Inconsistency in the FIDE rules?
Posted: 26 March 2007, 5:02 pmThomas Volet, Thema Danicum 2006
Outcome?
1K6/1pprpp1p/1bp3p1/n1p5/2P4B/1P3PQ1/2PPPRPP/nb5k
This is a neat problem that raises interesting issues. It has the following features: (1) one cannot determine who moved last; (2) if White is to move, then there have been 100 non-pawn, non-capturing moves; (3) if Black is to move, then there have been 99 non-pawn, non-capturing moves; (4) both White and Black, if having the move, can mate in one with a move that is neither capturing nor by a pawn.
I have heard that, under the Codex Pula (1997) guidelines for composition, a draw is automatic upon 100 non-pawn, non-capturing moves having been made. This problem shows that those guidelines can lead to inconsistency. For imagine that it is Black to move and that Black makes the non-pawn, non-capturing mating move. The situation after Black's move is, according to Codex Pula, both checkmate and a draw.
It is interesting that the FIDE rules do not call for an automatic draw once a sequence of 100 non-pawn, non-capturing moves has been made. Consider section 9.3:
Before assessing the relevance of Volet's problem, we have to settle on an interpretation of this section.
What is the content of the "claim" mentioned in 9.3.a, that is, what precisely is it that the player needs to claim? Is it that the game is drawn? Or is it rather that 100 non-pawn, non-capturing moves will/would be made?
I think it must be the second. (This, in spite of the fact that "claim" in 9.3 appears to mean what it does in 9.2 (the wording is identical); and 9.2.b suggests that the claim is that the game is drawn.) For if we interpret the content of the claim to be that the game is drawn, we are simply running in a circle. The Rules would then be telling us that a condition for a draw is that a player correctly claim that the game is a draw.
So the condition in 9.3.a. is better understood this way: that a player who has the move claims, and does so correctly, that he intends to move X and that moving X will/would constitute the 100th non-pawn, non-capturing move.
We now need to get clear on the "will/would" alternatives. According to 9.3.a, must the player on the move claim that his move will constitute the 100th non-pawn, non-capturing move; or must he claim that it would constitute the 100th non-pawn, non-capturing move? If we interpret the content of the player's claim in the second way, subjunctively, then the claim amounts to this: "If I were to move X, then 100 non-pawn, non-capturing moves would be made." Such a claim could be correct even if the player doesn't in fact make move X.
It seems to me that this interpretation is not consistent with FIDE's Rules. For on this interpretation, a game could be drawn after only 99 non-pawn, non-capturing moves have been made: after 99 such moves, a player on the move could claim to the arbiter, and do so correctly, that if he were to move X, then that would result in a sequence of 100 non-pawn, non-capturing moves. The arbiter would then, as per this interpretation of 9.3.a, declare the game a draw. But this result – a drawn game containing a sequence of only 99 non-pawn, non-capturing moves – conflicts with 5.2.e, which unequivocally states that a game "may be drawn if each player has made at least the last 50 consecutive moves without the movement of any pawn and without any capture" (emphasis added). (The formulation of 5.2.e differs crucially in this regard from that of 5.2.d, which contains instead the disjunctive "if any identical position is about to appear or has appeared on the chessboard at least three times" (emphasis added).) As it's stated, the intention of 5.2.e seems pretty clearly to be that games drawn on the basis of the 50-move rule are games in which at least the last 100 consecutive moves have been non-pawn, non-capturing moves.
As a consequence, we shouldn't understand the content of the claim mentioned in 9.3.a subjunctively. We must rather understand part of that claim to involve a future tense statement that can only be made true by the player's making a particular move. If we are not to fall foul of 5.2.e, we must view a draw-inducing application of 9.3.a, in the context of 99 consecutive non-pawn, non-capturing moves, as demanding of the player who has the move both a claim (viz., that he intends to make move X which will be the 100th consecutive non-pawn, non-capturing move) and a move (viz., X). The draw is triggered by the correctness of that claim and the claim is made correct by the accompanying move.
Now, given this analysis, we can see that Volet's problem illustrates an apparent inconsistency in FIDE's rules. For if Black has the move and Black claims that he intends to make move X and that X will be the 100th consecutive non-pawn, non-capturing move and Black does make move X (thereby rendering his claim correct), then the game is drawn as per 9.3.a. But in this case, move X is also a checkmating move, and so the game is at the same time a win for Black as per 5.1.a.
What significance any of this might have is something for another occasion.
