact that the program should first write its move
on the scoresheet, and claim a draw without stopping the clock.
My program either stops the clock and claims the draw, or makes its move, stop
the clock and claims the draw.
It does not make any difference as long as the draw claim is correct. As far as
I know the arbiter cannot force the players to continue playing if the draw
claim is correct, so it does not matter if the clock as been stopped or not.
The only thing that you can still argue about is the fact that the program makes
its move on the chessboard (it should just write the move in the move list and
not make the move on the board). I would say that it can be viewed as a courtesy
for the opponent (showing the move on the board to make its point more clear?).
As my engines never claim a draw in any other situation (yet), I'm not concerned
today by other draw claims.
Christophe
>pete
>
>PS: ( Btw , I hope my little idea about correct mate announcements is now
>understandable, too . There are no rules for mate announcements but if there
>were I'd expect them to be very similar to the draw rules )
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.