DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
The Chess Variant Forum
HTML https://chessvariantforum.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Variant Theory
*****************************************************
#Post#: 789--------------------------------------------------
Re: Perpetual check in Infinite Chess (new proposed rule)
DIR By: chilipepper
Date: April 13, 2018, 10:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Martin0 link ---
>
> The easiest assumption is that white must keep checking or
else he is getting mated...
--- End Quote ---
Yes, I agree. That is the potential dilemna with perpetual
check. A player might also employ it as a strategy when he is
inferior, but wants to play for a guaranteed draw (which is
basically the same thing).
--- Quote from: Martin0 link ---
>
> ...One side note is that a "fast forward" could help in some
cases. Requiring a player to answer if he will check
indefinitely or do something else x moves into the line, then
the game could be declared a draw if indefinitely is the
answer...
--- End Quote ---
This idea is interesting, but in general, I think chess should
normally be able to be played with little or no (verbal)
communication between the players. The only exception I believe
is resigning, and draw offers. (excluding communicating for the
sake of etiquette).
While I am sure that there are theoretical positions that can be
played with a perpetual check, I agree with you that there may
be situations where defining the class of these positions can be
difficult.
Since adding this rule might add problems or cause ambiguities,
I will not add it to the rulebook at this time. But it is an
area that might need more exploration for this game to be
completely "buttoned up" to address all possible game endings.
#Post#: 797--------------------------------------------------
Re: Perpetual check in Infinite Chess (new proposed rule)
DIR By: HGMuller
Date: April 14, 2018, 12:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Verbal communication is usual for draw offers, and repeating
positions is equivalent to an automatic non-verbal draw offer,
which the opponent can take (= claim), or decline. So it doesn't
seem very much out of line with existing custom to allow a
player to explicitly state that a 'pseudo-repeat' is NOT a draw
offer (so it cannot be claimed). OTOH, this is sort of implied
by the fact that he does not claim the draw himself.
It seems that between non-malicious players no rule is needed at
all; if one of the players can force a draw this way, and
expresses his intention to do so by offering a draw, the other
would sooner or later see there is no way avoiding the draw, and
accept. So a rule would only have to address the problem of a
malicious player, which insists on prolonging the game forever
without a chance of winning. The type of player that doesn't
resign in a lost position, but just abandons the game, forcing
the opponent to wait out the time forfeit out of spite.
Making a rule that specifies an automatic draw will alter the
game result for non-malicious players, in some cases. In
general, I think that this is too high a price for dealing with
malicious players; a good rule would only penalize the latter,
without affecting the former. A player should always be allowed
to play on if something is to be achieved, within the limits of
the 50-move rule. (And even the latter is dubious on an infinite
board.) To prevent abuse of that right, it seems reasonable to
force a player that wants to exercise it to mention how many
more pseudo-repeats he needs before he is going to break the
pattern, and penalize him by a loss instead of a draw when he
pseudo-repeats the position after that. This still would allow
the possibility of abuse, by mentioning an impossibly large
number, say a billion. But this can be solved by allowing the
game to 'fast-forward' the number of mentioned repeats, and
continue from there. This would in fact be a rule that would
also benefit normal play.
A draw offer in a pseudo-repeat position can be seen as
expressing the intent to keep repeating forever. The opponent
can then decline, (like usual for draw offers), but in the case
of a pseudo-repeat he must decline by mentioning a number.
(Which then puts a limit on how often he can keep
pseudo-repeating that position without forfeiting.) Or by doing
a move silently, implying the number 0 (i.e. not being allowed
any future pseudo-repeats of the position). When he mentioned a
number he must then move the translating group of
pseudo-repeating pieces by the mentioned number of steps before
pressing the clock, and the game will continue from there with
any further pseudo-repeat of the position now being a loss for
him. In fact there is no verbal communication needed at all, as
the declining player shows on the board how often he intends to
repeat, by moving the translating sub-set of pieces.
#Post#: 798--------------------------------------------------
Re: Perpetual check in Infinite Chess (new proposed rule)
DIR By: chilipepper
Date: April 14, 2018, 6:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HGMuller link ---
>
> It seems that between non-malicious players no rule is needed
at all; if one of the players can force a draw this way, and
expresses his intention to do so by offering a draw, the other
would sooner or later see there is no way avoiding the draw, and
accept.