Outcome?
1K6/1pprpp1p/1bp3p1/n1p5/2P4B/1P3PQ1/2PPPRPP/nb5k
This is a neat problem that raises interesting issues. It has the following features: (1) one cannot determine who moved last; (2) if White is to move, then there have been 100 non-pawn, non-capturing moves; (3) if Black is to move, then there have been 99 non-pawn, non-capturing moves; (4) both White and Black, if having the move, can mate in one with a move that is neither capturing nor by a pawn.
I have heard that, under the Codex Pula (1997) guidelines for composition, a draw is automatic upon 100 non-pawn, non-capturing moves having been made. This problem shows that those guidelines can lead to inconsistency. For imagine that it is Black to move and that Black makes the non-pawn, non-capturing mating move. The situation after Black's move is, according to Codex Pula, both checkmate and a draw.
It is interesting that the FIDE rules do not call for an automatic draw once a sequence of 100 non-pawn, non-capturing moves has been made. Consider section 9.3:
9.3 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, if
a. he writes his move on his scoresheet, and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move which shall result in the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture, or
b. the last 50 consecutive moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.
Before assessing the relevance of Volet's problem, we have to settle on an interpretation of this section.
What is the content of the "claim" mentioned in 9.3.a, that is, what precisely is it that the player needs to claim? Is it that the game is drawn? Or is it rather that 100 non-pawn, non-capturing moves will/would be made?
I think it must be the second. (This, in spite of the fact that "claim" in 9.3 appears to mean what it does in 9.2 (the wording is identical); and 9.2.b suggests that the claim is that the game is drawn.) For if we interpret the content of the claim to be that the game is drawn, we are simply running in a circle. The Rules would then be telling us that a condition for a draw is that a player correctly claim that the game is a draw.
So the condition in 9.3.a. is better understood this way: that a player who has the move claims, and does so correctly, that he intends to move X and that moving X will/would constitute the 100th non-pawn, non-capturing move.
We now need to get clear on the "will/would" alternatives. According to 9.3.a, must the player on the move claim that his move will constitute the 100th non-pawn, non-capturing move; or must he claim that it would constitute the 100th non-pawn, non-capturing move? If we interpret the content of the player's claim in the second way, subjunctively, then the claim amounts to this: "If I were to move X, then 100 non-pawn, non-capturing moves would be made." Such a claim could be correct even if the player doesn't in fact make move X.
It seems to me that this interpretation is not consistent with FIDE's Rules. For on this interpretation, a game could be drawn after only 99 non-pawn, non-capturing moves have been made: after 99 such moves, a player on the move could claim to the arbiter, and do so correctly, that if he were to move X, then that would result in a sequence of 100 non-pawn, non-capturing moves. The arbiter would then, as per this interpretation of 9.3.a, declare the game a draw. But this result – a drawn game containing a sequence of only 99 non-pawn, non-capturing moves – conflicts with 5.2.e, which unequivocally states that a game "may be drawn if each player has made at least the last 50 consecutive moves without the movement of any pawn and without any capture" (emphasis added). (The formulation of 5.2.e differs crucially in this regard from that of 5.2.d, which contains instead the disjunctive "if any identical position is about to appear or has appeared on the chessboard at least three times" (emphasis added).) As it's stated, the intention of 5.2.e seems pretty clearly to be that games drawn on the basis of the 50-move rule are games in which at least the last 100 consecutive moves have been non-pawn, non-capturing moves.
As a consequence, we shouldn't understand the content of the claim mentioned in 9.3.a subjunctively. We must rather understand part of that claim to involve a future tense statement that can only be made true by the player's making a particular move. If we are not to fall foul of 5.2.e, we must view a draw-inducing application of 9.3.a, in the context of 99 consecutive non-pawn, non-capturing moves, as demanding of the player who has the move both a claim (viz., that he intends to make move X which will be the 100th consecutive non-pawn, non-capturing move) and a move (viz., X). The draw is triggered by the correctness of that claim and the claim is made correct by the accompanying move.
Now, given this analysis, we can see that Volet's problem illustrates an apparent inconsistency in FIDE's rules. For if Black has the move and Black claims that he intends to make move X and that X will be the 100th consecutive non-pawn, non-capturing move and Black does make move X (thereby rendering his claim correct), then the game is drawn as per 9.3.a. But in this case, move X is also a checkmating move, and so the game is at the same time a win for Black as per 5.1.a.
What significance any of this might have is something for another occasion.