--- End Quote ---
I agree. In such a situation either player can still offer a
draw, and any reasonable player would agree once it is known
there is no intention (or ability) to break out of the perpetual
check. If it's a non-tournament game, then nobody else would
care about the outcome anyway.
One of the few situations where not addressing this, and it
could lead to a problem, would be as follows:
1. The game is in a tournament, and other players are waiting
for the result, so the contest can proceed. Also consider the
game has a long time-control, such as 3 days per move.
2. The checking player continues to play the pseudo-repeating
pattern, occasionally offering a draw.
3. The checked player refuses to agree to a draw, continuing to
move out of check.
4. The tournament decides the World Champion.
5. Both players are healthy and young, whereas other players in
the tournament have shorter life-expectancies.
--- Quote from: HGMuller link ---
>
> ...This still would allow the possibility of abuse, by
mentioning an impossibly large number, say a billion...
--- End Quote ---
If such a rule can be developed where players are asked to name
a theoretical number, and the moves can be predicted by player's
intentions, wouldn't it just be easier to call the game result
right away? (i.e. don't make a rule where players are required
to communicate with each other and name theortical figures to
call a draw. Just call the draw).
--- Quote from: HGMuller link ---
>
> Making a rule that specifies an automatic draw will alter the
game result for non-malicious players, in some cases. In
general, I think that this is too high a price for dealing with
malicious players.
--- End Quote ---
I agree, and for this reason I don't plan to add anything to the
rule book for now. But with time and special care I might be
able to make a sensible and not too confusing rule to be added
later.
#Post#: 799--------------------------------------------------
Re: Perpetual check in Infinite Chess (new proposed rule)
DIR By: HGMuller
Date: April 15, 2018, 12:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: chilipepper link ---
>
> If such a rule can be developed where players are asked to
name a theoretical number, and the moves can be predicted by
player's intentions, wouldn't it just be easier to call the game
result right away? (i.e. don't make a rule where players are
required to communicate with each other and name theortical
figures to call a draw. Just call the draw).
--- End Quote ---
Wouldn't it be easier still to declare the game a draw in the
start position? Then they wouldn't have to play at all!
The purpose is not to make rules that are easy, but rules that
are good. And arbitrarily declaring a draw in a position that is
a forced win is just badly interfering with the spirit of the
game.
The point is that people would only 'call out' a number when
they intend to break the pattern at some point, because if they
don't they will eventually reach that number of repeats and
(according to te proposed rule) forfeit. So if a forced win is
possible, it would never get out of reach, no matter how many
pseudo-repeats are needed to execute the winning plan.
A famous situation in infinite chess is when there is an
unavoidable mate threat against you, but you can stall by
checking with a Rook from a distance. Eventually that will not
work, because the checked King will steadily walk towards the
checking Rook (which is supposed to be unprotected), so that the
latter evantually will have to refrain from checking or get
captured (after which the mate unrolls). But by deciding how
much distance the Rook will take on the initial move, the number
of moves needed to break out of the checking can be made
arbitrarily high. This is the famous 'mate-in-infinite'.
Many of the problems you mention with duration are intrinsic to
having an infinite board. But the rule I proposed solves many of
them. If in the Rook-checking example the defending player moves
the Rook 1000 squares away, the King would need 1000 moves to
reach it to break the checking. Allowing the King to move there
in one step, based on the pseudo-repeat rule (where the King is
the only translating piece) would be a great time saver.
As I explained, no communication is required by this. Just move
the King next to the Rook from the pseudo-repeated position.
#Post#: 824--------------------------------------------------
Re: Perpetual check in Infinite Chess (new proposed rule)
DIR By: chilipepper
Date: April 18, 2018, 8:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HGMuller link ---
>
> ...arbitrarily declaring a draw in a position that is a forced
win is just badly interfering with the spirit of the game.
--- End Quote ---
I don't believe that the rule that I proposed does that, nor
does the example that I provided. However, since I'm uncertain
if the rule has ambiguous interpretations for some undiscovered
positions, it has not yet been added to the rule book.
--- Quote from: HGMuller link ---
>
> Many of the problems you mention with duration are intrinsic
to having an infinite board.
--- End Quote ---
My intention with this thread is only to address perpetual
check. But I'm sure there are other interesting and unique
situations that merit special discussion. Other threads and more
discussion are possible in the future. :)
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page